THE BREXITARAMA: WESTMINSTER PUBLISH LEGAL OMNISHAMBLES HIDING ARTICLE 50 EXPLICITLY DOES NOT HAVE SUPREMACY OVER EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (04.03.2017)

The Brexitarama continues just heaping lie upon lie, upon lie, upon lie, making it ever more obvious it was always planned.

 

It really has to be said that all lawless Westminster ever do is expend all their time at the taxpayers expense trying to rip people off while trying to avoid the peace and harmony of the rule of law.

... unilaterally.... no member of the british parliament could claim they "reasonably believed" such a bare-faced lie that it is seriously illegal for them to publish... [house of lords publication, 4th march 2017 p.60]

 

Westminster has just published a legal omnishambles to very hastily dishonestly try and “interpret” Article 50 to mean that in their own words they can “unilaterally” do whatever they like.

 

It's very telling what Westminster did not do or discuss publicly at all, until they had secured their Brexit, to give an appearance they have unfettered power to do whatever they like.

 

They and their fellow travelers are a wicked lot who don't have any kind of freedom for law abiding civilians on their minds.

 

Westminster are not just talking about a 'budget' but about everything really.

 

It is like Westminster saying they could somehow make one plus one equal ten, just because they say so, even though one plus one equals two.

 

One plus one equals two:

 

... they ignore that Article 50 which is part of the Lisbon Treaty explicitly has to be compatible with the EU Charter of of Fundamental Rights... [p. 58]

 

One plus one equals two is pretty straightforward.

 

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has the same status as Treaties, no ifs, buts and maybe's.

 

All Westminster have dishonestly tried saying is yes there is an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights... but...

 

It is self evident that European Union countries could not write Treaties among themselves that were not as a starting point capable of being read down/interpreted in a manner that was compatible with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

Anything, including Treaties have to be compatible with and can only be interpreted in such a way as to be compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


In fact what is hidden in clear view that no member of the British Parliament could reasonably claim they did not know, is that no Treaty has supremacy over the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The fundamental legal reality is that just because anyone may write down any old cobblers they like, does not make it legally so.

Westminster have only ever really considered the European Union useful as long as the peace and harmony of the rule of law could be avoided.

Of course they are considering how they can bolt because they have never really had any legal basis for any of their lies, because endlessly lying in parliament and the news media etc etc etc isn't always the same as what they can get away with in a court of law:

 

... 'acquired rights' ... the bolt without paying their legal liabilities clause... [i guess they'd be bailing from nato in the european union anyway too, by that stage] p. 62...

 

It is just impossible to call Westminster any kind of legitimate administration because they are just so outrageously corrupt they consider the peace and harmony of the rule of law an affront.

 

Any decent and civilized responsible administration would actually want everything they did to be compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.