No more foreign law

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The European Federation wants to force car drivers to use their headlights at all times.

The British government says it will result in the death of more motorcyclists because their riding lights will no long make them stand out from the crowd but they have admitted that they will be unable to veto a directive forcing motorists to use their lights.

Why the fuck not?  It’s our country and our legal system.  Every other country in the European Federation seems perfectly capable of picking and choosing which directives it implements so why not us?

Enough is enough.  I’m not going to comply with any more foreign laws.  It is against the law for any foreign power to run this country and I think I’m perfectly within my rights to refuse to recognise any law coming from the European Federation.

And I doe declare That no Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
Bill of Rights


  1. Ken (12 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, it will not be foreign law, by the time our police are out on the streets enforcing our compliance it will be British Law.
    It will a British policeman who charges you, and a British magistrate who fines you and if you do not pay the fine you will be sent to a British prison.

    That is the problem, it is our problem and the answer to that problem lies in Britian, in the hands of the British people
    who must begin to make it absolutely clear to British Politicians we are no longer prepared to accept this incursion of our rights
    to elect or to dismiss those who make our laws.

    A vote for any of the main political parties is a vote to continue to accept that we the people no longer have sovereignty.

  2. Dark_Heretic (7 comments) says:

    Interesting point there Ken.

    A question that popped into my brain as I read the posting and Ken comment is what would happen if no one voted because they’re fed up with all the parties?

  3. revinkevin (176 comments) says:

    The trouble with the EUssr is that what is a good law for one country may be a bad law for other countries, with the Scandinavian Countries day light running lights is a good idea, as in the winter they are in darkness most if not all of the time.

  4. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:


    That’s a problem but the law will have originated from an EU directive so it could be proven that the law was, in fact, made by a “foreigne prince” or possibly even a “foreigne … state” given the desire to clasify the European Federation as supranational – effectively a nation.


    With a bit of luck the government would collapse and a coalition would have to be formed and maybe, just maybe, we’d get some rational politics for a change. I agree with Clare Short on that respect, a hung parliament would be good as long as it wasn’t a Lib/Lab coalition.


    I agree totally. This is the same argument I use against regions – what is good for one part of the “region” isn’t always going to be good for the rest of it. This is particularly true in the West Midlands which included England’s second city (Birmingham), probably the largest urban connurbation (Solihull to Wolverhampton) and England’s most rural county (Shropshire). What is good for Birmingham isn’t good for Shropshire and vice versa.

  5. Ken (12 comments) says:

    I think not voting would play into their hands, we need to use our votes in the most effective way we can to maximise our chances of getting one party to change its tune on the EU. We need to try to create some form of non political party alliance in the marginal seats of one party and make an approach the candidate with a proposition either stand on a platform of returning certain powers to the British parliament, or we will vote for the party that is nearest you, even if that means voting for a pro EU party.

    If for instance we were to do that to every Conservative candidate in a marginal it would soon become clear to the leadership that they were not going to win the election. And to be honest unless there is change of direction, there is very little to choose between the parties, because most of our laws are now made at the EU level, that is why they all keep banging on about the NHS and education that is just about all they fully control.

    We need to understand that it has taken 35 years of step by step movements to get us this deep in the system, I do not think it will be possible to create a large enough following in the face of strong media bias for UKIP to force the other parties hands, at best UKIP would be lucky to gain 2 or three seats.

    The reason for demanding the return of only some powers is that to do so would break the EU acquis, once it has been broken then it would be simpler to follow with other demands, we might just then begin to change the direction of the EU and we might just end up with what our politicians keep telling us they want and that is a Europe of nation states agreeing to work together on trade etc.

  6. Ken (12 comments) says:

    DH Yes I accept the argument, but think it would be difficult to separate the original basis for the directive considering our MEPs and Ministers would have been involved in its original formation.

    Other than that those cases which have been brought using English Common Law have all been sidestepped, there were cases brought against ministers under the treason act Treason Act 1795 they were dropped by the Lord Chancellor because it was not in the public interest to proceed.

    We should recognise that we have over the past several years been experiencing a slow moving revolution, where a political elite have looked at the British Constitution and basically ignored its existence. We now have in effect a revolutionary political system which will do anything it can to make sure that we the people cannot stop the onward march to United States of Europe. Ask yourself why when cased had been brought against Government ministers for treason the first thing Tony Blair did when he was elected in 97 was to remove the Act from the statute books it was repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.

    In reply to a letter inquiring why it was repealed the Home Office wrote “despite an extensive search of our records, we have not been able to ascertain why the 1795 Act was itself repealed at that time” Looking at the Hansard Debates at the time reveals there was no debate about repealing the treason act during the Crime and Disorder Act debates, it was just tagged onto the end of the act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.