The Student Room Group

The EU breaches Britain's 1689 Bill of Rights when enforcing laws on us

Britain's 1689 Bill of Rights Act:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.


and it hasn't been revoked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Legal_status

So, it is illegal under British Law for the EU to dictate laws upon Britain!!!!
(edited 8 years ago)
Recent laws (in general) supersede old laws, formal repeal or abolition is not necessary, that's just how Parliamentary Sovereignty works.
Reply 2
Original post by anarchism101
Recent laws (in general) supersede old laws, formal repeal or abolition is not necessary, that's just how Parliamentary Sovereignty works.

I'm not sure you're correct here. For any new laws to supersede they have to explicitly state this. If you look at the Government legal pages they will state that an Act has been superseded by a newer one. However, as I understand it, the Bill of Rights hasnt.

Here is an interesting read:

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

Update: I have had a look around and the general consensus seems to be that the 1689 Bill of Rights still exists.....
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by billydisco
I'm not sure you're correct here. For any new laws to supersede they have to explicitly state this. If you look at the Government legal pages they will state that an Act has been superseded by a newer one. However, as I understand it, the Bill of Rights hasnt.

Here is an interesting read:

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

Update: I have had a look around and the general consensus seems to be that the 1689 Bill of Rights still exists.....

Doctrine of implied repeal vs doctrine of express repeal

Former holds unless we are dealing with 'constitutional statutes' (Thoburn) - which the BoR most certainly comes under
Reply 4
Original post by Law-Hopeful
Doctrine of implied repeal vs doctrine of express repeal

Former holds unless we are dealing with 'constitutional statutes' (Thoburn) - which the BoR most certainly comes under

So where is the express repeal?
Original post by billydisco
So where is the express repeal?

Hm, more of a "temporary, voluntary abrogation" than a "repeal"

Also, that distinction isn't a hard and fast rule, more relevant for recent constitutional statues such as the Scotland Act 1998 etc than a 326 year old BoR

I never really liked constitutional law tbh so I can't guarantee this is all accurate
Also, while it's specified in the Act, what you're arguing is being broken is not so much the Act but rather the Oath of Allegiance. Which it would be the MPs breaching rather than the EU.

EDIT: Just checked, and MPs don't even take an oath under this wording any more, only Privy Counsellors do.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 7
But the EU, strictly speaking, is neither a "foreign prince, person, prelate, state or [a] potentate"...
Reply 8
Original post by Errm16
But the EU, strictly speaking, is neither a "foreign prince, person, prelate, state or [a] potentate"...

The EU has a Parliament, flag, currency and territory, its therefore a state.
Reply 9
Original post by billydisco
The EU has a Parliament, flag, currency and territory, its therefore a state.


Oh, if only it were that simple.

If it's that easy to set up a state, then is IS a "state"?
Original post by billydisco
The EU has a Parliament, flag, currency and territory, its therefore a state.


It has "territory" in the sense that any organisation of states has territory. It does not have the capacity to control and administer that territory, however. Nor does it have international recognition as a state, and all its constituent states are recognised as independent states internationally.
We somehow don't grant Protestants and only Protestants the right to own guns.

Quick Reply

Latest