Dear Mrs May,
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach to the Brexit negotiations. You are allowing the EU to dictate the terms of the debate and the wider agenda. This is permitting the EU to exercise power and control over our country.
I wish to draw your attention to this Oath contained in the 1689 Bill of Rights:
“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.”
Please note the use of the words, “or” and “any”.
The EU is arguably a “foreign” state since it has assumed all of the powers of one, including having its own Parliament, its own flag, its own anthem, and many other things.
The officials who run the various institutions that the EU is comprised of are certainly “foreign” persons.
The UK was taken into what was then informally known as the “Common Market” on January 1st 1973. No referendum was held prior to this happening. The 1975 referendum, often discussed in the political debate about our EU membership, was a post-accession referendum.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in what is informally known as “the Gina Miller Case” decided that you as Prime Minister could not use the Royal Prerogative in order to make a notification to the EU of our intention to leave. Using the same reasoning, it therefore follows that none of your predecessors should have been allowed to use the Royal Prerogative to sign the various treaties which gave the EU the powers it has. Yet this is what happened. So, therefore, it seems that these treaties have been signed unlawfully. And if this is the case then Article 50 has no basis in law and should be disregarded.
We clearly have a situation where Parliament no longer reigns supreme in this land. EU law is being permitted to override our own. And it is deeply disturbing that neither you nor most of the other members of Parliament seem to have a problem with this. It seems to me that allowing this situation to persist means that Parliament is going against our constitution.
Both Parliament and the Government should be asserting the UK’s position as a sovereign nation. The failure to do this has meant that the EU officials have had no incentive to negotiate properly. What you should have done is ensured that the European Communities Act 1972, the legislation which took us into the EU, was repealed at the start of the process. Instead of doing this, Parliament opted to repeal the European Communities Act at the anticipated end of the process. And I for one do not feel assured that the Withdrawal Act as it’s informally known will not either be amended or repealed. In other words, I am concerned that the door is potentially being left open for the repeal of the European Communities Act, due to take effect on 29th March 2019, to be delayed or even cancelled altogether. This would be wholly unacceptable to me and to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU back in 2016.
What should have been in your mind is a free trade agreement with the EU that doesn’t include free movement of people. Vietnam and Mexico, to name just two countries, have such an agreement. But under no circumstances should you have been seeking a deal at any cost. If the EU officials decided to put blocks in the way such as imposing an exit fee or charges for unfettered access to the Single Market, you should have, from the outset, left them in no doubt that you would be prepared to walk away and revert to trading on WTO terms.
Instead of doing what I have suggested, what you have attained is an agreement that means the UK will leave in name only. The UK will act as a rule taker and, as Martin Howe QC pointed out in a recent article for The Spectator, the list of laws that we would be complying with runs to more than 60 pages. And that’s just the titles. We would have no say whatsoever where any of these laws are concerned. The Withdrawal Agreement in its current form also potentially deprives the Government of meeting a key manifesto commitment, namely leaving the Customs Union.
If Parliament was to vote in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement, it would be doing two things. One, it would be binding future Parliaments, which goes against the spirit of our constitution. And two, it would be allowing the EU to carry on exercising power and control over our country, which is also, in my view, unconstitutional.
We also have the situation whereby many members of Parliament represent constituencies where the majority of the voting public supported leaving the EU, and yet these members are failing to serve their constituents. Some of them are openly trying to thwart the democratic will of the people. It seems to me that these members of Parliament have been elected on a false prospectus. They exist on both sides of the House. I appreciate that what goes on in respect of the Official Opposition is not something you can control, but you could show some leadership and unite the people on your side of the House in favour of Brexit. You have failed to do this. Your party is divided, as is the Opposition, and the country is hearing different things from different people. This is sowing confusion in the minds of many, and should not be happening.
You have done well to survive the recent confidence vote. But the situation is such that, in my view, you no longer command the respect and support of the country as a whole. You have allowed the EU to carry on exercising control over our country and this is totally unacceptable and unnecessary, as well as being potentially unlawful. I have no confidence in you to change course and do what is right for the country. You have always been a Remainer. You have made speeches in the past, calling for the UK to stay in the European Union and backed the Remain side in the referendum campaign. Brexit is clearly not something you feel passionate about. I, therefore, call you on to resign as Prime Minister and make way for someone who believes in Brexit to replace you.
Thanks for reading.