The EU claims it bases its foreign policy on the wish to promote democracy and the freedoms of countries and people living near it. If they mean this it should be good news for us as one of their neighbours.Under the Treaties the EU is required to be both friendly and to promote trade with neighbours.

They pursue something called a European Neighbourhood policy towards the countries to the east of the EU, and the Middle Eastern countries to the south. For these groups of states they encourage political association, economic integration and increased mobility of people. The Eastern Partnership of the EU with Moldava, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan and Georgia has proved fraught. Russia is worried by aspects of it, and the EU’s intervention in Ukraine has not proved well judged.

To the south the EU intervenes in Syria and Libya, both troubled countries. It seeks peace between Israel and Palestine based on a two state solution. It is concerned about the Iranian nuclear programme.

The EU sees itself as giant as it has a large collective economy, but it is not of course a military giant. It has two battle groups available to intervene on a small scale when it wishes, but relies for its bigger force on contributions from member states. In practice the EU cannot defend itself against a serious enemy without NATO support and the security guarantee provided by the USA.

So far EU foreign policy has not been successful in either the east of our continent nor to the south in the Middle East. The EU borders some very troubled states. Its proximity to Turkey and the Association Agreement it signed with Turkey has also caused difficulties, leading to Mrs Merkel’s recent harsh words about Turkey. She is now seeking to stop Turkey’s application for EU membership proceeding, after years of the EU encouraging Turkey and signing an Agreement for close relations.

In the synthetic debate about so called Henry VIII clauses in the EU Withdrawal Bill all seem agreed that Henry was a tyrant who ruled without reference to Parliament. Ignorance of history is clearly one of the pre requisites for the opposition to implementing the referendum. Whilst Henry during his reign did make decisions using royal prerogative that we would find unacceptable today, what is remarkable about his decision to reduce and then remove the power of Pope over English taxpayers and churchgoers was how he preceded at every step by Act of Parliament. He escalated the conflict when the Pope did not respond to the opening pressures, designed to allow England to stay in the Catholic Church whilst securing some independence for the secular government. It was a failed lengthy negotiation leading to schism.

Wanting Rome to consent to his divorce, he widened the disagreement by bringing in issues over dealing with the crimes of the clergy and having to pay taxes to Rome. Public opinion was ready to submit clerics to the same criminal law as everyone else, and willing to send less tax to the Papal see. To bring this about MPs sympathetic to the King proposed and promoted the 1529 Act to remove legal privileges of the clergy, the 1532 First Act of Annates to reduce the annates tax to the Curia, the 1533 Act in restraint of appeals to cancel the power of the Roman court over English courts, the 1534 Act concerning Peters pence to cancel another Papal tax and finally the 1534 Act of Supremacy to create the King as Head of the Church in England.

Today we are proceeding also by a series of Acts of Parliament for the things that matter and where we wish to change current practice and EU law. The EU Withdrawal Bill or continuity bill, will be followed by primary legislation on customs, trade, fishing and farming, and migration. The secondary legislation will not take the form of royal proclamations by-passing Parliament, but will be Parliamentary regulations subject to debate and vote where Parliament wants that.