Is there a political solution?
Reading this posted on the comment section of the Express there is'nt one.
http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/22493
THE TYBURN TREE MAY FLOWER AGAIN!!
19.10.07, 8:34am
I
read with a degree of wry amusement the assurance from Mr Broon that
his "Red Lines" had been agreed and, therefore, we could all sleep
soundly in our beds. One of these Red Lines was, according to The Great
Leader, the preservation of our Justice System and Our Law Making
Freedoms. Oh, Yeah? Not according to some VERY highly placed
Constitutional experts. Read below to expose yet ANOTHER blatant lie
from Broon.
In my researches on our Sovereignty and Constitution I
had cause to write to Lord Falconer in August 2006 when he was Her
Majesty's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I pointed out
to him that, on the 29th September, The Rt.Hon.Alderman Sir Gavyn
Arthur, then Lord Mayor of London, gave the 2003 "Denning Lecture" in
Gray's Inn before a audience of distinguished and undoubtedly learned
lawyers. His subject was "The City and the Law".
As an introduction he
gave a summary of our Common Law but then pointed out that there are
TWO systems of law operating in the UK today and that since the
enactment by Parliament of the ECA1972 there had been a quiet
revolution in our legal system.
He went on to say that it was not until
the House of Lords handed down their judgement on the Factortame case
that it became apparent that where English Law and the Law of the
European Community(EC) conflicted that the EC Law prevailed. From that
he drew the conclusion, (that had also been arrived at by many others
that I can quote), that Parliament was no longer sovereign. (Sir Gavyn
confirmed to me that there had been no dissent from his audience at his
conclusion).
From such a statement, and knowing that Parliament
consists of Her Majesty the Queen who is the only person Sovereign in
Parliament and the two Houses which are not sovereign of themselves, I
could only draw the conclusion that the Queen had not been Sovereign
since the moment She gave the ECA1972 the Royal Assent. She had
effectively abdicated Her Sovereign status and surrendered up all
constitutional power and authority on giving the ECA1972 the Royal
Assent and the sovereignty of the British people had been surrendered
to the EU.
I was reluctant to draw such an awesome conclusion. I asked
Falconer if he could confirm that I was wrong and that the Queen was
still Sovereign and thus so was Parliament.
A Mr.J.Copeland replied on Falconer's behalf. This is what he wrote:
"I
can confirm that the Queen is Head of State, Head of the Executive,
Head of the Judiciary, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, as a
result of a long period of evolution the Monarch's absolute power has
been progressively reduced. Minsters of the Crown in the name of the
Sovereign govern the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Crown, that is
the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity - are executed almost
exclusively by Ministers. The enactment of the European Communities Act
1972 has not altered this.".
In point of fact no British Monarch has
had absolute power though many tried to exercise such power. It was to
prevent such an attempt at absolute power that the Magna Carta was
brought into being in 1215 and which is a foundation stone of our
Constitution. Article 61 states specifically the power held by the
people if the Monarch departs from the lawful way."
Copeland went on:
"However,
as outlined in your letter, one of the most significant new sources of
the British Constitution in recent years has been the EU. When Britain
signed the Treaty of Rome and passed the European Communities Act 1972,
the superiority of European Law was accepted, and parliament was no
longer sovereign (although the UK can leave the EU any time it wishes).
As a result, British Courts now have the power to review Acts of
parliament and in the light of EU legislation, suspend Statute Law.".
Again here we have an assumption of power by the EU, with the agreement
of Parliament, to write our "Constitution" for us! Why is there no
argument in the Commons regarding the constitutional treaty? All
parties had agreed our subjugation to the EU in 1972.
The
incongruities and constitutional errors in these two paragraphs are
self evident. However they plainly point to the fact that the British
are no longer a Sovereign, independent and self governing nation. That
the Queen is no longer our Sovereign, ( She is now subject to the
superiority of EU Law), as She became on the death of Her Father George
VI; as She herself confirmed in Her Declaration of Sovereignty before
Her Accession Privy Council on 8th.February 1952 ;and as we elected Her
to be on Her Coronation in exchange for Her Coronation Oath in which
She declared how She would govern us.
Our Sovereignty has been removed
from us by an act of High Treason.
However this situation will
undoubtedly gladden the hearts of all LibLabCon adherents as this is
precisely what Sir Arnold Toynbee said was the objective of the Fabians
Socialists in 1932 in Copenhagen. He is reported to have said:"If we
are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a
deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations
upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local
sovereign independent States.... The surest sign... that this fetish of
local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with
which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord...at
every step forward which we take...that the sacred principle of local
sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action
reduced and its power for evil restricted.
It is just because we are
really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on
protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.".
In order to achieve the
intended end he went to say "I will merely repeat that we are at
present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this
mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of
the local national states of our world. And at all times we are denying
with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the
sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy
for which a statesman or a publicist can be... ostracised and
discredited.". It is also High Treason.
Therefore it would seem
to me that in all honesty the Fabian Society and the LibLabCon Pro-EU
traitors should now be cheering from the rooftops the final achievement
of Sir Arnold's stated aims.
What a scoop for The Daily Express to have
a front page spread
"THE QUEEN ABDICATED ALL OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES IN 1972. BRITAIN NO LONGER SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT OR
SELF-GOVERNING".
However I suspect LibLabCon deceit long ingrained in
their activities will prevent such an admission that they are the ones
who engineered the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy and, it
would seem, with the tacit agreement of Elizabeth Windsor a.k.a. Queen
Elizabeth II.
With thanks to David Bourne, scholar and patriot
HatTip Defender
|
|||||
![]() This Month
Month Archive
![]()
Login
Recent Visitors
truthseeker1 - Thu 20 Nov 2008 10:11 GMT
Yokel - Fri 14 Nov 2008 23:27 GMT
Johanna bartley - Mon 10 Nov 2008 16:52 GMT
Cristian - Sun 09 Nov 2008 06:16 GMT
true_brit58 - Sat 08 Nov 2008 12:02 GMT
|
Ian Parker-Joseph
Search
In a dictatorship, the rights and laws protect the government from the people. The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus
The minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo. --- J. Edgar Hoover ![]() Recent Articles
Libertarians
Favourite webs and blogs
XML
|
||||
|
|||||






















