Ordinary people do not usually betray a whole nation, rather the reverse, for they are the ones that voluntarily enlist or by conscription put their lives either on hold “for the duration”, or put themselves at risk or even pay the ultimate price for their fellow man. They do not cheat, deceive or lie to a whole nation.
Even before 1972 the people were betrayed by people at the very height of their career, by privileged people that were highly paid, some “honoured” by a special title, while the ordinary man was struggling to make ends meet and make a decent life for themselves and their family.
These ordinary people generally obeyed the law-worked hard-down pits, in factories on the land-yet saw their laws they were diligently obeying become trashed-cheapened-tarnished-rubbished and ignored and while standards slipped, even free speech the people had taken for granted became redundant, usurped by “politically correctness”.
Over recent years we have seen our Monarchy devalued-sidelined in every way. The Royal Yacht removed, the Royal ‘plane no longer available while the Prime Minister of the day treats himself like a President of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Recently, onslaughts have been made by certain members of the Government to bring forward Private Member’s “Succession to the Crown and Royal Marriages” Bill that would result in the unravelling of our Common Law Constitution. Deliberate attempts to destroy our Monarchy and Common Law Constitution.
Some in Parliament have said that there will be no change to our constitution by the ratifying of the EU Constitution. It is a “tidying up exercise”, “even a Golf Club has a Constitution” etc. These are very important prominent people, their word is their bond and therefore they are to be believed implicitly. The first eminent person to tell us “there would be no loss of essential Sovereignty” was Edward Heath, now Sir Edward! Yet here we have the proposed EU Constitution which states quite clearly that it has supremacy over our constitution and laws.
We have come to learn from the people of Iraq the high regard they have in forming their own Constitution. They have put their lives at risk by walking down their streets to place their “democratic” crosses on their voting forms. They value the “democracy” that our own Government are removing from US.
Citizenship of the European Union.
Each ratified new EU Treaty has resulted in the transferring of more national sovereignty to the European Union, for with the Maastricht Treaty one of the biggest changes was, from a “Community”(of nation states working together-a free association of sovereign states) to, as the title suggests a “Union”, a political entity, a new creation. It became a highly centralised creation. We also became “citizens” of this Union and there is an argument for realising that because the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent of the European Union, must we consider that our citizenship is subordinate to EU citizenship? And if not now, will this happen when the EU has gathered for itself more authority through the EU constitution? Where will allegiance lie? Is it with the laws of the European Union or with the United Kingdom? Can one create a citizenship without a STATE? To add insult to injury, acceptance of EU Citizenship was not a voluntary matter, we had to accept it, and it was thrust upon us.
We should ask ourselves, what is the point in creating European Citizenship? The answer has to be for the creating of one State, and an obligation by the citizen to that state. The Commission proposed that the European Citizen would have the right of free residence and movement and a right to vote in local and European parliamentary elections, (municipal) and it said that targets for the definition of the individuals civic, economic and social rights would be set at a later stage. There is also a question of what the word “municipal” means, does it mean, ‘local’ or ‘national’ and in the end it will surely be the European Court of Justice that decides. Food for thought?
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “citizenship” as the “relationship between an individual and state, defined by the law of that state, with corresponding duties and rights”, so the new state can decide and change those duties anytime it wants to. We have been given “new” rights in the charter of fundamental rights. One thing we have not been given “is the RIGHT to say “NO”. We were never given the chance by the EU or our Government, for they did not ask whether we wanted EU citizenship.
We are told not to worry, it is only “additional to”, an “add on”, a bonus” not “in place of”, so WHAT is the point of it? Accept the EU constitution and then ask where will our oaths of allegiance lie? Will it be in conflict with our oath to the Queen? Perhaps we should change our loyal oath and then it will not be in conflict? That change to our oath is happening now (SOCA and police) yet these changes are contrary to our Constitution. According to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution is “an act of treason”. If that action is an act of treason-repeal the Treason Acts then? This has happened already. I would like you to think about this puzzle. What if the European Court of Justice decided that the Oath of Allegiance to our Queen was superseded by a superior allegiance owed to a different political organisation such as the European Union? The Constitution we have recently accepted knowing and agreeing that it is superior even to our highest Court, and cabinet, proving eventually that the European Union citizenship we thought was additional to, is now superior to our British citizenship? What then? Can any Government of this Country afford to take a chance? Is it not being the tiniest bit reckless with our country?
Simply using the European Communities Act to remove this Country from the Union after ratification of the EU constitution may well bring down scorn from the Union. What about the Exit clause that this Country’s Government have ‘freely and willingly’ agreed to? Try and get the other 24 states (that might no longer exist) to agree?
We are only just beginning to realise just how precious “citizenship”, is to us. It is an attribute most dear to an individual, and primarily acquired by virtue of birth. If it is not acquired by birth, citizenship is acquired by conscious and carefully considered application-in this country by a process of naturalisation.
There is no doubt that this EU citizenship comes within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the duties imposed by the Treaty (of Maastricht and any further treaties) will be adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. When we consider that the European Court of Justice describes itself in political terms as the agent for greater federalism, we should sit up and take note of that fact. It is also important to note that the preamble is justiciable and something the European Court of Justice is obliged to take into account.
With citizenship goes the right to deny oneself citizenship, in other words, to give it up. We cannot repeal the EU citizenship that has been “bestowed” upon us. It has been suggested that the only way in which a “European national” could renounce his European citizenship is to renounce the nationality of his birth or the nationality he acquired by naturalisation. This makes a nonsense because in international law, no one is allowed to be “stateless”. Why did I, along with many others renounce our European Citizenship? This came about after the Home Secretary gave himself the powers to remove the citizenship of a person born here in the UK. The thought was by renouncing the one citizenship-EU-we could not then have our British citizenship removed, leaving us simply with EU citizenship.
What is the purpose of citizenship of the EU? We can read that “Citizens shall be subject to the duties imposed” but nowhere are those duties made clear. Only a fool signs a contract without knowing what their “duties” are. What if it is a ‘duty’ to pay taxes? To eventually have our youth “conscripted” into a Euro Army? This was brought home to us very recently over our involvement in Iraq, when other countries, quite correctly used their own authority to keep out of it. In an EU State, we would have to do as we are told. If a European State decides that its forces are to go into Iraq, we would have to conform because our EU citizenship will eventually place a duty and an obligation on us to abide by their orders.
Union Citizenship cannot be acquired alone, nor can it be forfeited without giving up nationality. EU Citizenship becomes a nightmare. It becomes like Ivy that clings to another living plant until eventually it strangles the life out of that that gave it life in the first place.
I have placed a great deal of emphasis on EU Citizenship, because there is a great deal in the proposed EU documentation, from schools to old age on “deeper and more meaningful EU citizenship. And a proposed increase for “town” and or “schools” for “twinning” (Wasn’t there an Oath made in that too?).
How does Citizenship affect the Queen?
Her Majesty has British citizenship for she was born here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain-she wasn’t always Queen (and was not expected to be Queen) and she served in the armed services during the last war. She is therefore as British as they come. More-over, and I quote Sir Ivan Lawrence here (Hansard 1st Feb 1993 Col 68) “It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war”.
It was also pointed out by Mr Spearing in response, “”Unlike the legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch of legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty (Maastricht) that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative-meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House-to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institution decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak”.
Later on a Mr Wardle makes clears, “ The Maastricht Treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the Monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen”. That statement (to me at least) makes clear that if the Queen enjoys the same rights she will incur the duties of European citizenship and like the rest of us will be so bound. Our Queen, Head of State, the supreme citizen of our political entity, would owe allegiance to some higher, wider authority-a superstate. Did Sir Edward Heath also point out once that the position of the Crown would not be affected by our entry into this Common market?
Just like we are all enjoying those same rights eh? Some remember John Major triumphantly saying that even the Queen was now a citizen of the European Community. We can see that without any doubt whatsoever, like us all, Her Majesty was not consulted, yet it was a decision and a commitment they made that day while debating the Maastricht Treaty it involved not just US, but our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We also know now, without any doubt, that the Union is not going to be an open, decentralise, democratic Union, it is not even to become a federally run United States of Europe, but a unitary, centralised political social European Superstate. A Superstate that wants its own Constitution.
The Queen having been made a citizen of the Community would and especially if the EU Constitution is ratified, make her subordinate to the President of the Commission whoever it might be at that time. She might be called Queen, but as a citizen of that state, he/she will be President of the whole of the European Union. That also poses the question, who will take precedence at official functions?My goodness yes, EU Citizenship will eventually bring forth many changes, as it was always meant to, for there was absolutely no point in EU Citizenship if it meant nothing at all. Just to enhance? A concept?
From my reading of Hansard, and the way our MP’s debated the subject, it becomes obvious, without any doubt what-so-ever that the Queen was never asked, was never consulted, and was treated in exactly the same way as the people of this Country. As an aside, I will also add that the reading of Hansard books from the 1950’s-1975’s to after the Treaty of Rome was signed, the same thing happened then.
Loss of Sovereignty.
It has been said (at times) that we lost “sovereignty” through being in NATO. There is no comparison between NATO, a free association of independent states and the European Union in terms of conferring obligation on citizens. NATO is such a free association of independent states that the French, since De Gaulle’s time, have decided, in their own sovereign manner, to remain independent of NATO’s integrated military structure. Certainly NATO have never made people “citizens” of their organisation. A different kind of treaty altogether from EU Treaties.
What if the people vote “NO” to the EU constitution?
It has been said that if we vote “NO” to the EU Constitution, the other States could go on without us. That they could repeal the Treaties for the making of one Constitution. If that happened there would be no Treaties left for us to BE in. Yet if we look to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, it allows for some of the parties to a treaty to decide to modify the treaty/treaties among themselves, as long as any alteration does not affect the rights of the others that prefer to go on/stay behind. (Difficult though!) A Treaty such as The Treaty on Union 1707 between Scotland and England would be fine if all the people and governments of each Country were to agree, BUT even that Treaty between two Countries (not 25) there are complications, for there are no longer two separate Parliaments/Governments. One devolved now-with limited authority and one United Kingdom Parliament-no English Parliament. Under the current rules of Article 48 of the European Union, all member states must give their agreement to the changes. If more than one state says “NO”, they are legally entitled to stick to that view and prevent the others from going ahead.
If a country says “NO” to the EU Constitution: I suggest the exact opposite may well be the case: the old treaties remain in force and there is no new structure which the “Yes” countries could adhere to, or existing structure for them to hold on to. No further pressure of retaking a referendum to make them fall into line, or “to get it right”. The people will have spoken. The great danger is that much of the proposed legislation in the EU Constitution may have already gone ahead via Regulation or Directive or the Hague Programme (will that be deemed illegal)? What will we be left to vote on, in a Constitution? Could Articles that have not gone through, be put forward again via Regulation? Will Governments, having seen the way the people have voted, decide to say no to EU Regulations? Want to press ahead regardless? What will be the reaction of the people?
Having been promised a Referendum on the EU Constitution, this Country must have a referendum whether other countries have already voted it down or not. This is essential if only to find out the depth of feeling in this Country towards the European Union. It is vitally important that a referendum takes place. Will our Members of Parliament go knocking on doors during the general election or the referendum, saying vote for me because I want to give all the sovereignty (authority) we have left to the European Union? I want to make sure that all decisions that will affect this Country-forever- go where we want it to go-to the great European Union? Is that what they will say? All in the name of peace and goodwill? Is it truly theirs to give? Will our Parliamentarians still expect to be elected to Parliament and get paid handsomely for a job they no longer do? Just like nodding donkey’s rubber stamping EU legislation through for the people of this Country to obey, as usual?
What about “Our” Courts?
Many ordinary people concerned at the way our own ministers are willingly and eagerly giving away sovereignty of this Country to the European Union, have taken the momentous decision to look to the Courts of this Island under “Misprision of Treason”, to ‘stay’ the hands that would treasonously undermine our Common Law Constitution and thus destroy it. None so far has succeeded. Why? All our MP’s swear Allegiance to the Queen. All our Judges swear Allegiance to the Queen, and they sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms, and in fact, they are there to represent the Queen. So where does it all go wrong? When ordinary people try to do their duty, when they can see their own parliamentarians ceding sovereignty of this Country to the Union and the governing of this Country be determined by the Union, what or who is preventing them, or the Courts, from doing their duty?
The Union already refers to Courts, as “European Union” courts. The judges apply European Union Laws. They have to observe the Human Rights Act and if they do not apply Union law the European Court of Justice will in turn overrule them. There has been question of where Kompetenze Kompetenze lies? It is a question that no one seems able (or willing) to answer. The European Union’s Court of Justice on the other hand, is not answerable to any nation state- it may be that it is answerable to no one. It sees itself as a tool for the creation and improvement of the European Union. It works solely for the ideals of the European Union and to further the Union’s progress on the world stage.
While we are busy destroying the independence and highly regarded Law Lords presently housed in the House of Lords, whose reputation has been formed over hundreds of years and has been the envy of many Countries all over the world, now do charge them eventually, to do their duties in a newly formed Supreme Court and by so doing allowing the interference from the political menagerie and thus align themselves with other Supreme Courts in the European Union.
Any dispute that arises, any system of Justice, or any terms of dispute regarding citizenship, the interpretation of direct EU laws or treaty and especially any dispute over the EU Constitution, any dispute ever the application of “British” justice, should the term British survive, will be decided by a European Court determined to develop further, the European Union. It will automatically supersede and crush the independence of what once was a nation state.
When people attended Court here in the UK, the Judges had a choice didn’t they? They could apply the law according to the oath they so swore, or they could apply the law of the European Union. I find it difficult to accept that a Judge can swear allegiance to the Queen whilst applying EU law, but then we have to remember that EU law comes to us because our governments have incorporated it (accepted it) into our Law-it is indeed our law. Isn’t it?
The people will have a choice, providing they are given a referendum that is fair and free from corruption. But even in an election in the past has anyone said, “vote for me and I will go about giving our country away to the Union to govern”. Not exactly a vote winner, is it? It is known that there was fraud during the all-postal voting experiment on the Regions, but the Government decided continue with all posting voting and not to “err on the side of caution”. Is that a green light for all parties to act fraudulently for surely, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander?
Is the Treaty ESTABLISHING A Constitution for Europe, a “Treaty” or a “Constitution”?
What is a Constitution? I quote from the papers by Jean-Claude Piris, who was the Legal Advisor of the Council of the European Union and was the Legal Advisor of the intergovernmental conferences, which negotiated and adopted the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam. He looked at Black’s Law Dictionary for the main elements of a Constitution.
• A constitution organises the government of the entity to which it applies; a Constitution prescribes the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
• A Constitution is the absolute rule of action: any official act in breach of it is illegal (this presupposes a constitutional or supreme court)
• A Constitution frequently lists rights of the individual and guarantees their protection.
• A Constitution derives its authority from the governed and is agreed upon by the people;
• A constitution is the fundamental law of a nation of state. End of quotes.
Reading down those points, now begs the question, was our entry into the Common Market in 1972 illegal in the first place? From the reading of Hansard debates on the subject under the heading of “European Communities”, I believe it was illegal. These past few years, the ignoring of our Common Law Constitution by the Government, particularly where the British nationality is specifically mentioned for Magistrates and Police, has been ignored, yet Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights, The Act of Settlement and the Queens Coronation Oath remain the same for they cannot be altered, they are a contract between the people and the Monarch. I ask, are not these new Acts of Parliament illegal? Are they ultra vires? Can they be challenged? And can those that have fallen foul through the application of them, also challenge and overturn?
The EU Constitution is incorporated into our system by the “Treaty”, but once installed, the Constitution then takes over, in exactly the same way that using the European Communities Act to install the original Treaty of Rome, for once installed, the European Community’ laws overruled our Laws.
Some people have said that the Treaties that have gone before are “constitutional”, however, each treaty has been labelled quite clearly, a “Treaty”, the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Amsterdam etc. All previous European Community Treaties were developed through the usual diplomatic channels; finalised the same way and ratified by parliament (some through referendum) it has been suggested, (by the EU Parliament) for the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, that the people should have a referendum. Even the title, makes clear that to “establish” something, is to set up something “new” “something different”. The Treaty “ESTABLISHES” a Constitution for the European Union as a whole.
By using a “Convention” that took eighteen months to come to fruition, makes the Constitution very different from all the other EU treaties. All the articles in it that gives itself authority, legal personality, etc, makes it different, it also makes very clear that “the EU Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s institutions in exercising competences conferred upon it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member states”. There is no getting away from that. It has to be remembered also, that it IS one constitution for all its member states.The European Union is lacking some essential elements for it to become the State it so obviously wants to become. And the United Kingdom still has not given away control of its economy, its sterling currency or reserves. But the EU Constitution will go a long way in allowing the Union to gather these elements together.It is as a signal for the beginning of the end of the Nation States.The dilemma of the High Court Judges and the Law Lords, the highest Judges in the land, now comes under scrutiny. As time went on our Judges must have known that their decisions would in the end destroy this County’s ability to govern itself, their decision in putting the European Union’s laws above their own country, as laid down in EU law, would remove the ability of this country’s Government from ever governing again, yet that is what they were doing, and that is what they were meant and had to do. As I see it, they had no option, they were putting into action what the politicians had bade them to do. That bidding was the acceptance of the European Union treaties, but who advised the politicians that signing these treaties would not remove sovereignty from this country? We now know the advice given to the then Edward Heath by Lord Kilmuir and I note that this advice was given to Edward Heath not to the Head of State, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
I pick out “Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable; we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole area of a very important field…..To confer a sovereign state’s treaty making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state…..although the treaty-making is vested in the crown, Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation (to take two examples), and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws”. (End of quotes) The part that Her Majesty might have played in this, was not entered into. I hardly think that Edward Heath told Her Majesty, “We are going to sign this Treaty and by the time the end goal is completed, there will be no Country left for you to be Queen of”, was ever mentioned to her. After all, we are talking of honourable important influential gentlemen that WE, the people, have put into Government. Did our politicians tell us the terrible awful truth? If they could not find the guts to tell the ordinary people, I doubt very much they found the courage to tell her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Did they tell us two years after when we were asked to vote to remain in this living lie?
The politician’s of this Country entered into a Treaty which they knew from before joining, was incompatible with our Constitution. Cases proving this fact had already made this very clear. Yet still they joined. They knew also that joining the Convention on Human Rights would be incompatible with our Constitution, yet still they joined. The politician’s put their ambitions before their Country. They kept the awful truth of the situation away from the people, and I believe it was also kept away from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The arguments back and forth in the 1970’s were between the politicians in the same way that they were during the debates on citizenship (a momentous decision that affected every one of us) at Maastricht, and now in this present day, we have the same false pretences, that all is well and that the EU constitution is nothing for us to worry our little heads about.
The Cabinet Papers of 1949 released under the thirty year rule, only five years after world war two in which so many people died fighting for this country to remain free of German domination, prove beyond any shadow of doubt the true nature in what form the creation of the proposed forming of the European Community would be. Recorded in Hansard on 16th November 1966 by speaker Mr Stanley Orme MP, “At a private meeting in the House, M Spaak, who was prominent in the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers down the spines of some of my hon. Friends who are very pro-European. M Spaak’s political concept is that of many statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France. It is a political issue which we must seriously consider. M Spaak is against the entry of neutrals. He regards the Community purely as an extension of the military based NATO., a further extension of a military alliance. I do not attribute those views to all of my hon. Friends who faviour our entry, but I know that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the Community not just as an economic unit but as a political unit too. They regard it as a supranational authority of which Britain should be part.” I have read hundreds of such pages and I wonder how any politician can still hold their heads up for they should hang them in shame forever more. And “today’s” MP’s want to strip Lord Archer of his title? He at least served his sentence.
I will end with Lord Kilmuir’s warning, “I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serous ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objection to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging affect later on”. We were not told. And I come to the conclusion that the price for remaining in and accepting the EU constitution is far too high a price to pay.
It was an absolute betrayal of all the people’s trust, it was sheer treachery then and it is absolute treachery now. The Politicians are right in one thing only. Politicians have not changed, only their names have changed, and I am left feeling very sorry that Guy Fawkes was not successful in his gunpowder plot.