The European Court of Justice is not an impartial court and has no role to play in post-Brexit EU-UK relations

by Dr Gunnar Beck, 
Reader in Law at SOAS, University of London

 

10 May 2017
 

Leading authority on EU Law, Dr Gunnar Beck (SOAS), writes for Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project to explain why, as a matter of law, Britain can leave the EU without any liability for any allegedly outstanding sums under the EU budget. Dr Beck dismantles Helena Kennedy QC’s suggestion in the Guardian last week that the EU Court of Justice should have a role in post-Brexit Britain. The Court of Justice has been “a motor of EU integration”, Dr Beck explains, and cannot be trusted as an impartial adjudicator of any post-Brexit disputes involving the UK.

In an article in the Guardian last week, Baroness Kennedy QC adds her influential voice to the current war of words on the UK’s Brexit ‘divorce bill’ and the post-Brexit role of the EU Court of Justice. She broadly supports the EU’s maximalist position based on the assumption that, as she writes, “all the preliminary matters raised by EU leaders involve legal commitments from which we cannot walk away.” From this, she writes, at least two things follow.

First, it would be “unlawful” for the United Kingdom “to cut and run without paying a penny in the Brexit settlement.” This claim does not stand up. The EU is currently demanding a figure of around 100 billion euros, which it says is not final and could rise further. Legally, any liability the UK may have for outstanding financial obligations under the EU budget, and other obligations as an EU member, can only arise on three grounds: as a matter of EU law, international law or domestic law.

As a matter of EU law, Article 50 TEU is clear in that it allows the UK to exit from the EU without being liable for outstanding financial obligations under the EU budget, unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which provides otherwise. This position has wide support and been endorsed, inter alia, in a special report published by the traditionally mildly pro-EU House of Lords European Union Committee. Alternatively, individual EU Member States, or conceivably the EU, may seek to bring a case against the UK for the payment of outstanding liabilities under principles of public international law. Any sum the EU may eventually demand from the UK will be composed almost entirely of items of expenditure under the EU budget agreed under the EU Treaties or EU legislation. However, Article 344 TFEU prohibits EU Member States from submitting the legal interpretation of the EU Treaties or legislation relating to them to a court other than the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Nor do the EU institutions have standing to bring such an action under public international law. For these and other reasons no international court other than the ECJ will have jurisdiction to enforce claims by the EU or its members, whilst the ECJ will cease to have any jurisdiction over the UK from the date the UK leaves the EU unless a withdrawal agreement is agreed which provides for the ongoing jurisdiction of that court. The Prime Minister has already firmly ruled out any such a possibility.

Finally, it is exceedingly unlikely that national law in the UK would allow for the enforcement of UK’s financial obligations. The Supreme Court in Miller has made clear that once the UK withdraws from the EU, EU law will cease to be a source of domestic law. It is also clear that whatever its content in the end, the Government’s Great Repeal Bill will not allow the EU or its Member States to sue in the UK courts for outstanding contributions under the EU budget.

Secondly, Baroness Kennedy suggests that any free trade agreement between the UK and the EU would require an arbiter to settle disputes, i.e. a supranational court, and that the ultimate jurisdiction of the ECJ and the continued application of EU law would and should be a part of any post-Brexit collaboration between the EU and this country. Not all treaties accept the authority of supranational court to settle disputes, but Kennedy is right that in trade and investment matters, the absence of a disputes settlement mechanism would be impractical because, as she observes, “even the World Trade Organisation has a disputes court.” Kennedy is right too that Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, the three non-EU members of the EU-dominated European Economic Area (“EEA”), had to sign up the EFTA Court which extends written EU law and the case law of the ECJ to the EEA, although its three non-EU members do not participate either in EU law-making or the decision-making of the ECJ. This is precisely the reason why Switzerland did not join the EEA, has its own bilateral trade relationship with the EU and refused to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Together with the EU Treaties, the EEA agreement is perhaps the only other recent international treaty which effectively assigns the settlement of inter-party legal disputes to a court which is not even formally independent but effectively a domestic court of one of the parties and, in both cases, authorised only to apply the law of the EU as interpreted by the ECJ.  It is almost totally unprecedented for a State which is a party to an international treaty to accept the jurisdiction of a court of the opposite party in adjudicating treaty provisions.  Apart from the EU Treaties and the EEA agreement, one would have to go back to the treaties between various European powers and China in the 19th century, under which European citizens were subject to the jurisdiction of extra-territorial courts instead of Chinese jurisdiction. China rightly now condemns these arrangements as “unequal treaties” imposed on them by gunboats.

The ECJ was established at the same time as the EU (then the European Economic Community) to settle disputes between the EU’s institutions and its member states and to provide authoritative guidance on the interpretation of the EU Treaties and EU legislation. It has never discharged that function impartially. From the early 1960s it developed a range of principles, such as those of the uniform application and effectiveness of EU law which it then expanded into the general principles of the supremacy and direct effect of EU law over national law. None of these judge-made principles had any basis in the EU Treaties until 2009 when they were included in the Lisbon Treaty as a leftover from the failed EU Constitution drafted by former French president Giscard d’Estaing. The principle of the primacy of EU law is a judicial creation which was recently codified because once a judge-made rule has been applied again and again by the courts and it suits the integrationist agenda of most member states, no one objects to its formal recognition.

The general principles of treaty interpretation are laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties (“VCLT”). Article 31 VCLT assigns a primary importance in treaty interpretation to the ‘ordinary meaning’ of words. It states that treaties shall be interpreted in ‘good faith’ and that their terms should mean what they say unless, according to Art. 32 VCLT, the meaning is ‘ambiguous or obscure.’ The EU is not a signatory to the VCLT (although its member states are) and the ECJ has never regarded itself as bound by its terms.

In interpreting EU law the ECJ does not therefore accord the same primacy to the ordinary meaning of words as many other supranational courts including the International Court of Justice or the WTO Appellate Body. Instead the ECJ adopts a flexible approach which allows it to depart from the wording of the EU Treaties or legislation in favour of a teleological, i.e. purposive, interpretation even where the wording of the relevant provision is neither obscure nor ambiguous. Purposive interpretations generally give courts far greater interpretative room for manoeuvre than text-based interpretation. The problem with purposive interpretations of law is that courts, and the ECJ more so than any other, do not confine themselves to purposes written into the documents they are asked to interpret. Depending on one’s perspective, rules may be viewed as serving many different purposes on which the parties do not necessarily agree. Purposes may also conflict with one another, be stated at different levels of abstraction and be either short-term or long-term. Drawing inspiration from its own distinctively integrationist vision of ‘ever closer union’ between the EU’s members, to which the court also refers as the ‘spirit’, i.e. a kind of political holy ghost, of the Treaties, the court has used the purposive approach consistently to resolve legal disputes concerning the distribution of powers between the EU and members in a pro-integrationist manner. In this manner, the court has over time and without reference to the Treaties substantially extended the scope of EU law and established its own judicial oversight over many areas of national law. It has usually done so in the absence of Treaty authority and not infrequently in a departure from clear language in the Treaties or EU legislation.  The ECJ was set up to act as an arbiter between the EU and its members but it has never been a real arbiter who applies agreed rules impartially. Instead, it has been a motor of European integration.

In theory the powers of the EU are limited by the principle of conferral (Articles 4 and 5 TEU). According to the principle of conferral the EU may only legislate or act in areas where the member states have expressly authorised it to do so. In line with its general interpretative principle in dubio pro communitate the ECJ has effectively neutralised the principle of conferral by introducing the doctrine of implied powers, by consistently adopting an expansive meaning of the conferred powers and by resolving conflicts in overlapping areas of EU and national competences in favour of the scope of EU law. As a result, the scope of EU law is incrementally expanding from one judicial decision to the next.

The review of EU legislation for compliance with the principles of conferral and of subsidiarity as well as fundamental rights is one of the central functions of the ECJ, and member states regularly ask the court to do so. With the exception of annulment actions involving EU decisions which are addressed to specific individuals or companies or delegated legislation which do not affect the basic division of competences between member states and the EU, the chances of persuading the court that the EU has exceeded its competences are virtually nil. The ECJ practically never annuls an EU legislative act of general application, and in the only important case where the court did so, the annulled legislation was re-enacted virtually without changes two years later. In contrast to its extremely permissive review of the EU’s interpretation and exercise of its own competences, the ECJ has followed a very robust line in its use of the principles of supremacy and direct effect which the court itself created ex nihilo without treaty-base, to strike down national laws on the grounds of alleged national infringements of EU law in hundreds of cases. The asymmetry in the court’s exercise of its review function is evident too in the radically different meaning it gives to the proportionality requirement. When reviewing national legal acts under derogations from EU law, the court examines whether the national measure has minimum collateral impact on EU law – only then will the national measure not be struck down. By contrast, EU legal acts will be upheld as proportionate unless and until the EU decision-maker has acted manifestly irrationally. The court very rarely takes that view. The court effectively operates two separate standards of judicial review, a light one for all EU measures and an exacting much higher one for national laws allegedly infringing EU laws.

In summary, as a matter of law, Britain can leave the EU without any liability for allegedly outstanding sums under the EU budget and other EU legal instruments. Whether or not it is politically wise for the UK to do so, is, of course, another question. If a trade deal can be agreed, the UK Government will in due course have to consider the financial benefits of that deal and balance the benefits against any price tag the EU may put on the deal, while bearing in mind that a trade deal which benefits the UK, also benefits most EU members which run substantial trade surpluses with Britain. What price a trade deal might be worth paying, is a question which cannot be answered at this stage; it will crucially depend on the terms of the deal. What can be said, however, and said categorically, is that any EU-UK trade or wider collaboration agreement which, directly or indirectly, assigns the settlement of any disputes to the ECJ will not be worth having, because that agreement would invariably and consistently be construed in the EU’s favour and against the UK. Such an agreement would not be worth the paper it is written on because the ECJ will never be an impartial arbiter in the settlement of disputes involving the EU. It sees itself and has always acted as the judicial agent of ‘ever closer union.’

Dr Gunnar Beck is Reader in Law at SOAS, University of London.
 

www.lawyersforbritain.org

7 points to remember

Like MPs and Peers, the Judiciary has failed to uphold our Constitutional Law, but they can't admit that.

For the moment they continue in thrall to the ECJ, even though the British people have never voted for their sovereignty to be given away.

To recap is an indictment of them - along with MPs and Peers.

Regards

Roger

-------------------

7 points to remember.....

 1.  The legal sovereignty of Parliament is subordinate to the political sovereignty of the nation." (Dicey p 342).

2. Kilmuir advised that the1972 European Communities Act (ECA) posed a direct threat to the independence of Parliament. 

3. The British people have never voted for the independence of Parliament to be ceded to a foreign entity. Neither they, nor the Monarch had any right to pursue such a path.

4. MPs and Peers have sworn an oath to serve the Sovereign, but after Maastricht, the Queen became an EU citizen. So they must now stand by their oath and expose that our Constitutional Law has been flouted.

Those who fail to do that, or who break the referendum promise (it is now for the people to decide) should be brought to justice.

5. The Referendum Bill was supported by 544 MPs. But they failed to demand that the outcome should be legally binding and were content for the outcome to be advisory only.

6. Then in the referendum 400 out of 650 (over 60%) constituencies voted to leave the EU. No Prime Minister or Government in British history has ever received as large a mandate.

7. So those who continue to frustrate the will of 400 UK constituencies, or to tie the PM's hands in negotiation, must surely be held to account. They have no right to to pose as the champions of our democracy and must go.

The EU

The European Union was originally called the European Economic Community and we were led to believe it was set up to be a trading agreement between member states. There were three main sticking points for the UK:

1. Our traditional bonds with the countries of the Commonwealth.
2. Refusal to join a customs union and wanted to maintain a free trade.
3. We were opposed to the long term aim of surrendering national sovereignty.

When the Heath Government was negotiating our entry Edward Heath instructed Sir Con O’Neil, the UK’s chief negotiator, to ‘Swallow it whole and swallow it now! In other words accept whatever conditions they offer. Membership was sealed when the UK joined in 1973.

Before entry Edward Heath wrote to his Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, and asked him if there were any Constitutional limitations on joining the EEC? In his reply Lord Kilmuir stated: ‘I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved’. He went on to say: ‘I have no doubt that if we do sign the treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty’ and confirmed this by this by making these three points:

1. Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community.
2. The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community.
3. Our courts of law would be sacrificed to some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.

In 1973 the people were not told they were joining a political union. They were deceived by the late Conservative leader Edward Heath, when he said before the EEC Referendum of June 5, 1975 that“There is no question of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say are completely unjustified.”

Thirty-seven years later in 2012 we see that this was a lie. Sir Edward Heath admitted as much in 1989 by remarking that ‘the project was always political.’

A Government White Paper on the EU Constitution, issued in September 2004, stated that: ‘The legal primacy of European law was accepted by Parliament when we joined the EEC’. Yet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Geoffrey Rippon, moving the motion on the 15th February 1972, for the Bill which took us into the EEC, said: “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”. This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper attempting to bury the truth.

Joining the EEC (EU) was an outright act of treason against the people of this country and our membership of the EU is therefore illegal. All subsequent Governments have also committed treason in continuing our membership and adding further commitments to the EU. Treason is a capital offence and still carries the death penalty.

We joined the EU (EEC) in 1972. After 38 years inside we now know:

1. The European Union’s six constitutional treaties build a three-tier politburo dictatorship.
2. The EU has the laws of a police state – which are being increasingly enforced.
3. The EU’s 120,000 regulations will bring us a soviet style command economy and abject poverty.
4. Unelected EU dictators will control the nuclear weapons of former nations of Britain and France.
5. The EU’s illegal six treaties will compel us to hand over all our armed forces to the EU.
6. Our armed forces and police have been told they will swear a new oath to the EU, or be fired.
7. The EU’s 120,000 regulations will rigidly control our personal lives – more than any nation in history.
8. EU regulations now cost us £100 billion a year. (Better Regulation Commission annual report 2005)
9. When enforced, those illegal regulations will destroy most of our 4.5 million small businesses.
10. Up to 13.5 million will be unemployed after EU regulations close small businesses.
11. The 120,000 regulations will make us subject to continual arrest (SOCPA 2005).
12. There are now 3,095 “Crimes against the EU state” on the British statute book.
13. The EU’s Constitutional treaties replaced the British Constitution on 1st January 2009.
14. The independent nation of Britain was finally abolished by the Lisbon Treaty on 1st Jan 2009.
15. EU Bilderbergers control our parties: Ken Clarke, Maude, Cameron, Millibands, Mandelson, Clegg
16. The EU’s Road Pricing and then ID chips will keep the state informed of our exact position.
17. Huge taxes/fines by the EU’s Road Pricing, Congestion Charging and global warming policies.
18. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish Englfand and our 48 counties in favour of 9 EU regions.
19. The 9 EU regions will report direct to Brussels, not to Westminster, which will be defunct.
20. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish our 19,579 councillors.
21. British common law mainly replaced by EU corpus Juris by 1992. Government is now above the law.
22. Police have shot 30 innocent people dead since 1992 and have not been successfully prosecuted.
23. 1,100 deaths in police custody since 1992 and no successful prosecutions.
24. Police Shoot to Kill policy now in force; illegal under British common law, OK under EU corpus juris.
25. EU conceived in Germany from 22nd June 1940 as the EEC – speech by Hermann Goering.
26. First EEC conference Berlin University 1942, 13 nation summit Berlin 1943 run by von Ribbentrop
27. After fall of Germany, the Germans switched the EU from a Nazi to a communist basis in 1946.
28. Hitler’s Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence Department (DVD) still controls EU development.
29. Edward Heath, Geoffrey Rippon, Roy Jenkins recruited by the DVD in 1958 as saboteurs.
30. DVD has arranged finance to put pro-EU ownerships into British newspaper groups.
31. EU has been sabotaging Britain with German Frankfurt School techniques since the 1950’s.
32. The EU’s main subversive organisations in Britain are senior Freemasonry and Common Purpose
33. The EU’s Common Purpose (CP) has trained 40,000 local leaders for “the post democratic era”
34. CP controls the NHS, and is wrecking it with Frankfurt subversion techniques (eg continual change).
35. Common Purpose has 400 staff inside the BBC censoring out anti-EU news and and current affairs.
36. Common Purpose has staff in hundreds of local newspapers censoring out anti-EU news
37. Common Purpose is transferring power from councillors to the unelected council executives.
38. Common Purpose has built the EU gravy trains inside local and national government.
39. CP and Freemasonry snatch 4,500 children a year from good parents for forced adoption.
40. CP has built most of Britain’s 8,500 quangos costing us £167 billion pa (Cabinet Office 2007 figs)
41. These quangos bribe compliant, pro EU local officials and businessmen with £150,000+ salaries.
42. All our judges are now Freemasons, which is why British justice and our courts are utterly corrupt.
43. The EU is corrupt and cannot account for 95% of its expenditure (yes, ninety five % lost)
44. The EU has over 200,000 offshore bank accounts from which it pays bribes.
45. We now lose £45 billion a year trading with the EU. Outside, we had an even balance of payments.
46. EU Constitution is similar to the Soviet. And EU Commissioners similar to Soviet Politburo members.
47. The EU parliament is a sham with no power – just like the old Soviet parliament.
48. The leadership of the Conservative Party has been controlled by EU Bilderbergers since the 1960’s.
49. The Labour and Lib Dem leaderships EU controlled for 20 years – that’s why your vote doesn’t count.
50. The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 gave the EU control of our immigration, now running at 2.6 million pa.
51. Our infrastructure can’t cope with the 10 million immigrants the EU has let in since 1997.
52. 380,000 highly qualified British emigrate annually to escape from the EU and its overcrowding.
53. The EU and their Bilderbergers have moved 50,000 pro-EU people, freemasons and CP up into all positions of power over 40 years. You don’t progress in British government unless you are pro-EU.

Source: eutruth.org.uk

Britain has never been part of the EU

Britain has never been part of the EU because of Heath's outright treason when he tricked the British people into believing they were joining a market place, not giving away their sovereignty. The was gross treason.

http://freenations.net/brexit-judgement-is-fascist-law/

The Vienna Treaty Convention

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of it's implementation.

European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

2. Where there has been material change of circumstances.

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them - and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

Lord Kilmuir letter to Edward Heath

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor to Edward Heath.Explanations to the implications to Lord Kilmuir's comments are printed in red.

In answer to a letter from Edward Heath written on the 30TH November, Lord Kilmuir, the Lord
Chancellor, makes it plain that there are real problems with the constitutional limitations imposed
on government which prevent our joining the EEC. He goes on to mention some ways in which the
constitution will conflict with Heath’s plans but also indicates ways of subverting the conflict. The
comments in red, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government were
prepared to commit acts of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we
do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir and therefore Heath’s questions are
unknown. However it will take little imagination to guess what they were!


My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our
becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. 1Ihave now had an opportunity of considering
what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree
with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty,
but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general
observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European
Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears
from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that
does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that
we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional
point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind
that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty.This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our
Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced
by the convention which says:
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern
unless we have been defeated in war).
And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action insurrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal
because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The
Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not
vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three
ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the
community;Answer as above.The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those
organs of the community;The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannottransfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the
incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow
on.Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming
subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of theSovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts
not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.The Position of ParliamentIt is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of
could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force)
make
regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in
fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be
implemented:-It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to takeeffect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire
1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations
requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither
itself not its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if
Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative
proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament
passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament
of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its
sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559
Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which
would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the
appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond
the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever
experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the
House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, 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 us 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 of a very important field.There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to atotal abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an
Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and
Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.Treaty-making PowersThe proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some
extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and
O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I
should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of
Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council's
approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such
treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.
There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty
involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers
and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these
powers to some other body. 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. I do not suggest that what is involved would
necessarily carry us very far in this direction, hut it would be a most significant step
and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of
sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know
although the treaty-making power 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 lake 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.This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and aPraemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy
and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.Independence of the CourtsThere is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions
of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication
of ‘refer’- to accept that court's decision. You will remember that when a similar
proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong
objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country
would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the
independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must
emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious 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 objections to them. But these objections ought to be
brought out into the open now because, if we attempt lo 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 effect later on. Having said this, I would
emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be
given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not
for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the
scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to
make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see
exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss
would be.It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of law to the domination of a foreign courtoutside of Her Majesty’s control.

BRITAIN IS NOT PART OF THE EU

When he signed the European Communities Act (ECA72) in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU under the pretence that they’d be joining a European common trading agreement. The underlying intention was to surrender Britain’s sovereignty.
There can be no doubt that he deliberately lied to the nation. “I will only sign ECA72 with the will of the people, the will of Parliament and there will be no loss of sovereignty.” As we know the people were never consulted. Having twice lost the vote on ECA72 in Parliament Heath made the final crucial vote, a vote of confidence. Faced with bringing down the Government, the Conservatives reluctantly voted by NINE votes to pass ECA72. So much for the “overwhelming support of Parliament”.
As to the loss of sovereignty, we fortunately we have a witness in Lord Thorneycroft who was present in Heath’s private office when Lord Kilmuir’s letter was delivered. Heath had asked the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir whether the ECA72 was contrary to English Constitutional Law. The advice was clear. It would be. Heath read it and went as white as a sheet. He folded the letter, put it in his pocket and said, “No one must see this, least of all the Cabinet.” Heath went ahead anyway and signed the ECA72. It was an act of treason.
For that reason alone under English Law, the ECA72 is void and of no effect.
Heath’s was the most calculating and grievous High Treason in British history. He knowingly gave away his country. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become lawfully binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. You cannot make law by breaking the law. His then treasonousgovernment immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy.
No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are treasonous contrary to English law for acting against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation and is thus treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country for others’ political purpose.2Since 1972, not one British parliament has acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has long been known that the British people would never accept it and would object most violently were they ever to find out.
But they are finding out. Parliaments’ history of treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles,
TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements.

  No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly.
English law therefore, stands as it was prior to signing of the ECA72. Thus Britain is not and can never have been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, unlawful, null and void.

Not one has the force of law. In any case, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a signatory power may abrogate any treaty unilaterally where corruption can be demonstrated in respect of procuring the Treaty in the first place or in respect of any dimension of it's implementation. This means that the known and proven treason by Heath and his successors and the widely recognized and often reported deep corruption within the EU render every EU Treaty “signed” by Britain, invalid.
The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians in furtherance of the European Union political agenda. Britain may lawfully walk away at any time without a second thought as she is not a part of it anyway. Moreover, the supremacy of English law in Britain automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The deceit, pretence and false enforcement of Britain’s “European involvement” is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels to deceive and subjugate the people to foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose contrary to Common Law. It is WILFUL TREASON.A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people, foreign rule and influence that has no authority in Britain.English Constitutional and Common Law is beyond parliamentary reach to alter or repeal and cannot be ignored. Parts are, in any case, by contract directly between the King and his people. Thus Parliament is not a party to those arrangements and can have no input.
Importantly, this English law is immutable and in perpetuity, written specifically to forever protect the British people from despotic governance.
Even Her Majesty the Queen cannot change or ignore these laws as she is herself subject to them. She cannot surrender Britain’s sovereignty that she holds in trust from the British people, for her successors. Neither can she relinquish Britain’s independence and freedom of self determination to a foreign power. Her solemn obligation is to protect and preserve the United Kingdom for her successors, as she received it. What she cannot do, her servants in Parliament ALSO cannot do.3A succession of British parliaments has since 1972 attempted to do the very things the Queen cannot. In so doing, each has placed themselves above the Queen which is to imagine her death. Each of these acts is the most serious treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.
Thus their treason is compound in plotting and attempting to give away their country and in considering themselves above the Queen whose death they casually assume.
The Common Law imposes strict and enduring duties upon every British subject from birth.
Every British subject is duty bound in allegiance and loyalty to the nation and in the reporting and prevention of treason. These obligations are absolute and inseparable wherever one may be around the world and cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality.
They far pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “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.”Britain’s pretend EU membership is contrary to (among others) the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws, remember, are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or to disregard and just because modern day lawyers are not trained in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious offences against them have not been and are not committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, these English Constitutional and Common Laws are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away.
The treason committed by Britain’s politicians is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. The police have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to further action being taken. Under English Common Law anyone who is aware that treason is contemplated or has or is being committed but who does nothing to report or prevent it, commits the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ (any act or inaction which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason. The legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. Ignorance of the law is, of course, no defence.Lawful BritainBritain Is Not Part Of The EU 

Legality of EU treaties

 Legality of EU treaties with regard to Vienna Convention.

Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 1969 states: 'A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.'

Peremptory norm includes the removal of sovereignty and the removal of law not specifically repealed.

It is recognised that EU Treaties entail removal of National Sovereignty and abrogate National Law not specifically repealed which includes the Treason Laws. Parliament is sovereign except that it shall not diminish its own sovereignty.

As Parliament at various times has seen fit to transfer sovereignty to the EU, it is illegal under International Law and should cease forthwith including any procedures laid down by the EU for secession from the EU and withdraw unilaterally,

CROWN, POUND and DEMOCRACY

Pass to your MP
PLEASE SEND THIS TO THERESA MAY.    BL.
 
 

Speech by BOB LOMAS at "CROWN, POUND and DEMOCRACY" rally (Trafalgar Square, 21 April 2002) Bob Lomas is founder and Chairman of the MAGNA CARTA SOCIETY

Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters of the family of the United Kingdom, for if we are not a family we are not a nation. When I was a young man, I was a soldier. I did not have the opportunity to be an angry young man. Now I'm making up for it. I've joined the brigade of angry old men. No, we are enraged. It is said that old men should have a little dog to prevent them from becoming too angry. I have one. I have here a photograph. Can you see alright at the back? My friends, that is a much larger and clearer picture than Parliament showed this nation when our traitorous politicians took us into the new growing soviet in Europe. Many of us here today no doubt had ancestors at Trafalgar and Waterloo. They fought to prevent the Code Napoleon casting its dark shadow of oppression over this nation. My father fought in the Great War. He survived all the major battles, the Somme, Passchendale, Ypres and Vimey ridge. He lived to be an old man, but that dreadful struggle for democracy stayed with him until his dying day. I will not stand by, and allow treacherous politicians and cheapskate lawyers to betray the sacrifices made by my fallen comrades, my fathers fallen comrades, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathers fallen comrades. In 1953 Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in this ancient city, the capital of the nation, now, as Parliament would have us believe, a province of the EU. At the time of her Coronation the Queen entered into a contract with the people. She took a sacred oath, not to rule us, not to reign over us, but to govern us, according to our laws and customs. The sovereignty of this nation belongs to the people, and the queen, the official 'governor' of the nation and sovereign head of state, is the physical embodiment of the people's sovereignty. Any attempt to reduce, usurp or suborn, the sovereign powers of the queen, powers vested in her by the people at the time of her Coronation, is an act of treason. In 1972 Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome. According to the requirements of the Treaty of Rome, Heath did not so much sign a treaty, he signed an article of capitulation. Before he did so, Lord Kilmuir gave him strong warning that signing the treaty would lead to a surrender of national sovereignty. Heath signed regardless, and so committed an act of treason, for he sought to place the Queen in breach of her Coronation Oath. He sought to strip her of her powers as sovereign Head of State. Following that treachery, Parliament, by means of lies and deceits, forced through the European Community Act 1972, [ECA1972] an attempt to legitimise the treason. No lawful act can uphold an unlawful act, therefore the ECAct1972 must be ultra vires - unlawful. It follows that the ECAct1972 cannot merely be repealed, simply because it had no legitimacy in the first place. Following the Maastricht Treaty, forced through by John Major by some of the most despicable methods ever to disgrace the Commons, John Major boasted in the Commons that the Queen was now a mere citizen of the EU. More recently, in the trial of Steve Thoburn, charged, found guilty and made a criminal for trading in customary measures, as is his right under the protection of the constitution and the crown, Justice Morgan presiding made it clear that in 1972 parliament surrendered national sovereignty to the European Community, and that EU Law is now the supreme law in this land. Morgan was claiming that the crown had no legitimacy in that court. There can be little doubt that it was a toe in the water exercise for introducing political courts - illegal under the constitution. Major and Morgan were talking treason, for they dismissed the supremacy of the Queen as sovereign Head of State. Neither the statements of Major nor Morgan have been publicly denounced or dismissed, so we can only assume they were stating the view and position of Parliament. If this was so, it follows that in 1972 either the Queen abdicated or she was deposed, for you cannot have a sovereign Head of State of a country that is not sovereign. It also follows that as Parliament draws its legitimacy from the Crown and from 1972 on, Parliament has been without legitimacy - an elected dictatorship - and all the pageant and trappings of the state opening of Parliament has been a sham, a charade enacted to deceive the people into believing that all is as before, and that the Queen is still administering the supremacy of the Crown. Many thousands of letters and petitions have been sent to the Queen protesting at the takeover of this nation by a foreign power. The replies received state that the Queen is obliged to act on the advice of her Ministers - presumably even if that advice amounts to making her break her oath to her people, which is an act of treason, in legal terms, 'persuading the monarch to govern in a particular way'. They are attempting to persuade us that the queen is suzerain, whose job it is to rubber-stamp the dictates of foreigners. My friends, this we do not accept. Parliament has no powers other than those delegated to it on a limited basis, both in time and deference to the Monarch and the People. Parliament is no more than the estates of the realm, part of the Queen's dominion. Parliamentarians take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, just as the Queen took an oath of allegiance to us, the British people. Oaths that are designed to ensure that neither Parliament nor Crown can become a dictatorship. This excellent and long tested system was constructed to eliminate despotic kings. Now we suffer a despotic Parliament. Where formerly it was Parliament and the People versus the Crown, now it is the Crown and the People versus Parliament. Parliament must be brought to heel. We must put our weight behind the Crown and insist that Her Majesty instructs her Ministers and the Judiciary to conduct a full Judicial Review of the parliamentary procedures and doings that engaged us in the European Community. I am confident that the majority of us gathered here today are in no doubt that the Queen and the Country have been betrayed, and that treason has taken place. Under the law of misprision of treason, any person who has a suspicion that treason has taken place, is obliged by law to report that suspicion to an authority of the crown, who in turn is obliged to inform a higher authority. Failure to do so makes one complicit with that treason, should it eventually be proved. Some of us have already engaged in this process. If from what I have told here today, or from what suspicions you formerly had, you suspect that treason has taken place, report it to your police station, report it to your member of parliament, report it to a magistrate - whichever. Ladies and gentlemen I urge you to do your duty. Shout treason long and loud, until it rings out in the streets, and across the counties and throughout the land. For if you do not, by tacit consent you will be inviting the shadow of tyranny to descend on this our most cherished land.

For those who might not realise

We have told Westminster and the police for years that the whole ECA1972 was indeed illegal but the police, Hogan Howe principally, have chosen to ignore it and thereby committed misprision of High Treason.

Now is the time for Government to draw a final line in the sand of the EU and start very quickly to tear up the illegal document 'ECA1972' - thereby pre-empting any necessity for action with respect to Article 50 of the illegal Lisbon Treaty.

This will finally send a message to the country that the Treason of Heath & Co has been purged (but not, that is, those who committed and compounded the treason and are alive to suffer the consequences). 

This will also send a message to the BBC and the rest of the people wishing to continue this illegal referendum, that it is finally over and done.

Mr Ian Duncan Smith will you please take up the reins of Prime Minster very quickly and start to put into place the necessary instruments to allow this country to go forward. 

Could you please appoint Lord Lawson to the treasury and remove ALL Remain MP's from any positions of power.

Following this can you please also enforce immediately the Denizens Act that makes it illegal for first and second generation foreigners to have appointments of any power in this country.

1. We need our immigration laws changed immediately and a stop on any more immigration in the immediate interim,
2. We must stop paying any more to Brussels immediately,
3. P45s to all those in Brussels (with a warning that charges of treason may still be laid at their door)
4. Order new destroyers to patrol OUR fishing grounds with notice served to other countries that they may no more fish our seas,
5. Common Purpose to be declared an illegal organisation with immediate effect,
6. No more foreign people allowed to use our Health Service without suitable insurance documents,
7. You will need to get the Remain MPs deselected else you will never get any bills through as the Labour Party will side with them - and the SNP.

I will forward this afternoons agenda of work later.

Nick Chance

.................................................................
 
As Britain has in law never been part of the EU following Edward Heath’s 1972 most grievous act of treason in British history (treason has no legitimacy), we cannot officially leave something we are not a party to.  The referendum was totally illegal and treasonable in that it obliged the British people to commit treason by voting whether or not to bring the end of their own country.  THAT is treason of the first order.  The clap-trap about “Britain being better off” ruled by a foreign dictatorship was shear scare mongering which is set to continue until HM the Queen finally puts an end to the present parliament and the criminally minded politicians who have illegally run her and the country for some 50+ years.
 
Britain’s proper course is very simple indeed.  As from today, ignore the shouting and screaming of the EU, stop throwing our precious money at it, ignore the European “laws” we have been wilfully saddled with  -  AND WALK AWAY.
 
The EU holds no lawful position over us and can do nothing to stop us now perusing (pursuing? - Stan) our own ENGLISH lives.  

The only thing stopping us at the moment is the wilful indecisiveness and clueless obedience of those who actually conduct Britain’s business with the rest of the world as they are still intent on our destruction within the failing disaster that is the EU.
 
Rex
 
 
 

Reveal Heath's treason, making all treaties void

Letter exchange:

David Davies MP 

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 1AA

21^st July 2016

Ref Brexit

I am enclosing my book on the English Constitution into which a considerable amount of research has gone, and a CD which you may already have had and binned. However if you read the book which should take twenty minutes no more you will discover our membership of the EU is entirely contrary to the common and constitutional law of England. I would recommend you get the legal eagles busy checking the facts in my book, there is a reading list at the back you will find I am right. You may even send them to my home I own the books mentioned and hundreds more. I will keep the tea and bacon butties coming for them.

The CD contains around 220 pages of government papers from the Heath era all marked secret, confidential or restricted liberated from the public records office. They tell the story of how Edward Heath set up a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitution the major crime of sedition and at this level of sedition treason. And to hand this ancient Kingdom over to the EEC/EU the major crime of treason.

The report by Anthony Royal makes interesting reading as he openly boasts about the methods they used to commit these major crimes.

All it takes to get us out of the EU whose predecessor the EEC were complicit in this treason. Is to simply declare that Edward Heath, Norman Redaway and Anthony Royal conspired to commit treason and that Edward Heath lied to the Queen, Parliament and the people, so the 1972 EEC Act is void and every treaty signed on the back of this 72 Act is also void.

You will be naming three traitors all now dead so there will be no lengthy trials to pursue. And we are clear of the EU no article 50 no long drawn out negotiations just the application of English Law and the Vienna treaty on treaties.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                              ------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard Hogan-Howe 

Commissioner of Police

New Scotland Yard

10 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BG 21^st July 2016

Ref Islam and policy decisions

Sir

I have not yet received a reply to my letter of the 3^rd June 2016 apart from being bad manners not to reply it also fails to meet the Mets response time for replying to letters. May I remind you, you are a public servant and are required to comply with the rules laid down for your organisation? You might inform ADI Gail Granville Major Crime unit at Putney I am still waiting for her reply to my letter of the 12^th June 2016 and a major crime book number.

Now to the matter in hand I and a good many of her Majesty natural born subjects are sick to death of seeing Muslims parading and preventing her Majesty’s natural born subjects from using there right of free passage on England’s roads, as they congregate and make repeated death threats against the natural born subjects and those immigrants of other faiths or none who live and work here peacefully.

Threats to kill are I should not have to remind you, are major crime contrary to Sec 16 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries full powers of arrest.

It is my opinion that you have taken a policy decision not to arrest Muslims who make threats to kill or who impose Muslim patrols in order to enforce sharia law on the streets of England. These violent vigilante patrols constitute a threat to the Queens Peace. A peace you are on oath to preserve.

I would remind you that the comments of the three eminent Judges in Regina vs the Commissioner  of the Metrpolis ex-parte Blackburn 1968 were quite clear a policy decision not to prosecute a particular type of crime is illegal. I would recommend you take a good long look at the Judges’ comments and then do your job and apply the law of this Kingdom the way it is intended to be applied without favour, fear, malice or ill will in accordance with your oath before it becomes necessary to apply for an order of Mandamus. Which will I feel sure will be granted?

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

                                                  ------------------------------------------------------

The English Constitution Fact or Fiction?

What is this mythical thing called the English Constitution, what part does or should convention play in the constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.

There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution. What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution. But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do. Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it, Talleyrand a French Bishop and diplomat who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte said “When the English Constitution dies freedom dies” And for his entire life he was our enemy.

Constitution

So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours? Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871 said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights, I would add Habeas Corpus. These four things comprise the English Constitution. But they do not complete the constitution because Magna Carter and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do; The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed. But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King or us what the King can do. This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship, this goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back than that.

Custom and Legal Fiction.

So let us start there. The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden. Who they dumped, when they converted to Christianity. Alfred the Great on being elected King of the English looked at all the laws and customs of the old Kingdom’s which combined to make his Kingdom. What is a legal custom? A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that before time of memory was any law older than 1197 when Richard the lion heart was Crowned 400 years before he was speaking. So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament so cannot be lawfully/legally repealed. What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation for example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you. But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his. His will says it must all come to you so by law you have to have it like it or not, so the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.

Kingship and Prerogative.

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do but neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new. When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King can do. The King cannot on his own make or unmake law he does this in conjunction with Parliament. But what can the King do? The King can do anything which is legal, to do this we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the prerogative, this is arrant nonsense DESIGNED TO ALLOW GOERNMENT TO EXCEED THE PREROGATIVE POWERS OF THE KING WHICH THEY HAVE STOLEN. The King may use the prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects. However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject this is an illegal use of the prerogative and must be withdrawn. Who can use the Royal Prerogative? The prerogative like everything else the King has was given to him by our ancient forefathers. And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative; the King is refused permission by us the loyal subjects from letting anyone else use it. So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working? The office of King must still function so we the people in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself. So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal and treasonable.

To Diminish the King/Crown.

When our forefathers elected our first King it was decided by them the King must be visibly higher than his subjects, so they gave him vast tracts of land and lots of money and jewels. And they made the rule the King must live off the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates, and they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits. The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth, or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason because to do so would diminish the Crown. And that is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship. Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft it is illegal in this case it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship

The King in Parliament

Parliament as we know it was formed by King Edward I in 1297. It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King. Since 1420 the Commons has the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who look at it and purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law. When it has been passed by both houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the Kings conscience he will grant or refuse the Royal assent. If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth can overrule him or make him give his reasons.

Convention

Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things, in contravention to the will of the Commons. Conventions in this sense erodes the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.

Cognisance

Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct their business in their own way and that includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.

At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances. But since 1420 the Commons has been on a power grab in 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. In 1909 believing they could not amend they rejected the budget. Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill. On the threat of him putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure. The Lords gave way and agreed they would not reject a bill. King Edward VII refused the assent stating it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. Asquith was ordered to go to the country he was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the assent however shortly after this the King fell ill and died. King George V on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister. The power grab was complete the Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal authority.

Albert Burgess

albertburgess@hotmail.com

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org