We are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU

From this report it seems that the Irish, Patrick O'Flynn and the Welsh, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard think we should leave the EU. It would seem they have no understanding of our Constitution which is perhaps understandable, but presumably Roger Bootle is English and he clearly has no understanding of it either.

What they all fail to grasp is that we are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU simply because constitutional constraint forbids the surrender of our national sovereignty and to act in contravention of constitutional constraint is Treason. A referendum on whether or not we should leave would be inviting the people to act with complicity in an act of treason against themselves.

It is simply amazing just how ignorant and naive people of the media are. See below: "In fact, we joined the EU willingly, but with our eyes shut," Just who is Mr Bootle referring to as "we"? If he is referring to the British people on what does he base his statement? 'We' were never asked or consulted because the government knew full well what the answer would have been.

The treacherous Conservatives took us into the then EEC, (the Europaisch Wirtschafts Gemeinshaft) on a 'might is right' basis and lied to the people in Parliament (perjury) to cover the Treason and get the unlawful and consequently ultra viros ECA 1972 passed.

" It is one thing to give up sovereignty to a body which is honest, efficient and prosperous;" No mention or recognition you notice that surrendering our sovereignty was an act of Treason, or that by so doing it ended the monarchy as there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is not sovereign. Or that it surrendered the supremacy of the Crown that is supreme or it is but nothing and as Parliament drew its legitimacy from the Crown it ended the legitimacy of Parliament rendering it an unlawful assembly.

Perhaps due to ancestry and disposition Mr Bootle only sees the situation from the standpoint of economics and no one can deny the importance of that aspect, but the self autonomy of the nation relies not on economics and politics but on the laws which protect and sustain national sovereignty, laws which were broken and totally ignored by acts of treason which were not only sanctioned by the person of the monarch whom the people had elected in 1953 to ensure their protection but who subsequently honoured the traitors. In short, national sovereignty means complete self autonomy, to surrender that sovereignty in an act of national capitulation is to surrender the national purse which is not in the gift of any government without the specific and express permission of the people. Never the less, this is what the Queen and her Conservative government did in 1972 and that was plain theft.

We do not need and according to law may not have a referendum to further compound the existing Treason. All that is needed is an honest body to recognise and uphold our laws and lawful sovereignty. It is here that our greatest difficulty lies, for this is a duty entrusted to the Monarch but clearly that trust has been broken. There can be no doubt that our system of constitutional monarchy has totally failed. If we are to survive as a nation state we must now either dismiss the Monarch and elect another, or find a different system which in view of recent events is long overdue.

Changing our system might not be as radical or difficult as it might initially seem. In principle this nation has always been a republic, a republic being a country in which the people hold the supreme power over their governors. This principle was clearly asserted in the Magna Carta and again in the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights 1688/9 in which the concept of the monarch's rule by divine right was ended once and for all and the role of the monarch established as that of official Governor of the nation (ref. Coronation Oath Act 1688) and to whom the government would be subordinate by oath. In effect the monarch became what is now known as a president. In order to keep usurpers from muscling in on the office they retained the practice of the nations leader having the role for life and the eligibility of that role being restricted to one family.

All that is fine but it depends very much on personal integrity and sense of honour. In those times all people were religious and were more God fearing than they are today and sacred oaths were more respected. This has changed with social evolution and therefore such concepts cannot be relied upon. It is essential therefore that other means must now be devised to ensure the integrity of those in whom we place our trust and better means introduced to remove from office any who fail in their statutory and lawful obligations of office; just as did our ancestors the Celts many centuries ago. As it happens no one would have to be charged with the removal of the Queen as she abdicated her office when she was a willing party to the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown. It should be well remembered that this nation is not the Monarch, nor its government or parliament, it is the British people and their historic common law constitution, as it has so been down through the many centuries regardless of monarchs, dictators and pretenders.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.