HOME

DID YOU KNOW?

No 8

(Christopher Story of International Currency Review)

IS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN SOVEREIGN?

Under Article 17 of the collectivist Maastricht treaty , all residents of the European Union are citizens of the EU Collective.  It follows that Presidents and Monarchs are 'citizens of the

EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

as well

This provides the twisted rationale for President Herzog's vituperative dismissal of the relevance of the nation state, and for his insistence that it has outlived its usefulness, even though he continued to serve as President.

Dr Herzog's subversive remarks have special resonance for Britain, where

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

 is the

 SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUTIONAL HEAD

of the

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

She is the custodian, in her person, of the sovereignty of the British people which was passed to HER in February 1952 on the death of her father,  This was confirmed initially when the

QUEEN took the OATH of ACCESSION

and was finally solemnized at the QUEEN'S CORONATION in 1953 after HER MAJESTY had been recognized and universally accepted as the undoubted and rightful

 SOVEREIGN of the BRITISH PEOPLE

In November 2000 -after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief justice and other official office-holders and dignatories -asking:

Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?

HE RECEIVED NO ANSWER AT ALL

or else a non-committal weak, diversionary reply.

Mr Blair being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry  to the Home office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the

BLAIR GOVERNMENT

has been its Ministers' arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions.  Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point on occasion, of'

' standing the Queen up'

by failing to turn up on time., or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

[Further details to follow]

*

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy - contact the under-mentioned website]

[This is a new series of single statements from

www.worldreports.org

*

AUGUST-2008

*

WHAT IF ALL EU LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT AND APPROVED BY HER MAJESTY ARE INVALID BECAUSE AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automatically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne.  However, the Prime Minister's problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht treaty, the Queen is a 'citizen' of the European Union, Her Sovereignty has been usurped.  Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scandalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie

TRAITORS

and ought to be indicted for

TREASON.

But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a 'citizen' of the

EU COLLECTIVE

appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a 'mask' for emerging

'GREATER GERMANY'.

When, following the correspondent's letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether

Her Majesty is Sovereign

the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language:

'Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK's membership of the

EUROPEAN UNION

on the constitutional position of

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled.  It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister's view in the interpretation of the law, in this case the

Treaties of the European Communities and associated European Treaties and UK legislation.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the , as this is a matter for the appropriate courts , not Ministers.'.

It would accordingly appear unclear whether

Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign

-and by extension, whether any legislation passed by Westminster Parliament since  Britain made the mistake of joining the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

in

1972

is

VALID.

For evidently  until the matter is decided by the 'appropriate courts', the question of whether

HER MAJESTY IS SOVEREIGN

and thus able to act as

HEAD OF STATE

and hence give the

ROYAL ASSENT

to

LEGISLATION

passed by the

WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT

remains in the air.

This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted under the

COLLECTIVE TREATY

all residents of the

EUROPEAN UNION

 are its citizens; and the

QUEEN

is a resident of the

EUROPEAN UNION

THEREFORE

if

EU law

has precedence over

BRITISH LAW

the

QUEEN

 being an

EU citizen

is

NOT

SOVEREIGN.

*

It may be asked: Why does no British Government ever take steps to have this matter clarified?

There are two possible answers to this question:

(1)    If the matter were to be resolved and it were to transpire that, indeed, The Queen is not Sovereign, then all legislation to which Her Majesty has given the Royal Assent since Britain acceded to the EEC is

NULL and VOID
 

because she had no power to give the Royal Assent, Alternatively:

(2)    Successive UK Governments since the beginning of the collapse in 1970 have preferred this issue to remain unresolved because if it were to be concluded by 'the appropriate courts' that The Queen is Sovereign, then correspondingly all EU legislation in the UK

is

NULL and VOID

because it is presupposed that EU law has precedence over UK law.

which cannot be the case if The Queen is Sovereign.

By contrast, if it does transpire the

The Queen is not Sovereign, then, certainly all legislation passed since Britain joined the EEC is indeed called into question.

Either way -whether The Queen is or is not Sovereign -the logic of the above leads to the conclusion that all EU law may be invalid in the United Kingdom.

Thus the the real reason this key issue has never been clarified is that the British Government's deceitful EU 'coup d' etat by installments'  policy would be exposed as illegal if the issue were ever to be addressed in the COURTS.  Furthermore, as reveiwed on page 209, the Treaty of Rome was reportedly

NOT SIGNED

-so the basis of all EU law throughout the

EU COLLECTIVE

may be open to

LEGAL CHALLENGE

on that ground alone.

It is concluded that EU law may have no standing in the United Kingdom and that successive conniving UK Governments have been

SHIRKING THIS CENTRAL ISSUE.

In an article published in The Times of London on 27th April,1996, Karl Lamers, whio was then foreign affairs spokesman for the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag, condescended to recognise that 'British doubts are deeply rooted.

The British concern is about the destruction of the national identity and the nation state, which is seen by the British as the only legitimate expression of the popular will.   Germans, by contrast, say that there has long been a supranational reality created by our European civilisation.  Common problems spawn common interests; our vital interests are identical

Whereupon Herr Lamers delivered a further broadside in Germany's psychological warfare offensive designed to help the stupid British to abandon their love of national sovereignty, which it is the central purpose of the European Union to

COLLECTIVISE:

'The  Euro-optimists take as their starting point the objective external reality.... The Eurosceptics (in Britain) deal with the inner, subjective reality of the consciousness of the British people.  It is if you like , the forces of Logic pitied against the forces of Psycho-logic.  It must be the task of democratic politics to help narrow this gap.  Otherwise politics will cease to be effective.  A community makes sense if it can begin to solve its existential problems.

If the nation state can no longer do that by itself, its failure undermines its political legitimacy'.

In other words, Britain had no right to continue existing as a nation state, and it must be 'brought to reason' so that it comes to full acceptance of German prescriptions and intentions without further. tedious prevarication

Note that, for Herr Lamers, the Pan-German position was 'logical', whereas the perceived British tendency to 'cling' to the nation state was 'psychological'. Once again here, the truth was turned upside-down.

The essence of Germany's continuing, updated strategy to realise the Germans, has never been in doubt - not least, since the German legislature adopted several amendments to the Basic Law (constitution) on 22nd December, 1992, in order to legalise' ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.  A new Article 23 was incorporated, the previous one having been repealed by the Unification T of 31st August 1990. The revised Article known as the 'ARTICLE on EUROPEAN UNION'. contains the following:

With a view to establishing a Unite Europe, the Federal republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union, which is committed to democratic[?], rule of law, social and federative principles as well as to the principle of subsidiarity, and ensures protection of basic rights comparable in substance to that accorded to the Basic law

To this end the (German) Federation may transfer sovereign powers by law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union , as well as amendments to its statutory foundations and comparable foundations which amend or supplement the content of this Basic Law or make such amendments and supplements possible shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) and (30 of Article 79.........