| |
HE ARGUED THAT:
By its nature, the duty of allegiance is in law "unalienable and perpetual". This language, from Foster`s Crown Cases (1743-1761), was quoted with approval at the trial of Sir Roger Casement in 1917. Casement had been arrested near Tralee, County Kerry, in1916, having been landed from a German U-boat to foment Irish defection. Allegiance was similarly defined at the capital trial of the supercilious Nazi wartime broadcaster, William ' Lord Haw-Haw' Joyce (1906-1946)
For the purposes of allegiance, foreign states are deemed either to be "in actual hostility", as in the case of Argentina in 1982,or "in amity", as in the case at present of the other European Union states. However, the condition of hostility or amity in no way disposes of the essential exclusiveness of perpetual and unalienable allegiance. No man can serve two sovereigns. When, therefore the late Sir John Fiennes (1911-1996) cunningly drafted the European Communities Bill, in 1972, and when on 17 October 1972, his unamended Bill became an Act subordinating British law to European law, there was wrought nothing less than the greatest constitutional revolution in Parliament's seven and a half centuries of existence. It was furthermore done without even a schedule of consequential repeals.
The politicians of the day, many of them unwittingly, voted to launch the nation on a path of "ever closer[ European] union" which could only lead to the United Kingdom becoming a subordinate offshore province of the United States of
Europe. Those who engineered Britain's adherence to the
Treaties of Rome and of Maastricht, probably never even had Section 3 of thee Treason Felony Act 1848 drawn to their attention. In it , condemnation is incurred:
"If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine,
invent, devise or intend to deprive or dispose our most gracious Lady the Queen. . . from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom. . ."
Indicted and convicted offenders against this unrepealed law are subject to
imprisonment" for the term of his or her natural life". Yet not a finger was lifted even when, on 7 February 1992, two Privy Counsellors, Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude, signed the Maastricht Treaty which , at a stroke, brought our Monarch under suzerainty of the European Union.
The Queen was thereby rendered subject to past and future judgments of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal and which was thereby confirmed in authority over her Courts in which she was previously arraignable.
Article 8 of the Treaty of Maastricht which imposed all-embracing compulsory European citizenship on the Queen and all her United Kingdom subjects, without their express consent, did so " subject to the duties imposed thereby".
These duties are undefined and are thus both unknown and unknowable. One of them is however perhaps discernable since the Maastricht Treaty left unamended Article 192 of the Treaty of Rome. This reads:
"Decisions of the Council or of the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than states shall be enforceable."
Since "pecuniary obligations" clearly includes taxation, and "perhaps other than states" must include the new recipients of compulsory European citizenship, we have here the legal authorization of a reserve power to levy new taxation from Brussels on each and every citizen of the 15 EU countries.
Of al the magical and mysterious processes involved in Britain's political integration with Europe, initiated by Macmillan and engineered by Heath from 31 July 1961 to17 October 1972, none is more remarkable than the absence of a single measure repealing any part of any of the four great Constitutional Statutes - Magna Carta of Edward 1, the Petition of Right(1627), the Bill of Rights (1688 ) and the Act of Settlement (1700). Perhaps Sir John Fiennes relied upon the doctrine of implied repeal, but certainly the electorate would have regarded express repeal as offending against the principle that nothing but their own demerit can deprive natural born subjects of their peculiar privileges, called their birthright, as enshrined in these hitherto durable constitutional bulwarks.
In Vauxhall Estates v. Liverpool Corporation 1932, it was established in law that "no Parliament may bind its successors" However, Article Q of the timeless Maastricht Treaty said that the Treaty "is concluded for an unlimited period" and it conveyed no right or mechanism for secession. It is nonetheless arguable that what one Parliament has done , that same or some succeeding Parliament can undo. In Blackburn v.Attorney General 1983, Lord Justice Megarry, in his
judgment declared:
"As a matter of law, the Courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence."
From the European Court of Luxembourg in 1972, the very year in which Parliament, at least temporarily, voted away its sovereignty in such large measure, came an unappealable
judgment on the Treaty of Rome:
"The treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law whatever their nature can be involved."
It was in reference to this Court that Sir Patrick Neill QC, former Warden of All
Soul's College, Oxford, coined the maxim; " A court with a mission is a menace; a supreme Court with a mission is a tyranny." The phrase was incorporated into the recent Euro-sceptic speech by the Home Secretary. (1996)
Those who see the erosion of British self -government (in defence of the 1,250,000 Britons died in the first half of this century) as emanating from the single Oxford college of Balliol, will be dubbed ' conspiracy theorists'. But the precise legal definition of a conspiracy is that it is an agreement between two or more people, unrelated in marriage, to behave in a manner that will automatically constitute an offence by at least one of them, though mens rea (guilty mind) is required by at least two co-conspirators. There is nothing theoretical about the way in which the Privy Counsellor's oath, which enjoined two Balliol educated Prime Ministers, Macmillan and Heath. And the first British President of the European Commission in Brussels (Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, also a Balliol man!):
"To bear faith bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign . . . persons . . . or states."
has been breached by these men.
What is further demoralizing is that no less than six subsequent Privy Counsellor's, following the precedent of Lord Jenkins in 1975, have each made a solemn declaration before the Luxembourg Court as European Commissioners:
"To perform my duties in complete independence in the general interest of the communities; in carrying out my duties".
This conflict of solemn undertaking can only mildly be described as duplicitous.
Unconstitutionality in the headlong dash to create the new European
Super state is hardly confined to Britain. The Dutch draftsmen of the Maastricht Treaty included a stipulation in Article R that each and every country must ratify it "according
to its own constitution requirements". Having got it ` wrong' the first time,
Denmark's second referendum raised several studiously unanswered constitutional questions . No case was , however, more stark than the case of Germany herself. She has a unique Federal Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, with nine judges sitting in Karksruhe to guard their Constitution.
The creation of the European Union and Britain's continued self-governance was dependent on the verdict of this Court for , on 11 October 1993 ,
Germany's instrument of ratification was still undeposited in Rome. Without this
twelfth and last document (the other 11 EU countries having ratified the Maastricht Treaty) the EU could not come into being. It transpired however that the terms approved by this supreme German national Court to permit ratification, were miles wide of the terms of the Treaty already signed by the German Government and the eleven other nations.
For instance, the Court declared:
"Article F does not empower the (European) Union to procure the financial means or other means it deems necessary to
fulfill its purposes."
Yet that is precisely what Article F does say in the following words:
" The Union shall provide itself with the resources necessary to attain its objectives and carry out its policies."
Following a question in the House of Lords, Baroness Chalker, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, confirmed that indeed the European Union "can obtain financial resources to attain the
Union's objectives."
In another area the Karksruhe Court calmly took for Germany an unnegotiated opt-out from the European Monetary Union (EMU) - something for which both Denmark and the United Kingdom had to negotiate by special protocol prior to signing. Both the Governors of the Bank of England and the Danish Central Bank have confirmed that there was and is no opt-out provision for Germany in the Treaty. The fact that the terms and conditions of the Maastricht Treaty, as approved by their Constitutional Court, simply do not exist. Hence
Germany's rapid ratification was in clear breach of Article R of the Treaty itself. Since its ratification was invalid, the Maastricht Treaty itself has no proper legal standing.
Though earlier this year (1996) our Foreign Office made a legal assessment of the Treaty, it has not publicly disclosed the obvious and only conclusion. Perhaps we are waiting either until the going gets rougher or some
wealthily corporation litigates to prove that some swingeing Brussels penalty is in fact unenforceable.
No sovereign state can survive without the concepts of allegiance and of breaches of allegiance being treasonable.
Can a European Super state survive without such internal defences? The answer must assuredly be that where solidarity is more, rather than less, fragile and tenuous, the as yet unfamiliar concept of Euro-treason will eventually be vigorously advanced. There does not appear to be any ready instrument for enforcement at the moment (1996) it is not however hard to predict that the draconian powers of the Luxembourg Court will soon bring the concept of Euro-treason into focus. We are told that the Europol is intended for apprehending cross-border criminals within the Union. But the beef crisis, the United Kingdom was about to acquiesce
in its creation. Perhaps a fortuitous blow for freedom has been struck and magazine articles such as this will be safe from a Europol for a little longer.
Bully for beef!
From The Freedom Association
www.tfa.net
|
|