CIVIL & POLITICAL LIBERTY IN ENGLAND
FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU-YOU WILL NOT HAVE IT MUCH LONGER.
In any country we shall generally find a number of particular constitutional 'conventions' or 'understandings' which are distinct from the formal 'law of the constitution', but are not inextricably connected with it, and indispensable for its operations. These particular conventions constitute in each country a body of political ethics or system of morality...
THE English temper is apt to mistrust enunciations of legal and political principle, as being but sounding words and abstract propositions, which may distract attention from the real necessity of actual legal remedies and concrete political institutions. We have, or we think that we have, an unwritten constitution; and if we have left our constitution unwritten, how ( we may well inquire) can we write declarations of rights, which seem to be logically connected with the written with the written constitution? But there is something to be said, none the less in favour of declarations of rights. Even in our own country, and even if our constitution is unwritten, Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights are all declarations of rights. A declaration issued in a moment of national history, when the minds of men are stirred to the depths, may become the tradition and inspiration of succeeding generations. [Reflections on Government by Ernest Barker-1942]
Over the past eleven years New Labour has almost completed their diabolical plan to change the English to the continental model system of law and custom. We leave it up to a leader of a country which has a history of many centuries of war with England- France. It was General de Gaulle who vetoed our EEC membership in 1963 -Yes! -the ENEMY WITHIN has been trying for longer than you think to ensnare England into a foreign system which was abhorred by a Lord Chancellor of England Lord Fortescue over 500 years ago.
De Gaule stated:
" ENGLAND, IN EFFECT IS INSULAR. SHE IS MARITIME. SHE IS LINKED THROUGH HER EXCHANGES, HER MARKETS, HER SUPPLY LINES TO THE MOST DISTANT COUNTRIES. SHE PURSUES ESSENTIALLY INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND ONLY SLIGHTLY AGRICULTURAL ONES. SHE HAS, IN ALL HER DOINGS, VERY MARKED AND VERY ORIGINAL HABITS AND TRADITIONS. IN SHORT,
ENGLAND'S VERY SITUATION DIFFERS PROFOUNDLY FROM THOSE OF THE CONTINENTALS."
What de Gaulle argued
was not too
dissimilar from what Churchill, Eden and the British Conservatives had said originally in the 1950s, that the Continental Tradition and the British Tradition, both in politics and economics, are different and cannot be reconciled within the European Economic Community.
The Frenchman is content with a liberty which leaves him free to cast an equal vote with his contemporaries at a General Election and to live his life free from interference of political superiors. This is political liberty and it is good, but it does not go far enough. The highest conception of liberty is he who claims a spiritual liberty to live a life of personal independence.
The Frenchman is content to be fitted as an equal into the political system; the Englishman will have nothing to do with political systems, and surrenders his personal independence only at moments of tremendous political crisis. He hates conscription. He hates interference. The policeman is not his master, but his servant. The state is not his prison, but his doorkeeper. His life is his own, and he will live it as he chooses" How more different could we be - we are no more successful in changing our neighbours as they of us , and we should be grateful for that.
YOU CAN HAVE YOUR UNIQUE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION OR A CONTINENTAL SYSTEM REJECTED BY A LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND OVER 500 YEARS AGO
YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH!
Our greatest war leader Winston Churchill after the Second World War worked for a Council of Europe in order that the nations of Europe would work together to maintain PEACE
“WE ARE WITH EUROPE
BUT NOT OF IT
WE ARE LINKED
BUT NOT COMBINED
BUT NOT ABSORBED”
Sir Winston Churchill
[We have 702 bulletins which refer to Winston Churchill.]
[We have checked our search engine on our website and there are 234 bulletins referring to MAGNA CARTA.]
Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution
Our 17th Century Constitutional Safeguard against Tyranny
‘’The Bill of Rights whether regarded historically is the end of a Constitutional Epoch, or for what it is in itself merely, is the most interesting document of English history next to Magna Carta….
Yet of all the questions as Fundamental issues the Bill of Rights says nothing…. Upon the [former] we have really depended to secure Liberty, and not upon declarations of natural right.
It is not too much to say that Anglo-Saxon Liberty has been created and made secure because the Anglo-Saxon mind has instinctively felt that the affirmation of abstract rights, however emphatic and solemn, protects nothing, but that the end was to be reached as a practical reality by’’ providing remedies for the enforcement of particular Rights or for averting definite wrongs’’.
This is what the Bill of Rights does. It does not state the Fundamental issues of the seventeenth century, but by enumerating and declaring illegal the specific acts by which James II has tried to set up an autocratic royal power [as Tony Blair, has done today].
It condemned and made impossible for the future everything that any one of the Stuarts [James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II] had attempted. In doing so it did what had been omitted [at the Restoration of Charles II in 1660]; it gathered the results of the Revolution into Constitutional form embodied in a formal document and made binding upon future kings [Blair I]. Considering that most of the Law stated in Magna Carta
has become obsolete [but not its Spirit], not applicable to modern conditions, while of the provisions of the Bill of Rights could be of instant application to a attempt of the Executive to recover power, the Bill of Rights is most nearly of the nature of a written Constitution of anything in English history.
It is not a written Constitution. It does not constitute a government and define its powers. It could be repealed or abrogated by an ordinary Act of Parliament. And yet it does put into written form a series of Constitutional Laws, which are Fundamental to the Anglo-Saxon system of Government.
They are probably regarded in the popular mind as so Fundamental that if Parliament should ever be tempted to exercise its power to repeal them there would be many who would be inclined to say it had no right to do so. [Written in 1921- George Burton Adams]
IT should be remembered also that the Bill of Rights, considered as a Constitutional enactment, affirmed in more specific language than any earlier document the underlying fact of English Constitutional development that the king [Blair I] has no Right to violate the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. To be sure the Bill does not say this in set terms, but by unavoidable inference.
In the preamble, after enumerating the arbitrary acts of James, it continues:
‘’ All which are contrary to the knowne laws and statutes, and freedome of the realme’’. And in the body of the Bill the same acts are declared’’illegal’’.
The Bill is also as clearly a Contract between the king [Blair I] and the Nation as the Charters of Henry I and John- were between the king and the barons, though there was in the 17th century no reminiscence of a feudal Contract.
IT was made evident in the Bill, though not expressly affirmed, that it is in consequence of their recognition of the illegality of James’s acts that William and Mary are accepted as reigning sovereigns. In this respect the Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights mark the culmination of English Constitutional development.
The Foundations, upon which the Constitution rests, the Supremacy of the Law, the Sovereignty of the Nation, are never again called in question. [Except during the reign of Blair I.]
The Bill of Rights was severely practical, so was the Revolution of which it was the result. It was emphatically a Revolution by public opinion, without bloodshed, even without conflict or public convulsion. [Which is what many of us hope will happen in our time.]
Not merely, was it carried through quietly, but great pains were taken that every step in it should be legal…
But it was a Revolution fully justified, as a Revolution must be if it at all, by the higher Right of the Common Decision of the Nation who spoke through it. Also in no other Revolution is another characteristic common to Anglo-Saxon Revolutions seen so clearly as in this.
Its object was not to throw the Nation out of the road which it had been following in the past and set it into a new track [ As we have all experienced since the European Communities Act of 1972 .] Its purpose was only to remove obstacles from the way, that the political progress of the People might go on naturally in the same path which for centuries [the English Nation ] had been following. And this is what it did in effect.’’
As outlined above our Nation has by the Treachery of many of its Politicians since 1972 been diverted from its True Path of Constitutional development and as recent events have shown would if the People do not ‘’Wake-up’’ at this dangerous juncture in our Island history our True Constitution will be replaced by an Undemocratic, Corrupt and Despotic Police State by the name of the European Union.
By the Spirit and the expressed Law of the Bill of Rights – All Ministers of the Crown who since 1972 have signed any document or gave their agreement to the same are by the terms of our Constitution a Traitor to their Country. Some who now can see the folly [to put it mildly ] of their actions have to their credit have now affirmed their Faith and Loyalty to their Country. We hope many others will at this crucial time in our History take up the Banner of Freedom to save our Unique Constitution.
God Save Our Queen
And Long May She Reign.
[ The above bulletin was one of the first selection of bulletins placed on our website in DECEMBER -2003]