Albert Burgess argues that ceding sovereignty to the EU (or any foreign power) is ultra vires - beyond the legal capacity of the Monarch or her ministers - without the agreement of the "estates of England" as a whole. I'd welcome legal comment, for I can't see how his reasoning is faulty.
________________________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat
it,” said George Santayana, and he was right.
Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England is first and foremost
Queen of England. All her other titles, prerogatives, superiorities and supremacies
stem from this one fact. Yet of all her titles only that of Queen of Scots is
by dint of arms and only then because the Scots had a habit of raiding over the
border into England. That was until King Edward III captured the Scots King
David and released him to rule Scotland as a vassal King to Edward; he allowed
David to keep Scots law but imposed the 1351 Treason Act on Scotland. Every
other title Queen Elizabeth holds was obtained by trade.
It is with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England that we
are dealing with the Treason at Maastricht.
The Act of Supremacy 1559 put on a formal basis the one true
and certain fact that the Kings of England are the supreme governors of
England, and a King of England takes second place to no other crowned head on
the planet. Not even the Pope, God’s representative on earth is over the King
of England. English Kings rule England as God’s Lieutenant and according to God’s
laws, and answer directly to God and the people of England.
Each and every English man woman and child has a duty of
loyalty to the King of England; every person who comes to England as an
immigrant, to trade or simply on holiday comes under the protection of the
Queen’s Law. So a Frenchman who comes here to sell wine has a duty of loyalty
to the Queen, whereas a Frenchman who comes here as a belligerent soldier does
not. In return the Queen, who is the
fount of all law, gives the people the protection of her law.
The Treaty of Maastricht purports to make not only England's Queen
but each and every one of us citizens of a foreign power! This is a
constitutional impossibility.
We were not asked if we wanted to surrender our Queen or
ourselves to the dominion of a foreign power, and had we been asked the answer
would have been a resounding “OVER MY DEAD BODY!” - as so many of our
forefathers have proved with their dead bodies lying on many a stricken field.
So who gave John Major the prime minister the authority to
give Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude the authority to sell us all into slavery
to the European Union? The answer is no one. The rule is simple: no authority
to govern this Kingdom can be disposed of unless we have been defeated in war, and
the first, last and only war we have lost was in 1066 when King Harold died at
the Battle of Hastings.
I look on Parliament as the housewife of the nation: I go to
work and every week I hand my pay packet over to my wife, who pays all the
bills, buys food and clothes and puts a bit away to cover emergencies. But she
sure as hell does not have the right to give the house away whilst I am at
work. Parliament takes a part of our wages in tax to pay for the day to day
running of the Kingdom, to see we have a transport system that works, an
efficient NHS and a well-equipped and -trained armed forces so they can defend
the Kingdom against all comers. But they
sure as hell do not have our permission to give us away and that is exactly
what the Maastricht Treaty does.
So when did this refusal to accept foreign interference
start? It began with Alfred King of the English, when he inherited the Crown
and was elected King in 877. Alfred had a man he wanted to appoint as
Archbishop; the Pope thought otherwise, and sent his own man. Alfred sent him
back saying he had his own man; the Pope sent his man back to tell Alfred that
he, the Pope, appointed every King in the world, and if Alfred did not accept
his man he would appoint a new King to Alfred's Kingdom. Alfred returned the
Pope’s man saying, he was elected King by the English and would only ever do
what was in their best interests, he had appointed the best man for the job and
that is how it would stay. Several of our Kings up until King John also told
the Pope to get lost. In 1213 King John, a bad King, in an effort to save his
life surrendered England to Pope Innocent III and agreed to rent it back for
1000 Marks a year (700 for England, 300 for Ireland). In 1215 John was forced
to sign Magna Carta which was a simple restatement of the laws of Alfred; after
his death in 1216, his son Henry III wrote and told the Pope he, Henry, was
answerable directly to God and not the Pope.
In 1366 the then Pope Urban V wrote to King Edward III to
demand payment of the 1000 Marks a year for every year since Henry III had
refused to pay it. Edward knew nothing about this so he sought advice from the
Bishops and Barons; they discussed the matter with the Commons, and the
following day first the Bishops then the Barons and finally the Commons told
King Edward England did not belong to King John: it was not his to give away,
John only held England in trust for those who followed on. John had broken the
law and his action did not count, Edward was not a vassal King to the Pope, and
the monies were not to be paid. The Bishops, Barons and Commons meeting without
the King constitute the estates of England, the highest law-giving body in the
land, even above the King in Parliament. This major constitutional ruling only
confirmed the position taken by King Alfred. The last time the Estates met was
at Runnymede when John was forced by the
estates to reissue English law.
Henry VIII we know finally split with Rome completely. Queen Elizabeth I took on
and beat the most powerful Catholic country in the world when her navy defeated
the Spanish Armada, which sailed with the Pope’s blessing to defeat this “heretic”
Queen - a heretic because she would not do the Pope’s bidding.
So when John Major sent Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to
negotiate making Her Majesty and us citizens of Europe
he was going directly against the ruling given by the estates of England from
1366, and previously in 1215 at Runnymede. Ah,
you may say, that's a very old law which does not apply in this modern age. But
- and it’s a very big but - two things make that opinion just plain wrong.
The first is the 1366 ruling: it was not a law, it was and
is a constitutional statement made by the most powerful body in England, of the
most profound kind which lies at the very heart of what it is to be English;
this is doubly important because King Edward III was the first of our Norman
French Kings to think of himself as purely English.
The second point is that there is no principle of
obsolescence of English law. If the law does not work it is formally repealed;
as long as it works, it remains the law of England. So John Major was going
against everything which being English means, but he did more than that: he
made Her Majesty give the assent to what was and is a treasonable document, a
document English constitutional law refuses her permission to sign. A document
which every honest English man, woman and child will die before accepting.
Why would Her Majesty agree to such an infamous document? It
is my belief, backed up by considerable research, that Her Majesty has been
convinced by government that she has no authority, which instead lies entirely with
government ministers, and that she must obey her Ministers. It is to deal with these
evil and wicked councillors that we need to use the good English Law.
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
