John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that when I left the sitting of Parliament on Friday and passed through Parliament square and into Birdcage walk, I was detained by the police on a stop and search on the basis of the use of anti-terrorism legislation. That follows on from what happened only a few weeks ago during our campaign against the third runway. One of our campaigners, who was simply taking photographs of the properties that will be demolished if the proposed third runway goes ahead, was also detained, stopped and searched under anti-terrorism legislation. I make this point of order to draw attention to the fact that the use of that power is becoming random and affecting Members and our constituents in a way that I believe is in complete contradiction to the way in which we legislated, which was for the selective use of the powers to prevent terrorism rather than to harass MPs and the overall community. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is not immediately a matter for the Chair, but his points are firmly on record and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will want to take note of them. Mr Straw wants a written Constitution for Britain. 13.2.2008. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, Britain will have a 'written constitution' that will take precedence over anything the UK can produce. At the same time, what is the use of having a "Constitution" that is of no help to anyone or it lies dormant and is forever out of use? The Government has ignored it and so far, no one has created too much fuss. This perhaps because the people of today have never been taught about their Constitution and present politicians have only one goal and that is the one State of European Union eventually leading to World Governance. So, my goodness, wouldn’t it be great if the people of Britain had a written Constitution, the very first written constitution this Country has ever had, everything set out in one paper? Doesn’t that sound absolutely lovely and in our life time too? But then, maybe the people will start to wonder what can be behind this Government that has only ever done things that they want, that will benefit THEM, come on—they have ignored the millions of people that wanted a referendum on that treacherous Lisbon Treaty so WHY should this Government remember suddenly the people that voted for them, pay their wages. Surely it is all too good to be true? However, see clause 61 of the Treaty of Magna Carta, for the people may not accept the Lisbon Treaty anyway and it is ready and waiting to be used again. That is what Magna Carta is there for Magna Carta does not need ‘modernising’ it may well be used to save Britain from being taken over by the EU even yet. The people are fed up of voting and paying MP's that can no longer do the job of instigating our laws; just incorporating laws made by foreigners that are not in Britain's interests will not suffice any longer. One of Sir Edward Coke's greatest contributions to the law was to interpret Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but also to all subjects of the crown equally, which effectively established the law as a guarantor of rights among all subjects against even Parliament and the King. He famously asserted: "Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign. "END of Quote. This then means, that if 'put' comes to 'shove', then Claus 61 Magna Carta can be legally used by all the people, not just by 25/4 Barons. No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you "Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent schemes by proponents of Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to 'political-moral' entrenchment) with conventional sovereignty". Magna Carta of course is a Treaty between the people and the Crown and Parliament may not alter it. See also the people's Bill of Rights. To get round this however, the Government believe they have come across the one thing that would get over the obstacle that is in their way. They may well be right too. Give the people a referendum whether they want, for the very first time a Constitution written especially for them, the people of this Country. Will the people 'smell a rat'? Or, will the people jump at the chance? Because ‘today’s people have very little understanding of their own common law constitution, they may well be persuaded to accept “their” written Constitution. They have not been taught about Magna Carta etc as I was in my school days. In voting to accept a new written Constitution and the new Bill of rights who would dare to ignore the voice of the people? That is why we were never allowed a referendum on Lisbon. This is a government that is prepared to give the EU our National Security to manage, (never before in the History of this Country has this Country allowed foreigners to have anything to do with our NATIONAL Security) Our remaining territorial Seas and Oceans for the EU’s Motorway in the Sea. To make us REAL citizens of the EU not just the 'pretendy' citizens of Maastricht. etc, etc. The people, as the Government is beginning to be aware, will not allow this to happen if they can help it. I have no doubt that Mr Straw has already got a written Constitution, included in it a new Bill of Rights. I rather suspect the people WOULD be given a referendum on whether they would like to have this Country's first written Constitution. What Mr Straw will NOT tell the people is that in voting FOR IT, they may also be agreeing to getting rid of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights we already have. Or, will Magna Carta remain, doggedly, stubbornly as it was always intended to be? Magna Carta holds the key to being used on an overbearing Government in the same way it was once used to very good effect over an overbearing King. Also not explained fully by Mr Straw is that in creating a new Bill of Rights and written Constitution that the people would vote on would destroy in a ‘yes’ vote the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9, which holds the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown to which British Governments and the rest of us swear by. MP’s perhaps think they would not be violating their oath of Allegiance to the Crown or Country by ratifying the EU Constitutional Document if there is no Oath to swear to. Violation of the Oath of Allegiance is the very essence of treason. Magna Carta is a TREATY between the people and the Crown; this is why Parliament has to get the people themselves to agree to 'do away with it.' Ah yes, by stealth probably, without telling the people why. Can it be altered in any way or repealed at the moment by government? For a recent quote, I quote the late Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20th July 2000) My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.” Earl Russell replied,” My Lords, the Noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the Noble Lord will forgive me.” For those that tell me that there are only four clauses left, I have over one hundred recent quotes from Hansard where arguments have been won or lost as the case may be, from Clauses that have been allegedly repealed. I would argue that one couldn’t win arguments by using a quote that has ‘been repealed’. The Law Lords also used Article 61 not too long ago-an article allegedly that had been repealed. I believe that in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty (which binds us all) in which they will be giving away the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making Powers (and eventually war making powers-plus a great deal more 'give aways') is a violation of their solemn Oath of Allegiance they all make to their Queen and Country. Get rid of their Oath of Allegiance to the crown and conjure up one made to the State, or perhaps even direct to the European Union and they can do what they like even give away and destroy this Country forever. In ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, our Government has already committed the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers to the European union for it to use. It obviously was not in their gift to do so because only the Government used it on behalf of the Crown. Did it hope in allowing the Parliament a ‘say’s on war making powers, it too would allow the EU to make decisions on our Country going to war? Perhaps dropping the title “Royal Prerogative” before hand and then it might not seem so bad when it is eventually passed to the EU to use through or after the Treaty of Lisbon? There is a great deal more than one could imagine to the thinking behind Mr Straw's suggestion for a new Bill of Rights and a written Constitution. There is far more to it than I have written about here for I have only just scratched the surface. If there is any doubt about the importance of making the Oath of Allegiance, no elected Member of Parliament may take up their seat if they do not make the Oath of Allegiance. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason, perhaps the greatest betrayal of all. Certainly others in the past that failed to keep their Oath have walked the long walk and lost an important part of their body. XXXXXXXXXXXXX APPoint of Order
23 Mar 2009 : Column 50
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
The Right Honorable Jack straw presented the Green paper to his new Bill of Rights yesterday, which is part of his new written Constitution. I will update the article in attachment after I have read his Green paper.
My attention was also drawn to this little snippet. It seems the laws our beloved MP's make also applies to them too. (They don't like it 'up em', they don't like it.)
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000013061 StartFragment:0000000849 EndFragment:0000013044
Posts
