Britannia Radio

Where is the Royal Prerogative now? June 2009.

There was a time many years ago now, the occupation of every Office, and the very existence of Parliament itself, terminated with the death of the King. Obviously a great inconvenience arose from the sudden suspension of all the legislative and executive functionaries, and therefore a bill was brought in to prevent the effect with respect to the Parliament. (Information from HC debates 4^th March 1824)

A Bill was brought in by Mr Ponsonby, “The Civil Offices Continuance Bill” in 1817 not though as stated by Lord Lascelles for the continuance of Parliament for a certain period in case of the demise of the crown but intended solely to relieve persons presently holding offices in the army and navy, individuals filling situations such as justices of the peace, deputy lieutenants and so forth, from the necessity of taking out new appointments, and, in consequence, paying very heavy fees on the demise of the Crown. (Taken from Civil Offices Continuance Bill 13^th May 1817). In the modern day, many of us remember the announcement, “The King is dead, Long live the Queen” on the death of the much loved King George VI. In trying to trace when the power of the Crown was diminished it seems that it was well before those dates above that the Governments of the day used the Royal Prerogative rather than the personage of the wearer of the Royal Crown, and I have traced it back to at least the “Glorious Revolution” which brought into being the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.

This paragraph is from remarks made by Tony Benn, Monday 16^th Oct on Radio 4 when he was speaking on further integration into the EU. “The power to go to war is a Crown power and in the recent wars in Kosovo and the Gulf there was no vote legitimising the military conflict that we entered. The power to sign Treaties, the most important power now from a practicable point of view is the power to make laws in the European Council of Ministers, they automatically and without further debate repeal any laws passed by Parliament without any consultation in the House of Commons. And whereas the powers of legislating by Prerogative was stripped from Charles 1^st and never restored after the glorious revolution, it has been returned now, but returned to the person of the Prime Minister using the powers of the Crown, and Parliament is now a spectator of its fate and not a participant in the real decisions that matter”.

Governments even in “today’s” world, have to look to our Constitution. In explanation, I personally describe a “Constitution” as the foundations of a great house. We can add to the house, we can add to the foundations, but remove any of the existing foundations upon which the original house was built and the whole house will be at risk of being demolished. We are though, living through the quite deliberate destruction of our Constitution that has stood the test of time, not perhaps used as often as it should have been because just “knowing it was there” seemed to be enough, yet once envied throughout the world and copied by some Countries.

Before I travel further on, for those that say we do not have a Constitution, I would like them to remember that many died fighting to keep our own Constitution and rights embedded in Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. Those people that sacrificed their lives fought so that no foreign Constitution would be imposed upon them. Yes I am aware that there was a tyrant heading that war from Germany, but who knows who may become the next President of the new European Union, friend or foe and one we cannot vote out. People are usually nice and kind when they want something and he or she will remain to serve out their term of Office. We look at what is happening in Iran at this moment in time, and wonder will it ever happen here?

Recently we have been GIVEN so many rights we almost tumble over them. The European Convention on Human Rights, where we even find the ‘wrong doer’ has rights too, and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, but strangely we feel oppressed, vulnerable, are spied on and ill at ease more than we have ever felt before, even through a full scale war we felt safer than we –we that were there then-do now.

This is from HC Deb 16^th Oct 1952. “The law of our Constitution provides that the treaty-making power shall rest with the Prerogative; it shall be exercised by the Executive. But the treaty-making power is a power which cannot affect the rights of the ordinary, individual citizen.

No contract or treaty made by the Government of this country with another country can affect the ordinary rights of an English citizen, can affect his contracts, or can affect his freedom. For the rights of the individual to be taken away from him requires the consent of Parliament in legislation passed for that purpose”. I cannot find any separate, deliberate reference that has quite deliberately set out to remove the people’s “Rights”, YET. All our rights under our Constitution are listed for removal in the Civil Contingences Act which is only meant for temporary specific cases, certainly not permanently. (allegedly!)

Not long after that terrible second world war that so many went through, it seems to me that those Countries that lost that war, had to come up with another different way to take over and rule those Countries that they wanted to dominate. We know for a certain fact that when Hitler thought he would win that war in 1942, Hitler had already made a start of how he would rule his new Europe for he started on his European Economic Community with Chapters (Lectures) written by such as Walter Funk, Dr Horst Jecht, etc.

While this Country was still struggling trying to recover from World War II, others on the continent were planning, debating and drawing up plans and ratifying a new European Treaty. The first new EU Treaty was signed in 1951, not all that long after that war, and not too long after that, debates (some heated) started in our Parliament regarding whether to join the then European Economic Community. I have many printed pages from those debates in Hansard from the 1960’s and our MP’s knew exactly what joining the Community would do to this Country yet they still eagerly went ahead, and yes, they, like today’s politicians, ignored the people and made use of the Royal Prerogative for their own ends. For those that say there are only four Clauses left in Magna Carta, I have over a hundred quotes from Hansard where clauses that allegedly were not applicable were used to enforce or win an argument, and I would not have thought one could win an argument with some thing that allegedly does not exist.

I place many points in this long Article in the hope that should a legal challenge be brought before the Courts, points here may be of help. I quote Peter Shore from Hansard, 20^th January 1972, just days before the signature was to be placed on the Treaty of Rome. Peter Shore, a true sincere gentleman that I once had the privilege of meeting. These are just snippets from his very long speech.

“This is a treaty which carries the most formidable and far-reaching obligations. It is a treaty—the first in our history—which would deprive the British Parliament and people of democratic rights which they have exercised for many centuries. I can think of no treaty, to cite only one characteristic of the Rome Treaty, in which the British Parliament agree that the power to tax the British people should be handed over to another group, or countries, or people outside this country, and that they should have the right in perpetuity to levy taxes upon us and decide how the revenues of those taxes should be spent”.

Actually, (my comment) one EU tax was the change from Purchase Tax to the new VAT, and although I didn’t know it then, that change was part of our involvement in the EC. I understand that part of that VAT, 4%, went to the European Community. Our Country could raise VAT, and we remember last year, VAT was reduced from 17½% to 15% but we could not, according to the “protected” rules –allegedly-reduce it further for obviously any reduction in the whole would reduce the EU’s ‘take’ of our VAT.

The response by the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Geoffrey Rippon), “The first principle is that in the United Kingdom the treaty-making power resides in the Crown, that is in Her Majesty the Queen, acting on the advice of her Ministers. As the leading work of authority, Lord McNair's "Law of Treaties", published in 1961, puts it: Internationally the Crown is omni-competent in the matter of treaties, and we are aware of no constitutional or other limitation upon the power of the Crown to conclude on behalf of the United Kingdom an internationally valid treaty. That, then, is the basic rule. The conclusion of treaties is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the conduct of foreign affairs”.

Mr Arthur Lewis:- “You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is customary to lay documents on the Table. We have heard from the Minister, and we know for a fact that no member of the Government has ever seen the treaty, let alone laid it on the Table. Is it in order for us to debate a non-existent document which no one has seen? I tried to get it from the Library but they had not got a copy although they had all the orders which derive from the E.E.C. Here we are being asked to agree to the signing of a non-existent treaty”.

This disgusting state of affairs is how this Country’s politicians decided the fate of approximately 65 million people, not just for a short while but for all future generations to come unless we can get out of the European Union before Lisbon becomes active. Lisbon is not the end because we already know (and fear?) the proposed Stockholm Programme.

Mr Eric Deakins (Walthamstow; West) “It is a treaty which we are supposed to be signing for ever and ever. That in itself is an exceptional circumstance. We have a constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor. Are there not here the seeds of a potential constitutional conflict between the needs of a future Parliament in the interests of the British people as it might interpret them and the fact that a previous Government have committed the country in perpetuity by signing a treaty which has no time limit? We need clarification of this fundamental point before the treaty is signed”.

Mr Deakins:-“We as Her Majesty's Government will follow the British constitutional procedure of acting under the Royal Prerogative to sign the Treaty of Accession on Saturday, 22nd January. When the Prime Minister goes to Brussels on Saturday he will be signing a treaty on behalf of the Government under the Royal Prerogative only. He will not be signing on behalf of this House, nor will he be signing on behalf of the British people. Whatever the Royal Prerogative may say, nobody except Parliament can commit the British people. As long as we remain a democracy—and there is some doubt as to the future with our loss of sovereignty under the Treaty of Accession”. (There was apparently shouts of “No” and Boo’s at that.)

Mr Peart:-“It is a fundamental rule of our constitution that no Government must bind their successors in relation to our internal sovereignty. Although this important issue has been raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on previous occasions, it has not been adequately discussed, and it was referred to today only in passing. The sovereignty of Parliament does not belong to those who are at any given time its members. They hold it in trust for the people and they cannot give it up without the consent of the people”. (But they did and have even done so now, although many must wonder what good is a Government that cannot govern, still at a full compliment, full pay and vast expenses so recently “taken advantage of”, while ordinary people are losing their jobs and sadly their lovely homes).

The Solicitor General:- “Throughout, the treaty making power resides in the Crown, in Her Majesty the Queen acting upon the advice of her Ministers. It is by virtue of the Royal Prerogative in the conduct of foreign affairs that the Government initiate, sign and ratify international agreements. As a matter of constitutional law, no parliamentary authority is necessary before the Crown may exercise those powers. The other principle is equally important. Those prerogative powers, the treaty-making powers, do not enable the Crown to alter the law within the United Kingdom so as to implement the treaty”. End of snippets. That paragraph is perhaps the most important because it highlights the fact that the Crown’s own Royal Prerogative does not allow the British Crown to alter the law or Constitution within its own Kingdom, yet here we have a Government whose sworn allegiance is to that very same Crown, transferring that same Royal Prerogative to foreigners in a Parliament in a foreign Country strictly against the Crown’s Coronation Oath.

When Governments sign and ratify Treaties, they are signing for all the people, yet they do not bother to ask, or even if they know already that the people are against further Treaties, they still obey what THEIR leader, or political party want at that moment in time and they continue to ignore the people they are supposed to represent. Once a treaty is ratified, no one side can alter anything. If it is a Treaty with more than one Country involved, no one Country may alter any of it.

Never once have the people had a ‘say’ on these very constitutional and sovereign issues. In the 1975 Referendum the people were told the lie (an admitted lie recorded on television years later) that there would be no loss of essential sovereignty before they voted whether to remain in the then European Community. Many may not have known THEN that it was a lie, but they do now for “sovereignty” (authority) over many areas no longer rests in our British Parliament or Government.

We already know that EU Treaties, Laws, Directives and Regulations deprive the people of their freedom they once enjoyed under their own Constitution. Even their own Politicians have to obey the same orders emanating from the European Union. All brought about by the Executive originally using the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown. Even PM Brown’s introduction this week of the new Broadband Internet for all, stems from the European Union, although he neglected to say that.

I want to make clear at this point that, “as far as the EU is concerned, it has treaty-making power in the fields covered by Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty. Art (24 of the Treaty-see paragraph below) This reinforces the argument that implicitly the EU has legal personality, even in the absence of an express provision to that effect”. This should never have been allowed and it is indeed against the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Article 24 of the EU Treaty: "When it is necessary to conclude an agreement with one or more States or international organisations in implementation of this Title, the Council, acting unanimously, may authorise the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that effect. Such agreements shall be concluded by the Council acting unanimously on a recommendation from the Presidency. No agreement shall be binding on a Member State whose representative in the Council states that is has to comply with the requirements of its own constitutional procedure; the other members of the Council may agree that the agreement shall apply provisionally to them. The provisions of this Article shall also apply to matters falling under Title VI”. Taken from an article by Jean-Claude Piris.

Proof that this has not only deprived the people of their RIGHTS, it has also deprived the people’s representatives in Parliament to have their say on Treaties. Proof that an EU Treaty was completed and set in place without any knowledge or debate on this, in the UK Parliament. Recorded in Hansard Lords, Pages GC 287-294 Extradition Bill 18^th June 2003.

Every EU Treaty British Governments have ratified has removed the rights of the individual, firstly because their right to say “NO” has been removed by their own Government because Governments over the years fear the people will reject the Treaties if they had been put before them. Every EU Directive has removed the people’s right to remove the person making new laws because the laws they are now obeying are instigated by the European Union. Every Treaty ratified by the Government is binding upon the individual. When an agreement has been negotiated with another Country, it cannot be amended unilaterally here. The Government are allegedly guardians of our Constitution, they all swear allegiance to the Crown, yet they have put the EU before that allegiance. This is perhaps more apparent in those people that have “served” in the EU at one time or another. There is a great sense of betrayal especially at those that are now appointed to the Lords, the Labour government having “got rid of” the Hereditary Peers. To keep the Treaty and Act of Union alive re Scotland, there should of course always be 16 Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords. (There were only Hereditary Peers at that time-there are still Hereditary Peers available now) It is part of the ‘glue’ that holds the two Countries together within the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Separation of the two Countries may come about if the main Article XXII falls by the wayside.

Some people have blamed the Crown for not stepping in to prevent much of what has happened to our Country, more so over these last twelve years than ever before. However, whatever Monarch may be in place, the Crown’s hands are tied and perhaps it is the people’s fault that it is so through the limitations placed upon the Crown at the time of the Glorious Revolution? However, it is Her Majesty’s Realm and Her Majesty may have to fight to keep it so in the same way Her Subjects may have to. We certainly tried to prevent Her Majesty from becoming a European Citizen.

( HC Deb 21 April 1993) The Royal Prerogative was used to commit British Military Forces in the Gulf War which prompted Mr Benn to observe: “this is the first time in the history of this Country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the Royal Prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express a view on any motion other than that we adjourn [Official Report, 14^th Jan 1991; Vol 183, c. 616]

“The Royal Prerogative was also used in 1984 to ban membership of trades unions the staff of Government intelligence establishment GCGQ. In a subsequent court case the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service”. “The Government's decision to remove the right of GCHQ staff to be members of the national civil service unions was taken because industrial disruption of GCHQ had been used by the national unions to put pressure on the Government in national civil service disputes. Between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 man days were lost disrupting an organisation whose continuous operation is vital to national security”.

In typing that, I seem to remember, national security was mentioned at that time and I wonder if that is the same kind of National Security that the EU now has a great deal of interest in (See EU’s and the UK’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure, and also the EU’s Security Strategy and the UK’s National Security Strategy) the EU and other Countries are now aware of what we have re military equipment and where it is kept, and aware too of all this Country’s strengths and weaknesses? The EU knows in any case because it has had a very strong hand in making this Country dependent upon others. Most certainly our Regiments have been reorganised to fit in with EU Requirement for the “Battle Groups” etc. Had such vital and secret information been given away in the last war, it may have been a hanging offence, that is, if they had survived the anger of the people at that time. Such foolish people now in Parliament seem to think there will never be another terrible war. There were also some that after the first world war thought the same too.

I think I have shown, without a shadow of doubt, that the Royal Prerogative has been around for a long time and how very often it is indeed used. Government Ministers use it on behalf of the Sovereign, the Crown. Oh how I wish that it was used just by the Crown and maybe we would not be in the position we are in today? Some believe that the Sovereign uses it on behalf of Her Ministers. I responded to the Government’s Consultation on war making powers, although I did make the observation that even though the Prime Minister of the day put it to Parliament (even though he did not have to) before the last invasion into Iraq, even all those in Parliament cannot make a good decision if they are not told all the true facts.

Here I refer to the reply given to Lord Jenkins of Putney by The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne) on 1^st December 1994, “The Royal Prerogative may be defined as those residual powers, rights, immunities and privileges of the Sovereign and of the Crown which continue to have their legal source in the common law and which the common law recognises as differing from those of private persons“ …”Examples of areas where the Royal Prerogative remains important include the conduct of foreign affairs, the defence of the realm and the regulation of the Civil Service.” “With the exception of powers personal to the Sovereign under the Royal Prerogative are, by convention, exercised by Ministers. The manner in which they are exercised will depend on the power in question. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the use of powers under the Royal Prerogative, as they are powers derived from statute”. Without doubt they should be held accountable for what they have done. Was the Royal Prerogative used for sending our contribution in part of the EU Navy now on Duty re Somalia under the command for the first six months under British Command?

Having read the above reply, I interpret that statement as follows. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions; (These three quotes below I have had for a number of years which I believe might be from the Magna Carta Society the members of which I had great admiration for, sadly the organisation seems to be no longer available. Whoever wrote them, I hope they do not mind me quoting them)

The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject (See case of Nichols v. Nichols, “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”)

The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP’s and the Judiciary. They are required also to “take into consequence anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”.

The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the Common Law which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by common law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them.

Each British Subject from the moment they are born is bound by an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this country, just as if that person has declared so out loud.

Under no circumstances should any Government of this Country transfer to others, even through “Treaties”, the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making or War Making Powers, or sending our Forces into battle. I say this for I am mindful of the requirement by the European Union for complete Legal Personality in Article 47 “The Union shall have Legal Personality” in the Treaty of Lisbon. 

In all the European Union Treaties that have been ratified and activated thus far, none has actually handed over to the Union as a whole, the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers that Her Majesty’s Government Ministers use on behalf of The Crown. They have though ratified the Treaty of Lisbon thus signalling their intention to give the Royal Prerogative which they have used on behalf of the British Crown they have sworn allegiance to, to the European Union. There is no stipulation in article 47 for what our Royal Prerogative may be used for, not simply for Treaty making but perhaps for War making also? This action deprives the Crown of the power (authority-sovereignty) of what is to happen over the territory, not just over the Realm, but of the overseas territories and over the United Kingdom of Great Britain also. The other ‘party’ to the Common Law of Royal Prerogative Powers which removes the people Rights they have under Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 have had no say what so ever. The question is therefore, in the giving of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers to the EU, have our Common Law Rights held in our Constitution been destroyed? We are mindful that according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution, is an act of treason.

Transferring the Royal Prerogative to the EU also deprives the authority of the Crown in Parliament. The power of the Crown is the ultimate authority of Parliament. When all this is done, the Crown, as I once suggested in a Government Consultation document on “War Making Powers”, the Crown only should use the Royal Prerogative in the future. It would be a check-a safe guard- on which ever Political Party is in Government. This stems also from the fact that most people have lost complete trust in the government and sadly, also of the Official Opposition. The Crown is the one stable factor, the constant, the trusted. I look at the EU SOFA AGREEMENT Directive, which most Countries have signed, and the full account of NEW Article 188R in the Lisbon Treaty and I fear what may be the outcome of these.

Ratification of the Treaty would deprive Her Majesty’s Government the ultimate authority of the use of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making and possibly of war making powers which seems to me to be the ultimate treachery, yet so casually given away, the intention made clear by the signing of the Treaty by the Prime Minister.

In the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon it would revoke permanently the power of the Crown, though in truth, exercised by Parliament through the Royal Prerogative in the UK. Therefore the Crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative. It follows then that the same would apply to the next in line to the throne of the United Kingdom. The Crown will no longer have use of the Royal Prerogative for it so binds all her successors making the Crown subservient to the European Union forever.

In all the previous EU Treaties, EU laws and Directives have been transposed via our Parliament. The EU’s use of the Royal Prerogative for Treaty Making Powers, is direct, it by passes the British Parliament and uses the power of the Crown in the name of the Crown via the Royal Prerogative and hands full power exclusively in perpetuity to the EU. This Treaty, if ratified by all 27 Countries, removes the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the British Crown and gives it to the European Union.

The Treaty of Lisbon binds the next Monarch, and makes the British Crown subservient to the EU and to the EU Judges. The Crown loses sovereignty over British Territory, Land, Sea and Air. See also the EU’s Motorway in the Sea.

I have always made clear, “That it is not in the Government’s ‘gift’ to give away those “Royal Prerogative” powers. It is not the Governments to gift to give away any part of our Common Law Constitution. Magna Carta for instance is a Treaty between the Crown and the people (there was no Parliament at that time) and to alter, it has to be by one or both parties to that Treaty. Either Her Majesty the Queen has not been asked, or she has said “NO” and this is why the people are being asked, but this will never be explained to the people why. The Bill of Rights contains the Oath of allegiance to the Crown if born here in the UK, we all sworn to.

This Government is in the process of introducing, for the first time in the history of this Country, a new written Constitution and probably a new Bill of Rights especially for the people. These then will be put to the people in a referendum, (Ah yes, the people will be given a referendum on these matters) and if the people vote ‘yes’, they will have over-ridden their own Magna Carta and Bill of Rights, getting rid of their Oaths of Allegiance to the Crown at the same time. I do not believe the Government would explain that in their acceptance of a new written Constitution and/or Bill of Rights the new would take precedence over the old. All to be over-ruled by the European Union which take precedence over national Constitutions and Laws through Lisbon. No allegiance to the Crown? So, where would allegiance lie? To the State? Should Lisbon become live, it will override all and loyalty will be to IT.

We have already witnessed those that have been involved with the EU hold their allegiance to the EU over their allegiance to their own Country, for no one can be true to two very different ‘masters’, and for some, their pensions depend on their loyalty.

The last time Clause 61 was used was by four Lords during the time of the Nice Treaty. Next time, it may be used by and on behalf of Her Majesty’s subjects.

The Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat.2 c.21) is an Act of Parliament of England passed to enforce the line of succession to the English Throne, previously established by the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Act makes it treason to “endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the Crown…from succeeding after the decease of Her Majesty (Whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions thereunto belonging”.

Although the Act was passed by the English Parliament, it was later extended to Scotland as well in 1708, following the Union of the two Kingdoms in the previous year. The Parliament of Ireland passed a law to the same effect in 1703, the Treason Act (Ireland) 1703 (c5). This is still in force in Ireland.

Many people have tried to uphold our Common Law Constitution through Her Majesty’s Courts yet have sadly failed thus far. I am aware that Judges have to look to the EU Treaties but they also sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms, ensuring that we are all reminded that the Judges are there to represent the Crown and all that that Crown stands for. The Judge bows to the Court and likewise those persons in that Court that represent the people, likewise ‘bow’ in acknowledgment of the presence present on behalf of the Crown.

One such case was brought by Michael James Burke against the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 which are contrary the rights conferred on citizens by the Bill of Rights 1688, a long and interesting case, but one that was lost after a valiant effort. Why I mention it here though, is while that was a judgement contrary to our constitution and deprives citizens of this Country from their rights as written in their Bill of Rights, events have now moved on, and I draw your attention to the fact that although this country is not party to the Eurogendarmerie, under article 5 of the Treaty of Velsen, they can enter this Country fully armed. (There was also a long debate at one time re “Hot Pursuit” and it was decided at that time that ‘arms’ should be left behind) Under certain other legislation the EU SOFA Directive (Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.) signed by this Government, immunity is given to those that may enter this Country, the opening passage reads as follows:

“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.

The question is, does the Fire Arms Act 1968 also apply to all the people that enter this Country fully armed or just to the indigenous people? Perhaps there should be another challenge?

In transferring the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making Powers for the very first time to the European Union as a whole, this Government continued to ratify-in a most despicable way-on what was at that time, a DEAD Treaty. Our Government decided to carry on and ratify it. Lisbon allows the EU to make Treaties on our behalf. Just suppose then, it makes a Treaty with Mugabe or some other country that we, as a Country would not want to be party to, what could WE do? We would have no say and that is just how dangerous this move is to give away such constitutional powers. Was it the “correct” to ratify a DEAD Treaty on behalf of the Crown? Was it an abuse of power? Was it ‘right’ or in keeping for our Government to use the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown as a “gesture only” on such a document, a treaty that was no longer ‘live’? The people of Ireland had spoken and as they were the only ones that had the FREEDOM to have their ‘say’, they had spoken for us all. Sadly they were ignored by every leader of every Country in the Union, which does not bode well for the people’s RIGHTS or freedoms for the future.

As far as our Country is concerned, in using the Royal Prerogative on a dead Treaty was emphasizing just how much our Government is putting and has put the wishes of the European Union before the interests of their own Country and all the people in it.

They put the Union, in giving more of the governing of our Country to it-all led by foreign leaders-particularly the two main leaders of the largest Countries, France and Germany-before their sworn allegiance to the Crown.