ELIZABETH BECKETT’S SUBMISSION AUGUST 2008

WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2008

ELIZABETH BECKETT’S SUBMISSION AUGUST 2008

A campaigner at the mass lobby of Parliament against the Lisbon Treaty.

On 22nd July 2008 Elizabeth Beckett laid a complaint under ‘misprision of treason’ laws with the legal authority. Mrs. Beckett’s case is based on our Constitutional Law. She presented many supporting documents. The court legal officer who took Mrs. Beckett’s bundle of evidence expressed interest in the matter, saying that it will take 10 days for him to go through the papers and that the matter will then go either to the Crown Prosecution Service or to Magistrates .

In the Daily Express of July 18th 2008 it was reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown forced the Queen to sign away Britain’s sovereignty in secret. (Lisbon Treaty) However, under the treason law no one may coerce the Monarch. Beckett observed that in the Chagos Archipelago case three Appeal Court Judges stated that Her Majesty may not have known what she was approving (in having the Chagossians removed from their land in the British Indian Ocean Territory to make way for the construction of the giant United States’ air base at Diego Garcia).

In her submission Mrs. Beckett pointed out that when the Queen made her Coronation Oath she promised to safeguard not only the laws and customs of Britain, but of all those nations of which she is the Head of State. The Queen is the Head of State of sixteen countries. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty does not prejudice solely the Constitution of Great Britain, but also the Constitutional arrangements of all the Queen’s other realms. Philip Benwell MBE of the Australian Monarchist League has been making this point for several years.

The ‘automatic assent’ of the monarch to all Parliamentary bills that are presented to her is claimed by the Fabians to have been in operation since 1911. They misleadingly claim that no monarch has ever returned a Parliamentary Bill unsigned since Queen Anne. That is not the case however as several monarchs including Queen Victoria and King Edward referred Bills back to Parliament unsigned. Asquith’s Parliament Act of 1911 embodied the first major Fabian Society inspired attack on our Constitution.

Mrs. Beckett included in her submission Chapter 1 of Magna Carta material regarding the Monarch’s position as Head of the Church of England. At their coronations down through the centuries English monarchs have sworn on the Bible to uphold our laws and customs and have likewise been anointed with oil. In doing so they acknowledge a greater power than themselves, that of God. This is attested by the latin abbreviations D.G., by the Grace of God, and F.D., Defender of the Faith stamped on the coinage. These principles however are at odds with the man centred constitution/treaty of the European Union whose Constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters, acknowledges no spiritual brake on its power.

Mrs. Beckett is of the opinion that no longer having the British armed forces make the Oath of Allegiance would in effect transform them into mercenaries. The power given to Her Majesty was entrusted to her by her subjects for their protection. Our special laws are based on this. The Queen promised to safeguard our laws and customs and in return has received the power to govern us. The signing of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty represents a high-jacking of the power of the people. The British Constitution was hard won and it was made by the people. In 1274 Edward 1st was crowned. The Archbishops, Barons and freemen told him that he had to swear to protect our laws and customs. He refused -- and was informed by the aforesaid Archbishops, Barons and freemen that in that case they would get another king--upon which ultimatum he made oath.

Tony Blair had the death penalty for treason repealed shortly before leaving office. In the case of Rex-v-Thistlewood (1820)

treason was defined as ‘any action which attempts to overthrow or destroy the Constitution’ being the words of the Treason Act 1795 which Tony Blair repealed. Blair has been Chairman, or in politically correct terms ‘Chair’ of the Fabian Society. He unveiled George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Fabian Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ stained glass window at the London School of Economics in 2007. But what is the true nature of the Fabian Society? It’s image is that of a socialist ‘think tank’, but its influence worldwide since 1884 has been enormous. In his paper “Communist” Councils in New Zealand John Christian describes the Fabian Society thus -- "a mixture" of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together. However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the "secret police" to knock your front door down ? Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly ? by "gradually" taking your individual rights away, by "gradually" increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can't pay them, they send in their regional "council tax inspectors" to take your house away ? but the end result is the same’. It has long been a Fabian aim to incrementally downgrade the Monarchy of Great Britain but they are too subtle to overtly push for abolition. Their approach is to promote ‘debate’ about the necessity for ‘modernisation’ of the Monarchy and that it should be operated more economically etc. They always attempt to change the climate of opinion as a prerequisite to the slow, incremental achievement their aims. This is achieved by operation of the Hegelian Dialectic, the use of which was perfected by Fabian co-founders George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb. It is usual to find Fabians on both sides of a discussion, however their debates are carefully managed. What Fabians never mention is the Constitutional role of the Monarch. The constitutional settlement in this country, and in the others in which the Queen is Sovereign has evolved after centuries of struggle. The agreement reached is that we the people entrust the power to govern us to our Sovereign, who in turn promises to govern us according to our laws and customs. If the Sovereign’s role could be incrementally diminished and finally eliminated, the way would be open for powerful interests to corrupt our government virtually at will.

The nature of Fabianism might best be illustrated by prominent Fabians themselves. On the 19th November 1937 the Fabian Nicholas Murray Butler addressed a banquet in London with the words, “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and world money”. Margaret, wife of Fabian economist G.D.H.Cole wrote in 1943 ‘Fabians appeared in so many desirable liberal (and cultural) connections that they could scarcely be believed to be subversive of private property or of liberty.’ In 1948 in his Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party famous Fabian Socialist theoretician Professor Harold Laski of the London School of Economics wrote “. . . who, remembering that these (policies of high taxation & centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx & Engels in 1848) can doubt our common inspiration.” Laski joined the Fabian Society at Oxford and remained an avid member for life. In the April 1958 Fabian Journal tribute to Hugh Gaitskell’s teacher, G.D.H. Cole, a favourite pupil of Cole relates, how, after freely describing the various revolutionary changes he hoped to see the next Labour Party Government make, Cole suddenly realized he had failed to mention a particular reform dear to his heart. As the students to whom Cole had imparted his plans were leaving, he exclaimed: “Why, I forgot to include the abolition of God!” Cole urged complete abolition of the Monarchy and the watchdog House of Lords. In the 1920’s the Oxford University Fabian and British civil servant Sir Arthur Salter and his associate, international financier Jean Monnet advocated regionalism, a policy which constitutes one of the three ‘pillars’of the European Union. The other two are the common currency and the European Constitution. ‘Pillar’ is a Fabian term used in the political dialogue of the EU. In this vein the noted political writer Machiavelli observed ‘Divide a nation into parties, or set your enemies at loggerheads, and you can have your own way’. The apostle Mathew wrote “Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” -- Mathew xii.25. There are currently around 200 Fabian Members in Parliament, mainly in the Labour Party.

The checks, balances and acountability of national representative government, however imperfect, impede world government and globalisation. There has long been a covert assault on sovereignty in Britain. In 1925 the Fabian Professor Arnold Toynbee was Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of Interntional Affairs (the RIIA is now known as Chatham House) becoming Director of Foreign Research & Press Service from 1939 to 1943 becoming Director of the Research Department at the Foreign Office from 1943 to 1946. In June 1931 Toynbee spoke at the Fourth Annual Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations at Copenhagen saying -- “If we are frank with ourselves we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate. Elizabeth Beckett’s Submission continued: and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local independent states which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. The surest sign, to my mind, that this fetish of national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis which all our statesmen and publicists protest with one accord, and over and over again, at every step forward which we take, that, whatever changes we may make in the international situation, the sacred principle of local sovereignty will remain inviolable….The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise - lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence”. The Copenhagen Conference was initiated by the League of Nations Institute for Intellectual Co-operation. The National Coordinating Committee was domiciled at Chatham House and it included representatives from the RIIA, the London School of Economics, the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics at Aberystwyth and the Montague Burton Chair of International Relations at Oxford. Today the assault on national sovereignty is not covert.

In his The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau prepared the ground for the French Revolution. Of England he wrote ‘The people of England regards itself as free, but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them’. But the statesman Talleyrand, a political survivor of the regicidal French Revolution once said to one of his lady friends, Madame de Rémusat, “Get this into your head. If the English constitution is destroyed, the civilisation of the world will be shaken in its foundations”. Talleyrand was, despite his shiftiness and his willingness to trim as circumstances dictated, an intelligent man. He was, in the words of Metternich, “a man of systems.” Writer and critic Henrik Bering asked “What does it all add up to? The problem with the cruel, clever people portrayed in the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, by the revolutionary conspirator Choderlos de Laclos, is that while exhilarating to watch for a while, pure intelligence without some kind of value system becomes tedious, pointless -- indeed, stupid -- leading to despair and death. So does an amoral, lawless political universe. The world becomes a chaotic place”.

We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse yet our British Constitution is no longer taught in British schools. Universities confirm that knowledge of the British Constitution plays little or no part in their law syllabuses. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the character Winston repeats obediently “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past?

Elizabeth Beckett said: “The Queen’s prerogative power was taken illegally by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer, but they did not take her common law pre-eminence by which I have taken this action. Nor did they take her prerogative of mercy as indicated in the Tragos Archipelago appeal reported in the Daily Telegraph Mat 24th 2007.”