Britannia Radio

Queen's assent and sovereignty

To me the situation is very simple. The Queen and Parliament took it

upon themselves to unlawfully enter into foreign treaties that placed

the British people under foreign law and put the nation's security

seriously at risk. In so doing Parliament has distanced itself from the

people and has become an unlawful despotic power with the full

co-operation of the people's elected monarch. This is not the first

time such circumstances have arisen in this country, the previous time

it took a civil war and a revolution to resolve the problem.    BL. 

I think B L puts it very neatly (above). The fact that it's

uncomfortable and at odds with the establishment view doesn't make it

any less true.

We have a constitution. It was not adhered to in the great deception

that was the Treaty of Rome, and our present system operates by virtue

of force majeure, not legitimacy.

I don't understand the term 'elected monarch' he uses though:

'Proclaimed,' possibly, per the coronation ceremony, but otherwise I

assume it's a typo.

She is, or should be, the guardian of the PEOPLE'S sovereignty, and the

Act of Settlement makes it clear that nobody on the throne can give

allegiance to a foreign power (which is why kissing Papal rings, etc.

are a no-no).

Now for some mischief:

Have you ever wondered why (as far as I can remember) the Queen has

never visited the lofty halls of the EU?

I believe were she to do so, the real-life contradictions and abrogation

of authority would be quite apparent.

Those who deal with royal and EU protocols would have a fit - she could

not be accorded the distinction of a visiting sovereign head of state,

for example in the way that the Japanese emperor or the head of the

Chinese Politburo might, since she presently is not one. She would, in

fact, be visiting the court of her superiors.

Constitutionally, she embodies the British People, NOT the government,

hence the term "MY government will..." in the speech at every opening of

Parliament, maintaining the fiction that the government is still ours

(with authority delegated through her).

So, were HMQ to visit Brussels, she would either be shown to be inferior

to them, thus making clear the de facto relationship, or superior (the

correct relationship, as she represents the British People and they are

merely elected), or an equal, since they would take to themselves all

authority on the European continent (and beyond, given half a chance).

Any one of the three ought to provoke a constitutional crisis, and I

would guess, probably at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Rome,

a decision was taken that she would never be asked to go there.

Another guess (prediction really), is that, if we're still enmeshed by

the time Charles succeeds, such a visit will be one of his first

official duties.

We'll have to wait and see.

S. (am I turning into an anarchist?)

PS: Any time now, Ashton's lot will declare that it would be for the

best for the UK (i.e. in the EU's interests) to cede the Falklands to

Argentina. There will be some huge S. American trade deal at stake or

something, so that the superiority of the EU foreign ministry over our

own will become indisputable.

-- xxxxxxxxxx  sm