Most of our Constitution is being changed.
Our very long standing Common Law Constitution, yet seemingly the people will not be allowed a say. This below is what I sent to one MP in the debates.
Have you any other ideas like going to Court to prevent them doing this?
Question, as there is absolutely no rush to alter anything at this point in time, is there another reason why it has to be altered NOW?
In attachment I have highlighted certain points from the debate, please write letters, make your thoughts known, because there is absolutely no necessity for this rush to alter any part of our Constitution NOW, especially certain parts of our Constitution that have never been touched before and there is absolutely no need to alter them now.
WE are allegedly CHANGING ALL THESE LONG STANDING DOCUMENTS FOR THE EU'S EQUALITY ACT? Put forward by foreigners. Our long standing Constitution forbids usto obey the rules and conditions of foreignersw and what this Country has been to two full scale wars to prevent?
Both by husband-who was in the forces in that war- and myself-bombed out of our home-) lost friends and family in that war. This below is what prevents any British MP and Member of our present Government from the treacherous deed they have embarked on recorded twice in our Constitution."…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever."
Below is my letter to Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Conservative)
Dear Sir,
Recorded in Hansard, your words Sir, “We are discussing what may be the most important constitutional issue to which the House has ever turned its mind, namely, who shall be our sovereign? Who shall be eligible to receive
perhaps the greatest office in the world? Who shall be the King or Queen of England?
When the Bill that became the Act of Settlement was debated, it spent six days in Committee. The allocation of time motion allows us two days in which to treat this Bill as if it were anti-terrorism legislation, which seems a particularly inopportune comparison given that it relates to matters that could not be further removed from that type of activity.
As far as I am aware, the only constitutional Bill that has been treated to such a small amount of time—or, rather, an even smaller amount—is the Bill that became His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which, I believe, completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute; but that, too, is not a happy precedent.
And it is here that just one change in our Constitutional Document affect so many long standing Documents and all because of the EU’s Equality Act”.
There are other acts in place to protect our Constitution, surely that is known by our Government already? We-my Generation, my husband fought in the last war to keep our own Constitution rather than our Country be ruled by foreigners. I beg you stop this Bill from going through. It is for you and your Generation and those generations that follow you that will have to live with what all those that allow this Bill to go through. In the end all will have to live with it, but there may not be any British Parliament or Government as such, to protect anyone, for there will only be EU Regions already set up.
I question why is there such a rush to change so many parts of our Constitutional documents when there may be no need to change them at all? Surely our Constitution is not being destroyed because of the Equality Act brought forward by foreigners?
We already know without doubt a Queen can take her place on the throne.
I question is this "Change of Succession Bill" just an excuse to try to destroy our long standing Common Law Constitution? Is our Constitution getting in the way of other matters? As we have a QUEEN, a wonderful Queen, there is obviously no need of any alteration at all, for when our Queen came into power there was absolutely no alteration of any of these Acts so why should they be changed now? The Bill of Rights are the people's Bill of Rights, and there is absolutely no need to alter that Bill at all. Any proposed changes should of course be put to the people, for it is THEIR Constitution too.
If Scotland parts company from the United Kingdom as is proposed, these changes, if any change is required-and there is absolutely no rush at all, can be done at the same time.
Quoted in HANSARD, "That significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937".
Please note further to the Bill of Rights, which makes very clear, two points of importance at the end of the Bill of Rights.
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.
I beg you, please take great note of the above.
With the greatest respect, A P.
Posts
