The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to its people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused. The whole constitution originates its authority from the common law. Supremacy resides in the law and people, not the Crown or Parliament. It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that, the law is supreme. The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral to it, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the hands of the people. This is a most vital safeguard against despotism. The English Constitution's function is to protect the rights and liberties of Englishmen. These are the 'birthright of the people'.

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which declares that the oath is taken for the purpose of "Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties". It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the Crown, and the Crown in both Government and Parliament. This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the statue, common law and the custom and to 'cause law and justice with mercy to be used in all judgements'. All power of governance is vested in the Crown. The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for Royal Assent. A bill is not enacted until it has been authorised by the Sovereign power.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted only to be used in accordance with the constitutional law. This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance. It was used to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs. The oath ascertains the supremacy of the law, not the supremacy of the Crown or of Parliament. There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The people give allegiance to the Crown. Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence. The Magna Carta made provision for the people to use any means including force if the Crown is found to be in its breach. This right of resistance is the ultimate remedy. The use of petition has historically become the means to seek constitutional remedy. This right of petition is secured for the people by our constitution.

The Coronation contract also protects the people from abuse of power by formalising and causing the separation of power. It separates the authorisation (Royal Assent) from those who determine its content or application (in Bills); the Lords and Commons in Parliament. This separation prohibits the formation of absolute power from falling into despotic or tyrannical misuse and the jury inhibits draconian enforcements. The Monarch, the Lords or Commons may not arbitrarily suspend or dispense with the law. The law may be made or adjusted only by enactment by the tripartite body of Parliament.

The Monarch is the people's repository of all the sovereign powers of the state. The limited range of remaining prerogatives may not be used in repugnance of the law. The monarch is bound by law. The Monarch may only exercise powers in accordance with the constitution in force. Thus the rule of constitutional law is a rule and process of governance for Parliament to observe. It is for the protection of the people. The maxims 'no parliament may bind its successor' and 'the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament' have become confused through partial misunderstanding to the detriment of our Constitution. No combination of these maxims can or may absolve the crown, its ministers or Parliament, from owing allegiance, or being at all times in compliance with constitutional law.  There can be no implied repeal of constitutional statues. Such anomalies as implied repeal weaken the rule of law, confusing interpretation, and may tend to the breach of the Coronation Oath and constitution. Constitutional repeal must be by express enactment and only where the parts of the constitution are not protected by the entrenchment of Oath. The most fundamental and important is the entrenchment of the whole process of the rule of law. It is contracted permanently by the Coronation Oath being the fundamental by which governing power is held.

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power. The Monarch may do no wrong but should refuse by her negative power (the right to withhold assent) to let wrong be done. Sir William Blackstone confirms this.

Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which complies with the constitution. Plainly no monarch is free to assent to advice that conflicts with the constitution in force.
There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new conflicting enactment. There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal. We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly though the misapplication of party politics.

Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law. The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of the constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy must be upheld and used in all judgements.

This is the trust and the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under oath and at law, bound to provide remedy. Where there are rights there are remedies. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and duty to the Constitution.

A fixed or certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of our Constitution. We must reclaim our Constitution and the rule of our law from the supposed divine right of our politicians.

__________

by Ashley Mote

Author: Vigilance, A Defence of British Liberty
UKIP Candidate: South-East England
14-04-2004

When the former French president, Valery Giscard d’Estaing accepted the EU’s invitation to head the convention which eventually produced the 350-page document, he was asked to find ways of making the EU ‘more democratic, more transparent and more efficient’. The convention promptly turned itself into a praesidium  - and where have we heard that word before?  It then re-wrote its own brief.  The words ‘democratic, transparent, efficient’ all disappeared. Now we have this:  ‘…how to bring citizens closer to the European design…how to organise politics in an enlarged Union…how to develop the Union into a model in the new world order.’ d’Estaing told the European parliament that the proposed constitution was a ‘revolution in law’. But revolutions are uprisings of the people against the ruling elite.  Such events don’t create law - they usually precede it.  So this revolution is unique.  It is a revolution by the ruling elite against the people.   By its full title, the proposed ‘Constitution for Europe’ apparently claims authority over the nations of the whole continent, members or not.  It shows no modesty of ambition.  Nor does it compare with the great elegance, simplicity, clarity and wisdom of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, or even the American Declaration of Independence.  The proposed EU constitution is deeply flawed.  Essentially, it is not a constitution at all.  It is little more than an elaborate attempt to legitimise the seizure of power by a ruling elite.  If it succeeds, Westminster will become redundant, its powers stripped bare. So the question for the British is very simple.  Do we wish to govern ourselves - or not? There are at least six fundamental defects in the proposed constitution, any one of which should make it utterly unacceptable to the British: It is vague, grandiose, imprecise, deliberately complex, confusing and extremely long. It is proscriptive rather than enabling. It makes law, instead of creating a framework for law-making. It offers no effective checks and balances to control future law-makers. It consolidates power for a system of government by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. It puts that elite group above the law to be imposed on everyone else. It turns the member states from theoretical masters of the house of Brussels into its servants.  The proposed constitution also attempts to include everything and - by implication - it forbids everything else.  Of course, that latter failure is the norm in Continental government.  They believe the state exists in its own right, and the people answer to it.   Here in Britain, the exact opposite is true.  We, the people, are sovereign.  Here, everything is permitted, until we elect a Parliament that decides otherwise.  And, if we dislike a law, we are free to elect another to overturn it. Under this constitution - we will be faced with a government we cannot remove, nor hold to account.  By this constitution, the EU creates power for itself.  Worse, it specifically demands unquestioning obedience from the member states.  Yet Tony Blair never says anything about that.   He claims there will be ‘no fundamental change’.   Why have a new constitution if you don’t want fundamental change?  And why pretend otherwise?   Is it because Labour failed to ask the British people for a mandate at the last general election?  This constitution was not even mentioned in Labour’s manifesto.  Or does Blair’s new-found enthusiasm suggest he might become president of the Commission in November, when Prodi steps down?  Was that what Schroder and Chirac talked about at their private meeting with Blair in February?  And has Gordon Brown been encouraging him to accept?  But let’s just have a brief look at some of the sweeping powers taken by the proposed constitution, which was drafted in French. The EU intends to take what it calls (in English) ‘competence’ over almost every aspect of our life. But the word ‘competence’ - in French – means ‘authority’.   ‘Power’ would be a much better translation into English.   So why have  the translators kept the French word?  Was it because they knew it would confuse the Brits?  Did they imagine that the idea of ‘competence’ might somehow be more acceptable to us?  Power is power, whatever you call it. And this power is seized over our civil and criminal laws, over taxation and economic policy, over transport, crime, social services, immigration, the environment, consumer protection, research and technology, public health, security, education, commerce…even cultural activities It is also made plain that they want control of our defence and foreign policy, our army, and all our assets – oil, gold, foreign reserves, pension funds, and what remains of our fishing and farming industries.  And this constitution says  ‘the currency of the Union shall be the euro.’   Ratify this constitution and a referendum on the euro becomes pointless. The financial provisions in this document also allow the EU to ‘provide the means’ to implement its policies, which can only be code for the introduction of EU taxes. The Charter of Fundamental Human Rights is incorporated in it as well.  It becomes the ‘supreme law’ of the EU, despite Keith Vaz's remark when he was minister for Europe about its being no more important than a copy of the Beano.  The charter appears to be based on the cretinous idea that mere unelected officials can grant rights and freedoms to free-born Britons.   The time has come to remind them that our rights and freedoms are not in the gift, nor at the mere discretion of a passing parade of petty bureaucrats, or our elected government.   They answer to us, not the other way around!  None of which is allowed to stand in the way of Article 52 of the Charter.  That purports to allow the EU to withdraw our rights and freedoms, if it is in the interests of the Union. Can you imagine such power falling into the hands of leaders Europe has known in the past?  Yet, under this constitution, one man can hold the presidency of the council and the presidency of the Commission.  He can also be the president of the standing committee on internal security.  If that happens - and it is clearly the intention that it could - one person would hold all the key positions of power at the same time. We all remember the men who have seized such awesome power in the past, and the mayhem they caused - Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.  It is impossible for the EU to guarantee that such powers would not fall into the hands of men such as these.  Power attracts those least suitable to hold it.  It is naivety - or cunning - of the highest order to create such a risk, and to do so deliberately.  This is the road to tyranny.   And so is Article 17 of the constitution itself.  That says – in effect – if the ruling elite have forgotten to take a particular power, this catch-all clause gives it to them retrospectively.   This article by-passes any need for approval by the member states for any future EU action on any matter.  They have merely to be informed.  So ratification of the constitution effectively ratifies all future decisions, whatever their merits or demerits, whatever the costs or consequences, however unacceptable or tyrannical or damaging. The exit clause - Article 59 - is an elephant trap as well.  It demands that any member state wishing to secede must first apply for permission.  It then gives the EU the right to decide on the terms of withdrawal over a period of up to two years.    The state wishing to leave will be excluded from any such discussions.  It will be expected to meet all its obligations until it is allowed to leave, and meanwhile tolerate EU interference in its internal affairs.  Nothing in this clause restrains the EU from seizing assets and attempting to overthrow the government that made the application in the first place. The British would be reckless to sign such a blank cheque as the proposed EU constitution.  Once ratified, there is no mechanism to stop it later.  There is no mechanism to throw the rascals out.  There is not even a mechanism to stop the imposition of the constitution in the first place.  If one or more member states fail to ratify it within two years but at least 20 others do so, the European Council has taken powers to decide what happens next.  Nothing in the constitution prevents them from imposing it on dissenting states, against their will.  Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons, no less, claims that the proposed constitution is merely ‘tidying up’ previous treaties.  That is plainly absurd.  Such a claim is an insult to our intelligence. Not since 1688 have the British addressed the simple question:   ‘How, and by whom, do we wish to be governed?’  Those ten crucial words lie at the heart of this issue.   After a gap of over 300 years, we have to ask ourselves again. The views of pre-eminent constitutional lawyers over the centuries, including  Halsbury, Erskine May, Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke - even Professor Dicey - all support the contention that the British constitution specifically forbids the ratification of the proposed EU constitution.   As long ago as 1621, Parliament itself said that it could not diminish or give away its own powers.   And Dicey told the British people that they are free to withdraw their consent from a Parliament at any time, and have the right to use any means to regain control of their sovereignty.  The Bill of Rights, 1689, is still the statute law of this country.  The suggestion that it is just an ancient statute and no longer relevant under modern conditions, is invalid.  The authority of the Bill of Rights was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement in November 2001.  Desuetude (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law. On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts.  Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’  The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void.  It specifically forbids handing power to foreigners.   The Bill of Rights proclaims what were then taken to be self-evident freedoms, which exist by right, and nothing has changed that situation lawfully over the intervening years.  The Bill includes the words:  ‘…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted.   …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.’ Does the Government intend to ignore these words, its obligations to the crown and to the British constitution?  If Blair signs and then attempts to ratify the EU constitution, what becomes of the Bill of Rights 1689?  Is he planning to repeal it?  Has he taken advice on his power - if any - to change the British constitution?  What legal advice has the government received? Unless the British people receive clear and acceptable answers to these questions - which seems increasingly unlikely - what the British government is planning is prima facie unlawful.   The proposed EU constitution is grotesque, an abomination.  So is the British government’s response to it. Together, they represent the most dangerous and immediate threat to these islands since 1940.  Then, it was the Battle of Britain.  Now it is a Battle for Britain. April 2004

A LETTER TO LORD FALCONER

Lord Falconer

Department for Constitutional Affairs

Selborne House

54 – 60 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6QW

8^th August 03

Dear Sir,

THE PROPOSED EU CONSTITUTION

REFERENDUM ON MONETARY UNION

       I write to register my grave concerns for the democratic future of Britain and object in the strongest possible terms to the ratification of a EU constitution and, reported plans by you to allow foreigners a vote in any future referendum on whether or not Britain should surrender her currency to foreign control.

As you well know, ratification of the EU constitution will ultimately require that Britain join the euro block of continental countries, for “the currency of the union shall be the euro”. So I guess that recent reports that you are considering allowing people who have no right to vote, to take part in any referendum is just posturing, and perhaps a moral booster to the inept Britain in Europe organisation. Of course, you will be aware that to allow such an unprecedented, underhand and unconstitutional rigging of the vote would render any ‘yes’ vote - without merit, without authority and without a mandate. That said, if this country had just one senior Constitutional Judge with the courage to do right, you would not be in your present unelected position, our government would not be allowed to even contemplate surrendering the national currency, and talk of usurping The Queen through surrender to foreign control via the EU constitution would, and should, under our inalienable constitution, see you all in the High Court of the upper House for treason.

The insult to injury of seeing you ensconced in the trumped-up office of Constitutional Affairs is the more infuriating, as the 30-year plot through successive governments since Ted Heath’s to subjugate Britain to foreign rule was, at least, done by a succession of elected traitors’. You sir, haven’t been elected to Parliament and hold your position by your patronage of Tony Blair, who, when the truth is finally revealed, will go down in history as the traitor that he is, and as the most reviled PM ever.

Is there something that successive governments since Heath know that makes it absolutely imperative that Britain surrenders a 1000 years’ of independent nationhood? Or is it that you are all, in turn, taken over bodily by an alien force from somewhere out there in the cosmos, to be the drones to their bidding? That’s it! I’m right aren’t I? The planet earth is under threat of invasion and it is imperative that the nations come together to fight a common foe? No! Well then there is no other excuse for surrendering Britain to a foreign constitution and her currency to the control of a secretive cabal. When you are all called upon to answer for your high crimes, no other mitigating circumstances will be taken into account prior to the inevitable verdict of High Treason. This, of course, after the reintroduction of the rightful penalty for such a despicable act, and its application standing in retrospect.

Let me remind you, or indeed, inform, members of your staff as to the words of the founding fathers of what is now the EU:

"It is impossible to solve problems between European States who preserve full sovereignty. We are convinced that our times must see the creation of vast units like the United States and the USSR, and to establish a [world-wide] organisation to ensure co-operation between all those vast units. It is this organization which will create the new world order." (Jean Monnet, communiqué of 22 August 1962).

Jean Monnet in an earlier pronouncement was even more frank:

“Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation" (communication, 30 April 1952).

The implementation of the plot:

"There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty... These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”. Edward Heath on taking Britain into the then Common Market in 1972.

In November 1990, when asked by Peter Sissons on BBC Television whether when he took us into Europe, in truth, he really had in mind a United States of Europe with a single currency, Heath answered: "Of course, yes". 

I rest my case.

Yours sincerely, Steve Rogers

Talk has been of "crisis" and "reflection" but make no mistake, they, the overmighty and "holier than thou" self-annointed "political elite" of European nations will pretend to listen whilst quietly implementing many of the articles of the now "DEAD" constitution. Dead, because by its own qualifying criteria, every nation state must ratify the constitution before it can legally come into force.

B'liar had previousely been forced by people power to promise that we in England will have a referendum - quaking in his boots in the knowledge that we - the English - the British, would have delivered the greatest political drubbing in history that any incumbent leader has suffered. France and Holland have effectively saved his political life (not that I would be too upset if his Earthly one comes to a premature end - the man is dangerous) as Blair was quick to announce that the British would not now get their chance to speak on this most grave of political issues.

THE QUICKER THAT THIS WHOLE CORRUPT ORGANISATION CALLING ITSELF A UNION COMES CRASHING DOWN - THE BETTER FOR "WE" THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLES OF EUROPE TO LIVE IN A TRUELY DEMOCRATIC FREE-TRADE AREA.

Long live the nation-state!