Saturday, January 23, 2010

Joint Committee on Human Rights says Act of Settlement breaches European Convention on Human Rights

Well, we need no 'influential committee' of the Houses of Parliament awoken from slumber to tell us this.

It is known because it is plain, clear, defined, self-evident, overt, disclosed, admitted, undisguised, unconcealed and unashamedly pronounced.

The Head of State is the Monarch, and the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England may not be a Roman Catholic or married to one. That is the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Yet this cross-party parliamentary committee on human rights has said that the laws barring members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also say the laws of male primogeniture in which male heirs take precedence may also be in breach of the Convention.

And so they have urged the Government to adopt proposals put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris (supported by some Roman Catholic MPs and a few meddlesome priests) to remove religious discrimination against Roman Catholics in relation to royal marriages and discrimination against women in relation to the succession.

The Prime Minister told the House of Commons last year that ‘most people recognise the need for change’ in the regime put in place by the 1701 Act of Settlement. However, he said no change could be made without the agreement of the other Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is head of state.

No progress on reform is understood to have been made at the Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad last November.

According to the all-party committee, discrimination against Roman Catholics in the laws of marriage is ‘contrary’ to Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, in conjunction with Article 12, which provides a right for men and women to marry. The committee states that it was also ‘arguably contrary’ to the freedom of religion of Roman Catholics protected by Article 9.

In relation to male primogeniture in the law of inheritance, the committee said it was ‘in our view arguably contrary’ to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1.113.

In its report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested: ‘On the basis of human rights principles, we recommend that the Government agree to the amendments tabled by Dr Harris on these issues.’

What they fail to realise (if, indeed they understand anything of theo-politics at all), is that those who campaign to end the ban on a Roman Catholic monarchy by focusing on the Act of Settlement are on an ineffectual wild goose chase. That Act was passed by the old English parliament, which ceased to exist in 1707. The Act was also arguably incompetent, since the English parliament could not unilaterally decide on the British Regal Union of 1603-1707. The Scottish parliament recognised this fact, and deliberately countered the Act of Settlement with a Scottish settlement Act - the Act of Security of 1704.

The Act of Settlement 1701 was superseded by the Treaty of Union 1707, which, in Article 2, also prohibits Roman Catholics ascending the Throne of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding charter of the United Kingdom. Tamper with this, and the Union is imperilled.

It has been observed that Scottish unionist politicians do not want this truth out. They fear making Scots aware that the United Kingdom is the creature of a treaty between two equal parliaments: a living, legal document, capable of amendment and adjustment to contemporary needs.

These are the unspoken ‘constitutional ripples’ so feared by Donald Dewar. This is why successive prime ministers of the United Kingdom and unionist Scottish secretaries of state have no intention of ending the ban on the Monarch either being a Roman Catholic or married to one, and why they are quite happy to let historically-ignorant and politically-ill-informed people like Dr Evan Harris continue harping on about the Act of Settlement 1701.


Anonymous Michael said...

In which case let's hope Dr Harris doesn't read this blog.

I must say, I love the way that one of the most virulently anti-Catholic governments in recent times thinks that by chucking Catholics a bone on the monarchy will somehow have them all returning in their droves. I can't say I've ever met a catholic who cares all that much about this, except for a bit of light-hearted banter - and a great many more think it would be a victory for secularism, not Catholicism.

23 January 2010 at 12:07  
Anonymous graham wood said...

There is more to this than meets the eye, or a superficial reading.

1. The Act is an integral part of our historic Constitution, and cannot be interfered with easily without affecting the legal and constitutional aspects of several other Constitutional Statutes.-
Bill of Rights, Coronation Oath Act to name but two.

2. There is an another important element within the Act beside that of primogeniture, namely because it entrenches, like our Bill of Rights (1689) the rights and liberties of the subject - now under challenge from the self appointed EU courts.
Is this therefore the reason why they wish to repeal, or to "purge" the Act?
Leaving aside the fact that the Act establishes the Church of England as a Protestant church as being formally Established (whether one agrees with that or not - I peronally do not), it goes on to declare the protection of our liberties under Section IV -

"The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons ... pray that (i.e. confirm) all the Laws, and Statutes of this Realm for securing the established Religion and rights and liberties of the people therof, and all other Laws and Statutes now in force, may be ratified and confirmed."

In other words OUR laws alone, and particularly our Bill of Rights, are legitimate - not those of the usurping "laws" of the European Union.
Touch any of these Constitutional enactments, by stealth, or step by step, then the government will then have no checks or restraints on more imposition of arbitrary law, and the consequent increase of totalitarian power of the (EU) State over us.
This is all part of the stealthy removal of the British Constitution to ease the way for arbitrary power.

23 January 2010 at 12:50  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

More pennies are dropping......

23 January 2010 at 13:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aren´t there more important things going on than this?

23 January 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous Rory Mackay said...

Doesn't Roman Catholic Canon Law 1125 discriminate against Protestants? If the heir to the throne married an RC wouldn't 1125 ensure an RC dynasty? Shouldn't we ask all those so keen to do away with the Act of Settlement, when the RC Church will do away with 1125?

23 January 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Can we therefore expect a protestant to one day become Pope? I think not.

This issue may seem like a minor issue today, but it is of such fundamental importance that it actually transcends all others as far as this countries independence and constitutional rights are concerned.

Yet the British Royal Family remain tight lipped on this, and it seems all other issues relating to national sovereign rights. Prince Charles however when he has said anything at all on the issue of EU membership, and the EU in general has been extremely supportive, to say the least.

Why do think this is so? Surly this is a paradox?

Well it most surly is a cruel paradox if you are still labouring under the miss-information that the British Royal Family are indeed still protestant to the RCC. IMO they are not, and have not been so for a very long time indeed.

All is all but completely united at the very top. ALL done and dusted in secretive meetings, going back many decades. Which is most surly why betrayal and mendacity is the current name of the establishments game. Even The ABofC is in effect a RC priest, with all of the utterly pagan BS, that goes with it. The chap is a DRUID, for the love of Christ, what other evidence do you all need?

We are all betrayed, sold down the river, grafted, flim-flamed, and proverbially shagged beyond our comfortable understanding. Bought and cheaply sold off for a pocket full of mumbles to a Papist inspired, and very largely controlled NWO.

In many ways we only have our selves to blame for ever believing it could have ever ended up any other way.

Why do you think that Pope John Paul was seen to have been so important in the seeming downfall of the communist east? He was of course very much to do with its demise, simply because all types of Communism as well as all other types of corporatist capitalism were the invention and love children of the Jesuit Orders. Therefore Soviet style Communism was TOLD/ORDERED to appear to self destruct, by the very people who invented it, and have been supporting same all the way through the Russian Revolution, The Cold War, and beyond.

Does any of this make sense? If not think hard, think very hard indeed.

23 January 2010 at 15:09  
Blogger LancashireCat said...

As a Roman Catholic, I quite like the house of cards that is our monarchy together with the Established Church.
Leave it alone. Anyway Catholics quite like being discriminated against.

23 January 2010 at 15:18  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

As per your earliest comment, I am amused by the thought that although these politicians wish to remove this 'abuse' of human rights, the last thing they would really want is a real Roman Catholic - one opposed to contraception and abortion, believing in God and the need for salvation through the church etc - on the throne (giving the Christmas message?). Look at the fuss when they discover one such in their own ranks.

I am coming to think that the truth is these people love nothing about our country and understand nothing about what they are doing. Call me paranoid, but I see other factors at work.

23 January 2010 at 16:45  
Anonymous Hugh Oxford said...

I'm a Catholic, and I couldn't care less about the Act of Settlement.

I do care, passionately, about the de-Christianisation of this country by New Labour, the attacks on the common good, on marriage, on the family, on the right to life.

I spit in this government's face.

23 January 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous len said...

Revd John P Richardson said...

Salvation through the church?
Salvation through Christ surely!

23 January 2010 at 17:17  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

In over four decades of worshipping as a Roman Catholic I never once - not even in the East End of Glasgow around Celtic Park - heard anybody say "you know that Act of Settlement, it really gets on my wick".

23 January 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous len said...

I think the U K having broken the shackles of Catholicism would be foolish to volunteer to have them replaced.
Having espied the weakness portrayed by the A B of C and the Anglican Church refusing to make a stand for the truth as revealed in the 39 articles the vultures are gathering for the corpse.

23 January 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"Salvation through the church?

Ien. You beat me to it!

What does Scripture say?
"By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gict of God. Not of works lest any man should boast"
Eph. 2:8,9

23 January 2010 at 17:38  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"gict". Mis-type. should of course be 'gift'

23 January 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

The Queen could have and should have refused to put the Royal Seal on Brown's shabby deal that sold out our constitution to the EU.

That would of course have provoked a constitutional crisis, but her primary responsibility was to do exactly that, if that was what was needed to defend the realm from sedition.

Bold action from her at a time when it was still possible to do something about it would have been massively supported by her loyal subjects and would have averted the sell-out which is now a fait accomplit. Instead, by affixing her seal she merely postponed a constitutional crisis to a future time when even the monarch would be found powerless in the face of the EU beast. That time has now arrived, probably sooner than she ever thought it would. Not surprisingly, because the issue was not confronted when it should have been, it has now grown into a much bigger one.

Interestingly, our dealings with islam are following much the same pattern!


23 January 2010 at 17:55  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Ingenieur I agree with all of your comment. It appears that HMQ has abandoned her solemnly binding Coronation Oath made before God abnd country in 1953.
Technically Parliament is still sovereign, and we can leave the EU under the Lisbon Treaty. (or without it!)
(It would take about half an hour or so in the H of C by repealing the European Communities Act) but as we know, sadly, the political will is not there by any one of the three main EU political parties.
An interesting exercise would be to write to your MP, or prospective PPC, and ask whether his/her loyalty is to the Queen/British Crown or the "President" of the EU

23 January 2010 at 18:10  
Anonymous Beck Salon said...

It is interesting that the 1707 act bans catholics from the throne- but not muslims or any non christian faith?, so could a monarch be a muslim and head of the church? (however ludicrous that may sound).

23 January 2010 at 18:28  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Surely there are more important things to worry about at this time? As far as I am aware there are no Roman Catholics anywhere near the top of the succession list.
But then this government and its friends, are well known for raising unimportant issues in order to distract attention away from things that matter and show that they are "doing something".

23 January 2010 at 19:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

It is not suprising that it is a liberal democrat causing trouble. As other people have said, we have far more important matters to tackle, rather than this issue. In any case if the liberals or Europe want to make an issue out of it, people here will see it as another two fingers up to our country. Further, as you say the rest of the empire/commonwealth and the dominions will need to have their say and they cannot be dictated to either by the liberals or Europe. Another issue would be, you could not have an established Church of England (as it is now) and have a Roman Catholic as supreme governor. So they would want to either disestablish the Church of England or turn it back to Rome.

But in the real world, ordinary folk are worried about their jobs and general wellbeing and the liberals should be saying what they are going to do about that.

So let us hear no more from the liberals and remind the voters that all they care about is spurious matters, rather than trying to tackle the country's ills.

23 January 2010 at 19:38  
Anonymous Tim Fischer said...

Why don't we just abolish the monarchy and then anyone can become head of state- black, lesbian, gay, catholic, anglican, muslim etc.

That seems like the best outcome of this situation.

Also, I would vote for "I am stan" as president.

23 January 2010 at 20:00  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Ingenier, you are correct. The UK political debate revolves around three issues at present:

1) the economy - fixable,
2). the EU - get out!
3) Islam - send 'em packing before they achieve local or national majority.

Sadly the politic elite who now dominate the country through the interaction of Lab,Lib,Con are in thrall to the EU gravy train. It is the express intention of the EU regional policy to destroy the nation states of Europe and they are succeeding in the main. Somehow the application of the rules is different in the case of France and Germany.

The only competent decision Gordon Brown has ever made was to retain the Pound Sterling, the collapse of which is solving the UK's economic woes. Now the Treaty of Lisbon is in force, how long before the UK is ordered to join the Euro?

Mr Graham Wood, if our Queen could have her time again, would she act differently with regards to the ToL? What lies whas she told before giving the Royal Asssent?

23 January 2010 at 20:10  
Anonymous Sandy Jamieson said...

Interesting point about the 1704 Act of the Scottish Parliament.It certainly could not legislate on the position of the Church of England but may allow some mischief makers in Holyrood to throw in their opinions.

Now if you take LJ Cooper's comments in McCormick v the Lord Advocate (1953 SC296)that the principle of unlimited Parliamentary Sovereignty is a distincly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" and indeed in that case the Lord Advocate admitted that the UK Parliament could not repeal nor alter certain "fundamental and essentail conditions" of the Act of Union. I would argue that the succession is such a fundamental condition and as such the 1707 Act of Union may not be amended

23 January 2010 at 20:11  
Anonymous Patrick Hamilton said...

As an interesting aside (to me anyway) -
these same people who advocate the change in the constitution will also want the Government to change the bias against the 1000 protestants refused a job in PSNI due to them being 'non catholics'.

23 January 2010 at 20:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Why is it that the Act of Settlement and other English, British and UK laws contravene the European Laws on Human Rights and not the other way around? As the Act of Settlement was here first, by about three hundred years, and the Law of Primogeniture has been in place in some form or other for a least a thousand years, surely the EU Laws contravene our own and should be rejected and ignored as illegal.

23 January 2010 at 21:56  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Bluedog. You wrote:
"Mr Graham Wood, if our Queen could have her time again, would she act differently with regards to the ToL? What lies was she told before giving the Royal Assent?"

Thank-you. A very good question, and one, naturally, that has perplexed us all, particularly patriots for many years. I'm sure you know all the possible answers?

1. She was (and is) being given 'bad advice' by her ministers.
Answer. I find that impossible to understand that the lady whose raison d'etre is to know the British Constitution inside out, cannot discern the duplicity of ministers for about 30 years !
It has been said that she had the best adviser possible when she ascended the throne - one Winston Churchill - a patriot and real politician not an intellectual dwarf as in Blair, Brown Canmeron et al.

2. She and the Royals do not "do" politics.
Answer. The issue of self governance of Britain is not primarily about politics per se, but rather about her place and responsibility as the final guardian of our Constitution - now in tatters.

3. She herself is involved in some long standing secret conspiracy to betray Britain with our political leaders.
Answer. For one who has dedicated her life to serve the people, and meticulously undertaken her royal duties for decades - that is difficult to believe.

4. She has been "deceived in her grant" (of assent to the treaties) - perhaps because she has been persuaded by a succession of PMs that we can leave the EU at any time, that Parliament can withhold its assent to Lisbon, and therefore nothing to do with any vital Constitutional principle.

I suspect it is the latter, and that if she had her time again, and in more thoughtful retrospect, she would intervene to assert the constitutional validity of our Bill of Rights which would exclude Lisbon entirely. We would then be free.
But I have no crystal ball

23 January 2010 at 21:57  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace poses a taxing matter , of what was once a decent matter of settlment and union, which we could all live in .
It is very frustarting indeed to find Mr Harris not making worthy the understandings of settlement in favour of more edgey model of unsound european citizen ideal .

accepting that perhaps we all can produce bias , his lack of seeing that the union has benefits and has given a freer society with values , does little for his lobsided argument . I have not found one liberal democrat who sees the benefit of the monarchy or the finely worked aspects of the CofE . The assumption that changing the authority would somehow lead to a better set of workings , is unjust and unsound .

look at the wastes and corruptions of elected presidents before we follow them lemming like into order coallpsing and trying to rebuild every 5 years with a vote.they may get somthing far more distastefully progressive than they imagined .

The union jack tells a story , those who frame it as a ball and chain clearly cannot tell what a fortuante meal is ! certainly isnt a happy meal with a free toy .

23 January 2010 at 22:48  
Blogger Tachybaptus said...

Graham Wood: No, I think it's a simpler reason than any of those you give. The last time a monarch managed to disagree with any bill presented to him or her was in 1861, when Queen Victoria excluded women from the Offences against the Person Act. The monarch's ability to refuse assent still technically exists, but it's simply too rusty from long, long disuse to be invoked.

23 January 2010 at 22:58  
Anonymous Anne said...

It is the European Convention on Human Rights that is not compatible with our Constitution.

Our Constitution is the base, the very foundation upon which later laws should have adhered to, not the other way around. According to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution is an Act of Treason. Every MP that is elected to Parliament swears a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown. Those that even though elected by the people may not take up their places in the House of Commons unless they so swear that loyal and true Allegiance to the British Crown.

In the past, I have made clear-proven- that it is Her Majesty's Government Ministers that sign Treaties through the use of the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown. It is this same Royal Prerogative, that British Ministers had the privilege of using that this present Government has give to foreigners (Art 47 Lisbon) to use on behalf of our British Ministers.
Everything later, to do with the EU is founded on lies told to all the people in this Country. The Treaty of Lisbon is not compatible with the Acts as drawn up in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Treaties that should be able to be understood by all those to whom the treaties apply.

Ever since 1972 the people have voted into power Political Parties that HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO REMAIN IN THE EEC/EC/EU and have no intention of repealing the European Communities Act 1972. How can Her Majesty go against the vast majority of people's wishes? The last possible chance of withdrawal from the Union-without violence-is to elect only Political Parties that want OUT of the EU.

23 January 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous S.C. said...

Beck Salon

Ixnay on the no mention of Islam in the 1707 Act; if it gets out you'll have Charles bowing to Mecca when they plunk the crown on his melon.

23 January 2010 at 23:59  
Blogger Surreptitious Evil said...

@Len and Graham,

Rev John is correct - you are taking the Protestant position - salvation through your individual beliefs and actions, not mediated through any authority and judged directly by God. The Roman Catholic position, on the other hand, is that it is obedience to the Church, its statutes and dictates and the sacraments that defines the "good Christian".

Hence the Reformation et al once a certain M Luther spotted the same oddity you did and the martyrdom of our good host :)

24 January 2010 at 06:14  
Anonymous Ignatius said...

England and Europe are already bowing to Mecca so it seems.

Catholics would consider it beneath them to be part of the
monarchy so the discriminatory
Settlement Act is irrelevent.

24 January 2010 at 06:23  
Blogger Gnostic said...

To be honest, since Brenda not only broke her Coronation Oath but smashed it to pieces, I can't see the point in a monarchy anymore. Silver lining - does this mean we ain't gonna hafta suffer the moronic, greenie piety of King Brian?

24 January 2010 at 08:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well that's "SETTLED" :-) then : Britain pulls out of the EU.
If we do do not , I would be happy if we were thrown out.

24 January 2010 at 09:04  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

"Out of EU" is of course what this country wants and needs, but the political class who lied and schemed for fifty years to get us into it ain't never going to let us escape now. Besides anything else, we are the second-largest contributor to their slush fund.

Expect to see rapid moves to consolidate and expand control by Brussels over every tiny aspect of our lives (EU is more control freaky than nuLabour).

Even if we elected 620 MPs who all voted to get us out of the EU, the EU now has power to send in the Eurocops to restore (NW) Order.


24 January 2010 at 09:47  
Anonymous the recusant said...

What Hugh Oxford said...

24 January 2010 at 10:17  
Anonymous len said...

How Britain Fell For A Confidence Trick, in 1960, when Britain first sought entry into the (then EEC), the historian Sir Arthur Briant had issued an unheeded warning: "Once in the Common Market we shall be a minority in an organisation in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years, but theoretically for all time.

What is the real nature and purpose of this Europe into whose heart the British people are being dragged with increasing resistance? I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.

Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that was the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.
Thus Romanism can again be clearly seen rearing its ugly head as the one constant force that has bedevilled all European history and politics and conducted a vicious campaign against Protestant Britain for centuries.

n 1953 the Queen swore an oath at her Coronation 'to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law'. Both these are negated by the process of deeper European integration. In a continent in which 61 million claim a Protestant heritage and 199 million profess to be Roman Catholics, it is simply not possible to maintain Protestantism by democratic law.

The Catholic Herald recently stated: 'The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant mediaeval forebears.' It is almost a symbolic fulfilment of that prophecy that the 20-pence coin of the British colony Gibraltar, issued by Parliament and approved by the Queen, bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Queen of Heaven' and titles 'Our Lady of Europa'. The head of the Queen on the other side is simply titled 'Elizabeth II - Gibraltar', without her usual titles of D.G., REG., F.D. - Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith. As portentous as such Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a whore riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation which a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing Papal Rome.

If we do not pray and if we do not act, Rome will once again succeed in establishing her evil system in this country.

24 January 2010 at 10:50  
Anonymous Simon Too said...

Surely it is the European Convention on Human Rights breaches the Act of Settlement ?

24 January 2010 at 13:41  
Blogger Preacher said...

In my view it's not a question pf electing 620 MP's who are prepared to take us out of the EU, it's if we can elect a Prime Minister who would want to. Our dilemna is of the two parties that say they will, both are too small to have any hope of a majority & one is eliminated by its history of bigotry.
This leaves us with the main three who are all currently cowed and gelded by Brussels. There is of course the possibility that IF just one country stood up to the EU, & the Eurocops were predictably sent in, it Could trigger a peoples revolt through the whole of Europe that would rid us all of this unelected Marxist rabble. I feel that many people are offended by their sleight of hand & imposition into our lives & beliefs, remember the old saying "You can fool all of the people some of the time, & some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". I think that the EU is riding its luck, regretably without a catlyst to unseat it we will never know.

24 January 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous IanC said...

They've got in wrong. It is the Convention that breaches English law and so it should not apply in England. The Act of Settlement moreover is carried forward by the Act of Union and the Treaty of Union 1707. Any previous law that conflicted with the Treaty of Union was thereby invalid. Moreover yet again the Treaty of Union is the 'birth certificate' and the written constitution of the UK of Great Britain. It is doubtful if Parliamenth has any right to amend the Act of Union and an attempt to do so may sunder the Union. Bring it on.

24 January 2010 at 18:35  
Anonymous no nonny said...

OK, I admit it. I'm British (English, even); female; white; anti'-isms'; Christian; royalist; and undeniably and old winter hen. In short, 'stoopid' inheres in every letter of my name.

That must be why I can't understand how the biggest, most inhuman, and and most unrighteous entity that ever existed has the gall to prate on about human rights.

Or, indeed, why we don't rise up and tell the euSSR to go home to euroland and mind its own business.

wv: sable. ??? Not me, I think.

24 January 2010 at 22:41  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Has it ever occurred to any of you that the Queen and her family actually positively support the EU an all that goes with it?

It would seem self-apparent that she does, and has long since done so.

She is still the Queen of England and The Common-WEALTH, still EXTREMELY rich, and far more influential than many fully understand.

Why indeed should she care about our democratic rights, when she does not even have a vote herself, and generally prefers socialist PM's and their administrations?

Turning this country into a REPUBLIC is not on any ones agenda. Not even The EU's. In fact the whole issue has been brushed under the BBC's carpet for over a decade. The issue is indeed a dead one.

The Queen and more especially her close and extended family are very large investors in the world banks and multi-national corporations. The interests of which are completely assured by the current EU constitution. So again WHY should she or her entire family including very much Prince Charles have the slightest concern over The Lisborn Treaty?

It would not surprise me at all to find that certain members of her own family and certainly her personal bankers helped to draft the most self-interested parts of it.

24 January 2010 at 23:37  
Anonymous Anne said...

We may not know what Thatcher thought on the subject before 79 'Archbishop Cranmer' but what the others knew that lodged in the House of Commons at that time and thought from the early 1960's is all recorded in Hansard. Sadly, there was no way of the people finding out THE REAL TRUTH unless they could read the bound red Books of Hansard-presently held-and before internet-in Reference Libraries.

Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (2nd August 1961 column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, “Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal---to accept as the ultimate goal--political federation in Europe, including ourselves".

Look at those that will put themselves up for election once more, the ones that have gone along with every bit of EU Legislation, that have helped ratify every EU Treaty. They HAVE ALL had a choice, they could reject or accept each one—THEY CHOSE TO ACCEPT EVERY EU TREATY—WHY?

There are only a handful of MP’s in the House of Commons that should be re elected and those are the Richard Shepherds of this world, that love and embrace their own Country—so tell me WHY any of you would vote for those that would give their own Country away to foreigners to govern while British MP’s just go through the motions of making our law, yet eager to have the money as if they are so doin.

25 January 2010 at 08:05  
Blogger apodeictic said...

And when will the politically correct brigade be criticising the constitutional law of the Vatican (a sovereign state) for requiring its head of state be a celibate, male, ordained Roman/Eastern Catholic elected only by a very small subset of celibate, male, ordained Roman/Eastern Catholics?

Until that day their objections to the British Constitution carry no weight.

25 January 2010 at 21:54  
Anonymous Adrian said...

The EU is illegal, we can leave anytime theoretically, but they have set a demographic timebomb ticking.
We have been sold out.
Isn't the deal obvious, get rid of the Western Europeans for the EU and we will allow Islam to reign supreme.

26 January 2010 at 04:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older