Tony Bennett

Bit of a mention in this 'Nottingham Post' article for CREC Committee member Grenville Green, who was momentarily stopped from distributing CREC's purple postcards by an over-zealous Police Community Support Officer, who said he needed a licence under a local bye-law requiring written permission from the City Council before leafleting. The PCSO fortuantely took advice and reluctantly conceded that as the cards were 'political', they were exempt from this somewhat draconian legislation. The PCSO incident is not mentioned in the article:

=================================

PASSION AND HECKLES AT EVENING POST'S UNOFFICIAL SPEAKERS' CORNER

09:00 - 23 February 2008

Faithful campaigners, inquisitive passers-by, councillors and the national media watched as the speaker made his case. Some agreed with his passionate case about Nottingham's council, some openly spoke out against it.

But the crowd in Old Market Square was not watching the official Speakers' Corner launch speech from city council leader Jon Collins.

A few yards down from the official event outside the Council House, they were listening to a speech from Grenville Green, founder of Nottingham-based campaign Justice for Carers.

Grenville chose to speak about the allegedly tense relationship between Coun Collins and council chief executive Michael Frater.

"This city deserves better," he shouted, holding up a copy of the Evening Post. By this time a surprisingly large group had gathered outside our makeshift spot outside Debenhams. Photographers, TV cameras, and reporters all tried to capture the chaos.

The speakers - invited by the Post - had already heard a speech from Coun Mick Newton, who represents the city council on the committee for the Nottingham's Speakers' Corner. Grenville heckled him throughout.

Now it Coun Newton's turn. He shouted "Go back to the 19th Century," to Grenville's calls for the Queen to "save us" from the Government.

"You are a dinosaur," retorted Grenville. "You are a council jobsworth. We pay your salary."

"Who pays for the Queen?" shouted someone as Zimbabwean human rights campaigner Adrian Lunga joined us.

As Nottingham is twinned with Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, Mr Lunga had been invited to give a speech at the official launch, but wandered over after spotting the crowd.

Grenville was calling on the Queen to invoke the British constitution, but Mr Lunga reminded him Britain does not have a written constitution.

Mr Lunga, who has spoken at Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park many times, later told me how he thought the event had gone.

"It was interesting," he said. "There are people who are passionate about what they talk about, and that's important. For me the freedom to express your views and dreams and hopes for a better world are the critical thing for Speakers' Corner. There is no right or wrong. It's about expressing yourself and hoping you invoke a response from somebody".

In a blog for the Post's website, Mr Lunga explains how most successful speakers create a dialogue, rather than a monologue.

Clive Brookes, from Nottingham Poetry Society read out two of his poems about the state of the world, which unfortunately seemed to go over the heads of some of his listeners.

But David Best. from Nottingham Animal Rights, developed quite a debate over the cruelties of foie gras and intensively reared chicken.

Anti-Tesco campaigner Lord Biro also gained noticeable support, being invited back to sing an anti-Tesco song with two supporters.

The official launch started an hour after our crowd assembled.

The crowd heard prepared speeches from Coun Collins and Sheriff of Nottingham Jeannie Packer, among others. But when one member of the audience attempted to heckle, they were politely asked to shut up.

The only potential for debate came when Grenville cornered Mr Frater, and asked when he was going to "get in a ring with Jon Collins and sort this out".

Mr Frater replied: "You wouldn't expect me to comment on that, would you?"

It all left some members of the crowd feeling a bit flat.

John Cornish, 44, from Wollaton Park, said: "It was a great idea which drew a crowd of enthusiastic people - who were smacked in the face by a lot of speeches that put them totally off."

ENDS

Petrina

I thought that readers might like to be reminded of the last petition on the Treaty of Nice .I have to say that whoever put it together did a very good job,it reads beautifully and it is full of good points -pity it didn`t work.All the general points therein still hold true for our present predicament ,esp. as we are now agreeing to the emergence of a new state whose laws and constitution are above our own .Queen Elisabeth 1 will be spinning in her grave!

23 March 2001


You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany
our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It
directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of
loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered
merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the
Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations
yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for
exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which
exercises rights unused for over 300 years - clause 61 of Magna Carta,
which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: ...and, laying the
transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed
without delay...And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or
indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be
revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it
be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any
Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear
evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct
conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with
Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all,
with Her Majestys Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her
Majestys ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day,
which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majestys obligations under
the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the
peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament
agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also
swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall
appertain to any of them.

>From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty
would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point
of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister,
confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to
breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majestys promise to her loyal
subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely,
it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They
cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power
without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice
represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the
foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal
Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were
attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and
are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself . De prerogativa
regis is merely declaratory of the common law...

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are
reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his
dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance
and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution
and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We
have alreadyobserved that the prerogatives are vested in him for the
benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above,
the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by
the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto
renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the
Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to
dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an
election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with
seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new
constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the
issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of
the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution
to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed,
and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be
diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our
petition, no such option exists.
As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and
foreign power and authoritymay forever be clearly extinguished, and
never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentateshall 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 privilegewithin
this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out
of this realm, for ever.

So it is clear that no-one - neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor
government, nor people - may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or
surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We
inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass
them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard
or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on
parliament's power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The
Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn
obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common
law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear
allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the
nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths
are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to
the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the
principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional - an essential
part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these
oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from
government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is
unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We
draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the
political freedom of Her Majestys subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free
speech and free political association. It also introduces two
particularly abhorrent propositions - taxation without representation
and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It
cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on
our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. - Libertatis
Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an
acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of
Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which
purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would
itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will
appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men
that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.... How
can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of
Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of
Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
(This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution
of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of
late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of
Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is
further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we
respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine
the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary
advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others - have
formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for
consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops
..until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majestys most loyal and obedient subjects.


Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

brad12jy

tony how was your trip to the palace? did you hand in many cards from the lobby

__________________
My ignore list - Tony Bennett

Tony Bennett

Derek Norman (Chairman), James Carver (no, not that one) and Helene Davies from our Committee met with a Palace official at 2.30pm.

They handed in:

1) Cards Nos. 1 to 6 signed by the Committee at the start of the campaign

2) Several hundred cards signed that day by those queueing outside Parliament, numbered between 150,001 and 151,000 and

3) A letter addressed to The Queen updating her on the campaign and emphasising how critical it was that she use her influence in a situation where the Britsih constitution was about to be critically and permanently undermined, with the consent of Parliament, but the clear opposition of the people.

I think it is bad form to publish correspondence to the Queen but we kept the letter very courteous and thanked her for allowing us to hand in the cards and our letter.

And that was it.

We handed out many more cards in the late afternoon and those that were signed were sent to Christopher Geidt, the Queen's Private Secretary, yesterday.

Several people in the queue pointed out that they knew nothing about this campaign and challenged us to promote it more vigorously. We are responding as best as we are able, given limited resources. We have a standard letter for publication going out to provincial newspapers (see below), plus we have sent out targeted letters to WIs, local British Legions, sympathetic TUs e.g. the RMT and FSB regional offices.

With George Mudge of UKIP Devon deciding to send out 8,000 cards with his spring catalogues, we are now over 150,000 in terms of cards distributed and have had a flurry of minor orders following the lobby.

================================================== ======

CREC's letter to provincial editors:

CREC Campaign to Reject the European Constitution
66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex, CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789
Website: Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution
e-mail: ajsbennett@btintertnet.com
Patron: The Duke of Rutland
Chairman: Derek Norman
Secretary: Tony Bennett
Press Officer: Bryan Smalley
Webmaster: Peter Rogers
Development Officer: Graham Wood

March 2008

Dear Editor,

I write to draw the attention of your readers to an increasingly popular campaign to try to win a referendum on the E.U. Reform Treaty, which nearly all European leaders recognise and admit is the European Constitution in disguise.

Our campaign consists of a simple pre-printed and numbered petition card, pre-addressed to Her Majesty the Queen, a copy of which I am pleased to enclose for your attention.

It is in effect virtually the same card that we used on a previous occasion, back in 2003, when nearly 180,000 people ordered our cards and sent them off to Her Majesty. During that campaign we were greatly encouraged when we received a letter from Her Majesty’s Chief Correspondence Secretary, Deborah Bean, informing us that the Queen had instructed her staff to brief her regularly on the number of postcards being received. At the height of our campaign, Buckingham Palace was receiving several hundred cards a day. We terminated that campaign on the day in May 2004 when Tony Blair faithfully promised us a referendum on the terms of the E.U. Constitution.

We revived our campaign at the beginning of the year. Last Wednesday (27 February) we attended the Mass Lobby of Parliament, where 3,000 or so queued to see their MPs demanding a referendum. The majority of those present had not heard of our campaign. Once they understood what it was about, they eagerly took our petition cards, signed them, and posted them to Buckingham Palace. I should add that our campaign is strictly non-party-political.

Many asked us what we were doing to inform the nation about our campaign. This letter to the editors of provincial newspapers is the result.

In our previous campaign, we distributed 180,000 cards in a year. It is a measure of the intense frustration and anger felt by many at our politicians breaking their promise to allow a referendum on the terms of this Treaty that although our campaign has been running just two months, already over 150,000 cards have been requested and requests are coming in at over 2,000 a day. The campaign until now has spread almost entirely by word of mouth, though we do have a website. We make a small charge for the petition cards to cover the cost of printing them, plus postage, but will always send them out free to individuals and those who can’t afford to pay for them.

We believe our previous postcard campaign may have broken two records:

(1) the highest number of a single postcard ever printed and

(2) the largest number of people to petition the reigning monarch on any issue. If we ‘top’ 180,000 this time round, we shall break our own previous records.

We would therefore be most grateful if you would kindly agree to print the following ‘Letter to the Editor’:

==========

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir

Many of your readers may be frustrated that despite each political party promising us a national referendum on whether or not Britain should adopt the European Constitution, we are not being allowed a vote on the E.U. Reform Treaty (the ‘Lisbon Treaty’), currently going through Parliament. Nearly all E.U. leaders admit that this treaty is the E.U. Constitution under another name.

In a situation where our very Constitution is at risk, and our MPs will not allow a vote, there is provision for the people to appeal directly to the Queen.

We have devised a simple petition card, addressed to Her Majesty, which calls on her to refuse Royal Assent to any Bill to implement the Lisbon Treaty, until such time as we, the people, have had a referendum on its terms. The Irish people are being allowed a referendum. So should we.

To those who say the Queen is above politics and is bound to follow government advice, we say two things. First, the Queen is not bound to follow advice that is clearly unconstitutional. Second, if you visit the website of the U.K Parliament, it quite clearly states there: “The Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent”.

In just two months since our campaign began, over 150,000 cards have been requested. We need many more to sign this petition. To obtain a supply of petition cards, please write to us, e-mail us or ’phone us.

Yours sincerely

Graham Wood
Development Officer
Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution
32 Station Road
Poppleton
YORK
YO26 6PY
Tel: 01904 795204
e-mail: grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk
website: Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution

==========

We would be most grateful. Please contact me if you need any further information about us or about our campaign.

Yours sincerely


Graham Wood
Development Officer
CREC

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Firefly

Can you inform us when you've heard back from the newspapers? It would be great to get some support. Imagine a purple postcard free with every Sunday paper

brad12jy

dis you get much press from the papers tony?

__________________
My ignore list - Tony Bennett

Firefly

Received my postcards today numbered 156001-156101

Tony Bennett

LETTER IN NOTTINGHAM EVENING POST - AND REPLY BY CREC:

================================================== ======

First, John Gretton's Letter:

LETTER: EUROPEAN MOVEMENT 'WINNING'

Mr Hunt is entirely wrong to detect "a trace of deflation from the European Movement" (Your views, March 7). The drop in submission rate is simply due to the fact we're almost certainly on the winning side, again. A parliamentary majority of 63 against the Tory amendment for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. For the sceptics, it's now down to the House of Lords and the Irish. Then, game over.

Yet again we've been involved with speaking engagements for the European Movement in schools around the Midlands. My last debate on March 6 was against a UKIP MEP in Sutton Coldfield in front of sixth form students. Boy, did they give the MEP a hard time in the question-and-answer session afterwards.

If any organisers reading this would like a speaker to talk about or debate EU issues please make contact through European Movement UK: Homepage

JOHN GRETTON
National Council Representative
European Movement
Beech Close,
Radcliffe-on-Trent

================================================== =====

And the reply from CREC:

13 March 2009

To: Nottingham Evening Post

From: Mr Grenville Green, 45 Cedarland Crescent, Nuthall, NOTTINGHAM


Dear Sir,

I detected more than a hint of gloating in this declaration by John Gretton of the European Movement: “A parliamentary majority of 63 against the Tory amendment for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. For the sceptics, it's now down to the House of Lords and the Irish. Then, game over”.

The majority of 63 was only gained by two of the three main parties ratting on their clear General Election manifesto commitment to allow the British people a referendum on the European Constitution.

Before anyone jumps up and says: ‘Ah, but the Lisbon Treaty isn’t the European Constitution’, let us look at the words of Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the European Constitution. In a meeting of the Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee last year, Giscard d’Estaing said: “The changes compared to original European Constitution are few and far between and more cosmetic than real".

And here are a few more quotes from Giscard:

“The term 'constitution' has been dropped simply to make a few people happy. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but they will be hidden and disguised in some way. We can get Europeans to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact”, while Irish Premier Bertie Ahern said: “Thankfully they haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there".

Our own all-party Commons European Scrutiny Committee declared that the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution were ‘substantially equivalent’.

Tony Blair admitted: “What you cannot do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the Constitution and then bring it back with a few amendments and say, 'Have another go.' You cannot do that".

For good measure, Giscard has added such statements as: “Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the Constitution by the French and the Dutch was a mistake that will have to be corrected. It is not France that has said ‘No’. It is 55 percent of the French people - 45 percent of the French people said ‘Yes’. People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake”.

Responding to a question by the Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Giscard said: “There must be no referendum in the UK. It could undo our work, and do what the French ‘No’ in the referendum did to the old European Constitution. The chances of the British people approving new treaty are uncertain to say the least".

And that of course is precisely why the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties won’t allow us a vote. They know they would lose. In a series of mini-referendums held in parishes across the country during the past few months, over 90% of those voting said they wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Then, in February, the I Want a Referendum campaign organised 10 constituency-wide polls with a similar result; 88% wanted a referendum, while if there were a referendum, 90% said they would vote against Britain adopting the Lisbon Treaty.

John Grettton said: “It’s now down to the House of Lords”. True up to a point. But if the Lords also deny the British people their democratic right to a referendum, there is one person who could yet grant us the referendum that 9 out of 10 of us want - The Queen.

She has the constitutional right to withhold Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty Bill until there has been a referendum. That she has that right is confirmed by a visit to the website of the Houses of Parliament.

In December, we in the Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution began printing pre-addressed, uniquely numbered postcards asking The Queen to do just that. Last month, three of our Committee were pleased to be formally welcomed to Buckingham Palace to present a pile of these signed postcards to a member of the Private secretary’s staff. With no publicity, and just by word of mouth, we have already distributed over 170,000 of these in less than 3 months, and continue to do so at the rate of over 2,000 a day.

Those who want to know more about our campaign can visit our website at: Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution

Yours sincerely


Grenville Green

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett

NEWS UPDATE FROM CREC

We have now topped 170,000 cards distributed, this on Day 83 of our campaign.

Pictures of our handing in signed purple postcards - and a letter to the Queen - at Buckingham Palace are now on our website at Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution

Tonight's requests for postcards included this from former UKIP member Alex Stevenson from Heanor, Derbyshire - the Managing Director of the international Imperial Decorating Company:

QUOTE

13 March 2008

Hi Tony,

Could you send 6000 purple postcards please!! ASAP

Frank Leeming from Derby is delivering 6000 leaflets over the next few weeks and he would like to post a few thousand out for us.

Ken Udall is delivering a few around West Hallam, Dennis has been giving quite a few out in the chip shop.

And Ramesh has been delivering them with the newspapers!

Below is confirmation of a £300.00 donation to cover the cost of the postcards.

Best regards

Alex

PS: Lets hope it all works!!!

UNQUOTE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett

Letter received by CREC from Buckingham Palace today:

==========================================

18th March 2008

Dear Mr Bennett

I have been asked to thank you and the representatives of the Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution for the selection of purple EU postcards which were delivered to Buckingham Palace on 27th February.

The postcards and your letter, which followed on 28th February, have now been forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the attention of the Secretary of State, so that consideration may be given to the points you raise.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Sonia Bonici
Senior Correspondence Officer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------