harryaldridge

True. I understand your points. He did produce some solid evidence to support many of his claims including various pieces of case law and photographic sections of acts of Parliament etc. I'm not saying he is absolutely correct or anything, but he has spent 10 years or so immersed in researching the British constitution (a little bit more than I) and some of his facts are indisputable.

But I'm still not going to go into details on a public forum.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

Mikeuk

Well I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that the idea that there could be a legal contract between the government and all British citizens is probably flawed, Hobbes, Rousseau etc notwithstanding.

Vague memories of Form and Consideration, Carbolic Smoke Balls, and other such esoteric matters seem to echo down the centuries since I last sat an exam.

Well I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that the idea that there could be a legal contract between the government and all British citizens is probably flawed, Hobbes, Rousseau etc notwithstanding.

Vague memories of Form and Consideration, Carbolic Smoke Balls, and other such esoteric matters seem to echo down the centuries since I last sat an exam.

If Mr Bingley wants a sub, I would certainly like to think that he is beng careful not to waste money unnecessarily.

douglas denny

There is still a legal contract between the British people, parliament, and the Monarch, which is still part of British law and still on the statue book:
It is the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement 1688/9.

This has set into stone forever, (until there is a complete revolution between those three parties), the relationship between them. It is still embodied in the Coronation oath of the Monarch and is probably the most fundamental part of our constitution.

John Bingley is an expert in this particular part of our law. According to him, it seems clear the present arrangement of everything the EEC/EU has done since the Single European Act 1972 is probably illegal in a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights because the latter specifically prohibits interference in British affairs by foreign interests.

The 'metric martyrs' case very nearly succeeded in bringing this fundamental issue into the light. It was effectively suppressed, but what did come out of that case was the acceptance that the Bill of Rights is indeed still law, and that parliamentary sovereignty cannot be given away - ever- and that all of the EEC/EU law treaties etc since the Single European Act are allowable in British law ONLY to the extent that parliament accepts them.
In other words, in theory, parliament can at any time reverse, repeal, rescind, dump and ditch anything it wants to pertaining to the EU.

That it has never done so does not mean it cannot. And because the Bill of Rights issue has never been tested in the courts does not mean it is no longer applicable in British law or that it cannot. It has just not been tested yet in the courts. It is being deliberately ignored by our sucessive governments for (their) convenience' sake.


DED
-

Geoffrey Collier

Constitution: I fear that we are wandering 'up hill and down dale': constitutional theory is interesting, but we should be reflecting on actual options. Nothing is set in stone forever, whether there is a revolution or not.
Even perpetuity has a legal time-span. The Scots were to sit at Westminster, in perpetuity, under the 1707 Act of Union. That didn't stop Mr Blair removing Scotttish hereditary peers from the English H of L. despite that Act.

Foreign powers and interests have been influencing/imposing their will on Britain for generations. Likewise, we have done the same to others. The Munroe Doctrine in 1823, certainly acted as a constraint on British ambitions in the Americas. Our, Two Nation Standard, was used to deterime the size of naval fleets in countries, not under our control, until the Wshington Conferences in the early 1920's. International Courts also affect the decision making powers of this country and many others.

I believe that we should consider our options and resources. As I said yesterday, we should look for ways in which the Lisbon Treaty contradicts existing ones, and the Un Charter is a good starting point. To that we should add the consequences of 'Ever deepening union' on the Commonwealth countries. If the Queen is head of that organisation and also the head of extra-territorial countries, they must be parties to any agreement which affects the Queen's status as an EU citizen. We are back to Maastricht, are we not?

Should we launch a two prong attack, the UN and lawyers in places like Canada and Australasia, some progress could be made. Someone like Malcolm Turnbull in Australia could be a good contact. Similar lawyers in Canada and elsewhere should be approached. Our absorbtion into Europe has resulted from all British governments acting alone. We should widen the 'interest groups', and that could give us something we are short of at the moment -TIME.

Geoffrey Collier

Sorry: imperpetuity, the pedants will have sight problem in time.

Geoffrey Collier

Heavens: Try again. I only intended to insert the word 'in' to precede perpetuity. I am sure if I hadn't bothered none would have noticed. The gold is in the message and not the syntax.

twizzel

The contract is between the Crown and the people. i.e The people offer the Crown to a prospective King/Queen on condition the King rules in a particular way in our case according to our laws and customs. The prospective King/Queen takes the coronation oath promising to rule according to those laws and customs and the Archbishop puts the Crown on their head and they are King/Queen. The Declaration of Rights 1689 was presented to Prince William and Princess Mary of Orange and they had to accept it's terms or loose the Crown.

Simple really you want to be King we will let you as long as you promise to treat us properly.

twizzel

There is nothing in our constitutional history which allows the Queen to become a citizen of Europe or anywhere else for that matter, if she wishes to become a European citizen she must abdicate the Crown the King of England is subserviant to no one but God and the indiginous people of England.

Geoffrey Collier

Twizzel: You must define your terms. EU citizenship is not a legal, but a political concept. I admit, this is not without problems, particularly when things like arrest warrants (legal) are superimposed upon citizens whose citizenship is not legal but political. Unless this problem can be resolved, I think that you should ask Aarvark to use it as your defence when they finally put you to clink.

I once had some correspondence with Michael Shrimpton on this subject, (and Piers Merchant, for that matter) and they both agree that EU citizenship has no basis in law.
Why not gravitate to this one Twizz and forget about treason?

Aardvark

twizzel,

Authority for your propositions?

What authority, historic or otherwise, do you have for the abdication of the Queen?

The Queen is not asked to be a citizen of Europe per se, but, if of anywhere, the European Union. It is a political concept that will have little effect on her remaining roles since she is still head of state and will still be received as such. I suspect that nobody has ever asked her for her passport. If, however, she were to abdicate then she would be in the same boat as the rest of us with regards to citizenship, except she has a few million more in the bank.

What about the Crowns of Ireland and Scotland and the Duchy of Normandy? It's a long time since any of our monarchs reigned as Queen or King of England alone. twizzel, are you not aware of the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1801? Mary Stuart, wife of William III of Orange, was daughter of James II in any event.

You misunderstand the dilemma Parliament found itself in when James II renounced Protestantism and placed many Roman Catholics in positions of authority. The arrest of Archbishop Sancroft and 6 other bishops for not proclaiming Catholicism was the move that brought things to a head and led directly to the Glorious Revolution. It was nothing to do with the ordinary people but the power of the Protestant church and the then Parliament, which was not particularly representative of the majority of the populace who didn't have a vote.

The fact that yet again your posts are riddled with solecisms and misspellings suggest that there is no point directing you to an authoritative history of the time.

Do you think twizzel, that if the issue of abdication were raised, the Queen would turn to you, a semi-literate French polisher with a penchant for misunderstanding the constitutional laws and history of this country, or to one of her law officers, a person with a thorough grounding in the law and experience of both practice and administration of such?

The Coronation Oath was not originally recorded and we don't know exactly what took place at every coronation prior to 1688 (Coronation Oath Act, 1688 s3); since then we know that our own Queen modified the words slightly. We also know that the Union of Scotland Act, 1706 and the Irish Church Act, 1869 changed the wording. Coronations were essentially private affairs until HMTQ had hers broadcast. The time distance between coronations such as that of George III and George IV or Victoria and Edward VII means that nobody is one hundred per cent certain what was said or done at each ceremony and pretty well nobody who was an adult at George III's coronation made it to George IV's or from Victoria's to Edward VII's. The oath is symbolic as everyone knows. It is open to interpretation.

You are not qualified to interpret the law and your vain attempts to do so hold you open to ridicule. I note that at Ashley Mote's recent talk at Marlborough you couldn't help but repeat the lie that it is treason to repeal the treason laws!!!! This is the same person who has argued over and over again on this forum that the Treason Act, 1695, s5 has been repealed by a myriad of statutes as well as impliedly, despite still being published on the Government's own statute law database. You see twizzel, you are so lacking in intellect or wit that you can't see that if you are right, and treason laws cannot be repealed, then your, and David Barnby's, pursuance of treason charges against people whose treason is time barred is inherently pathetic. If the law is, uniquely, not susceptible to repeal, then you can't proceed against people who are protected by it.

I note that Dave Barnby, a committee member of Witney UKIP, was giving succour and support to fraudster Ashley Mote by being one of the tiny group of people who attended his 'rally' in Marlborough (Dave, aarable, is clearly visible in the film footage posted online).

The Marlborough meeting was a sad affair. Here we were with the Irish vote having just occurred and a Eurosceptic MEP, talking on the topic of the day, couldn't muster 20 people to see him speak.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008