The Magna Carta Society
OTHER ACTIONS
The objective of Defence of the Realm has been to make a
case for the constitutional repudiation of the United Kingdom’s membership of
the European Union.
There are, of
course, other means by which the UK’s membership of the EU may end - the
government of the day might withdraw its ambassador and void the treaties with
the EU; the EU might collapse or throw us out (equally unlikely); parliament
might vote for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government
ministers for treason might be successful. Any one of these events would have
much the same practical effect as we seek.
Whichever event
prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need
the urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take
them.
Immediately
1. Determine how
best to test in the courts the claim that European law is supreme in the United
Kingdom. This is the first step towards ultimately proving the illegality of EU
law in the UK.
2. Examine the
direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors and EU
commissioners. At the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the
Commission’s euro should be publicly stripped of their status as privy
counsellors.
3. Examine the
constitutionality of the three separate attempts currently being made by
parliament acting under instructions from the EU and the European Court of
Human Rights to interfere with the oath of attestation made by all members of
the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo European Army,
and passing command to a foreign power, the second proposes giving the right to
junior ranks to sue their commanding officers, and the third interferes with
the setting and interpretation of standards of behaviour likely to be
detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In all these actions parliament
appears to be exceeding its authority and compromising the sovereignty of The
Queen.
4. Examine the
issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty - "Citizenship of
the union is hereby established"). British citizenship (we prefer the term
subject of the crown) is a birthright. Citizenship is not in the gift of a
self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable to the
British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.
The notion of
dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world,
applications for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the
European Union is even now only an association of sovereign nation states. It
is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. It is
impossible to be the citizen of a non-state.
At the very
least, therefore, that legal anomaly needs to be disputed in the courts, with
the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective means
of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic
paraphernalia - passport covers, driving licences and the like.
5. Examine the
constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the
euro, both of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under
our constitution and, if possible, instigate proceedings to have them set
aside.
6. Investigate
the case against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal prerogative
and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the
United Kingdom, and who may be held to have exceeded the powers granted to
them.
7. Test the
legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are
made to introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition
has been applied. There are major battles ahead, including: the euro and tax
harmonisation, weights and measures, a European defence force, Europol and
Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK,
contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and
every one must be disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.
Post-Membership
8. The
restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of
maladministration, involving whole industries (fishing, for example) and many
thousands of individuals and businesses, and going back over many years.
The desire for an
immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an
equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now)
illegal regulations. An immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most
practical and desirable first step.
The vital issue
of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This
might perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and
reinstatement was handled after the second world war, with the state leading a
programme of national re-building. What redress do the people whose livelihoods
have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against government
ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be
delivered quickly and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil
proceedings? It is possible that justice itself will demand that the state
foots the bill.
We urge that a
powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and
charged, primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and
equitable redress for all those affected by the enforcement of EU law,
regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1 January 1973.
9. Investigate
the constitutionality of actions and decisions concerning the EU taken or
authorised by all the prime ministers, their administrations and enforcement
agencies, since 1972. Consider what legal response is now appropriate.
Further examine
the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or may have exceeded
the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the
clear intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The investigation
should specifically consider what liability attaches to all or any of these
people who, like all of us, are subject to the law and not above it, and whose
past actions paid no proper attention to the common law.
And Finally
10. The people
are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and
still should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously
threatened by the erosion of the checks and balances between the sovereign, the
houses of parliament and the people - an erosion which has been insidious,
lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed
sufficiently to exercise vigilance.
It was 473 years
after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between sovereign and
people. Today, 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.
Events of recent
years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new
and historic re-affirmation of the rights of the people is now essential - a
confirmation of liberties between the monarch and the people. It should
re-state the true relationship between sovereign, the two houses of parliament
and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between them, and
re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.
A Declaration for
the next thousand years based on the rights, freedoms and customs of the
British people for the last thousand years. Nothing else will do.
___________________________________________________________________
This document was
researched and written by the founding members of
The Magna Carta
Society. First published as Defence of
the Realm, 6 April 2000
Appendices
The
Hereditary House of Peers
By happy co-incidence, The
Magna Carta Society’s proposed petition to The Queen via the hereditary House
of Lords comes at a time when the re-establishment of that distinguished House
is under consideration.
By accepting and dealing
with our petition, the hereditary House of Lords will be the first estate of
the realm to grapple with the great constitutional issues raised by the
European Union, the first to give a hearing to the concerns of the people
(after more than 25 years of waiting), and the first to have an opportunity to
put the EUs constitutionality in the UK fully to the test.
They will also be
the first estate of the realm to acknowledge, in the context of our
relationship with the EU, the birthrights of the people as laid down in common
law and enshrined in the constitution. They will be seen to be doing their duty
under the first document of our constitution - Magna Carta - both by the people
and by the sovereign.
It was a group of
hereditary peers who forced King John to sign Magna Carta in the first place,
and by so doing took the initial steps towards creating our constitution. Thus
their support today is steeped in history and represents another few steps on
the same road.
The
Founding Members of The Magna Carta Society
Dave Bourne |
Mike Burke |
Idris Francis |
John Gouriet |
Adam Hartman |
John Hurst |
Ashley Mote |
Bob Sims |
Bryan Smalley |
|
|
|
Additional
Research
Mike Andrews |
John Hart |
Steve Johnson |
Nigel Locke |
How
to Reach Us
The Magna Carta
Society
c/o Bob Lomas
PO Box 358,
Horsham
West Sussex, RH13
7FY
England
phone and fax:
01403 741346
international: +44 1 403
741346
e-mail: earlgrey AT
uwclub.net
The Views of Leolin Price, QC
How did we ever
come voluntarily to join the most selfish, protectionist, inward-looking
political body the world has ever seen? It steadfastly fails to define any
benefits it might have claimed for itself, and defiantly ignores the injury and
damage it does.
I am sure the
time is ripe for a well-devised assault on all who by design or ignorance or
thoughtlessness have already made great steps towards overthrowing our
constitution. Cleverness and commonsense and balance and money are all needed.
What is needed is
the support and enthusiasm of people who are already alert to the
constitutional and political disasters which lie ahead if misguided bureaucrats
and governments and supporting deceivers have their way.