eurealist.co.uk

I have been sent a copy of an interesting e-mail from AUSTIN MITCHELL MP to a constituent, in which he attempts to rationalize the government’s actions.

“Sorry to be so late in replying to your email about the Bill. I agree that it’s an authoritarian measure though, unfortunately, in line with a lot of other authoritarian measures being pushed through usually on the pretext of dealing with terrorism, but actually eroding our civil liberties” However, I don’t agree that it’s treasonous.

So far so good, Mr. Mitchell accepts that the Civil Contingencies Bill is an erosion of civil liberties, Civil Liberties are the modern name for basic rights those rights which predate government and have been enshrined in English common law certainly since Magna Carta 1215.. the present set of so-called basic rights include the recent socio-economic rights, and should not be confused with civil liberties which are the very cornerstone of a free society based on individual freedoms. For government to erode civil liberties is against our Bill of rights 1668/9 which still stands and cannot be repealed by parliament.

The bill itself is NOT treasonous, however, Clause 21 (3) (j) if applied on the narrowest of reasons for an “emergency”, or the Government’s interpretation of an “Emergency” and our Constitution is null and void for however long that emergency takes, the Government can do exactly what it likes. It can strike out our Constitution for good and it can accept the EU constitution in its place even though all this time their oath of allegiance is to the Crown and this country, and THAT is where the treason comes in. Look up in an ordinary Dictionary to find out what the meaning is of TREASON.

“You’re saying this because your view of the constitution is wrong. In fact we don’t have a constitution”

Oh dear do these people really believe this! We do have a Constitution as well as the sovereignty of the people., The belief that Parliament is sovereign and that the Government can do anything they like is erroneous parliament does not have power to undermine the British Constitution in fact to do so is an act of treason as above. According to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy our Constitution “is an act of treason”.

“which is part of the case against the so-called European Constitution which is calculated to force one on us, which we don’t want”

Mr. Mitchell must be living in a parallel universe, I have never seen the argument against the EU Constitution portrayed on this basis, rather the opposite the EU Constitution will destroy the British Constitution, which has been developed over the past 1000 years and is based on Common Law it limits untrammeled Monarchic or Parliamentary power, ensures the continuity of our basic freedoms for all time, divides the power of government so that full power cannot be centered in any one part of government.

Firstly Mr. Mitchell tells us we do not have a Constitution and then he tells us we do not want one,
Perhaps he could explain exactly what happened to it? How it was that in 1820 we had one, and it was an act of treason to destroy it, yet this has somehow mysteriously disappeared sometime in the past 100 years. Who destroyed it, when they did so and how was it that this was not an illegal act and therefore null and void.
“What we have is the sovereignty of Parliament which can do anything and can’t bind itself which is why we can come out of Europe whenever we want to if Parliament decided to do so”.

Not according the Constitution which unless Mr. Mitchell can answer the previous questions, still stands.

Government like to claim they can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and leave the Union but if they try at present, which they can do- it does stop EU law downwards, but as far as the treaty is concerned, it is an abrogation of a treaty in International Law.

However should we accept the Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe, I maintain that the so called “exit clause” in the constitution itself would be the only means of escape. We would have signed up to that [keenly, willingly and eagerly] and once the EU Constitution is incorporated into our law, the EU Constitution takes over and overrides our Constitution making ours redundant-in other words it destroys it. That is treason, for the people too are obeying to laws and Constitution other than their own Constitution-that is treason

“Parliament control the Royal Powers because it is the King or Queen in Parliament which constitutes the pinnacle of power. There are certain royal prerogatives as you indicate, but these are held and operated not by the monarch, who now does as her ministers tell her”

Mr. Mitchell argues that there is no British Constitution yet in part to support that argument he cites a Definition of King-in-Parliament, which is a British Constitutional Law it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it also.

It is also not true that the Queen must give her authority to all acts of Parliament only those acts are passed by both houses, in theory if the Lords rejected an act it is a constitutional problem, that has to be resolved the Queen could in that case refuse to give authority and ask that the problem be resolved. It is also true that Ministers must not give illegal advice to the queen.

“It would be construed as treason to kill or remove the sovereign, just as it would be to assault the state she presides over, but it can’t be treason to strengthen or change executive powers which are operated by ministers themselves, not the monarch. It’s undesirable and unnecessary, would be against any charter or bill of rights if we had one”

It is also treason to remove the British Constitution because that itself is the basis of government’s powers, so if the change in executive powers has the effect of destroying the Constitution then that is treason. The power of Government comes from the people and is passed through the Monarch to her Parliament but it is the sovereignty of the people that is paramount not Parliament who can only use powers if they are elected by the people.

Mr. Mitchell seems to be among those who have a very short historic outlook on British Constitutional Law anything which contradicts their claim that Parliament is supreme and can do anything it likes is ignored as he is doing here.

Thanks to Anne Palmer and group