eurealist.co.uk

The Telegraph today Saturday 25/09/04

Ran three pieces on Sir Stephen Wall, a leading Foreign Office mandarin.

Now he has gone off to work for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Sir Stephen feels free to as the Telegraph put it -let rip -with condemnation of Mr Blair for his timorous approach to the EU referendum.

What was the breaking point for this erudite and respected man who was a proper and discreet civil servant to the last well put bluntly too much democracy.

Sir Stephen who by his own admission, has for most of his career been secretly working behind the scenes to further the cause of the European project against the wishes of the British people, became disenchanted when Mr Blair did his famous u turn and called a referendum on the EU Constitution. He felt that as the people of Britain were most likely to vote no, the best course of action was not to allow us a voice.

Now just to clarify this is a man who has freely sworn allegiance to the British Crown and therefore sworn to uphold the British Constitution, a trusted man who has been employed and well paid by the British people to work for their benefit.

Since 1968 when he joined the Foreign Office he has risen to the top of his profession, has been Assistant head and head of European Community Department, Foreign Office, Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary,Private secretary to the Prime Minister (John Major),Ambassador to Portugal,Ambassador to the EU,Head of the European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and one of Tony Blairs top advisers on the EU, and all this time he has been steadily working to undermine the very country that he was sworn to protect, I think there is a name for that!

Up to a few years ago if this man had been working for the Russians in this way he would now be in prison, yet because it is the EU he gets a knighthood and a nice fat pension.

For years FCO bureaucrats have maintained a policy of closer European integration regardless of the declared will of their elected bosses, or the people who elect them. Sir Stephen has admitted that he did his best to pursue a European policy that was wholly at odds with British public opinion, as the Telegraph says “The EU, as it exists, is the creation of men like Sir Stephen: a bureaucratic construct with little room for democracy”.

In a separate piece the Telegraph says Sir Stephen, who saw John Major through key negotiations on Europe and was ambassador to the EU from 1995 to 2000, has been known for his loyalty and discretion.

Loyalty to what, certainly not to the people who pay his wages, certainly not to the Crown and certainly not to his own oath. He was discrete, that comes with the territory all those working to subvert their own elected government wishes are discrete, if they want to keep their jobs and influence. And talking of influence, what influence did this man have on Major when he refused the people a vote on Maastricht? It is clear by his present stance on the Referendum he was against the inconvenience of actually asking the people what their view was on the European project, how they felt about their loss of sovereignty. Quite simply this man knew that the people would not accept the destruction of their country as a sovereign nation state so he and others like him at the foreign office have made sure that we have not had a chance to stand in the way of their scheming to destroy Britain, and subvert our Constitution.

Now because he could not stop his boss from calling a referendum, which he feels is an unnecessary hindrance to his plans, he has left his post and now feels he has the right to come out in the open and join Britain in Europe to promote openly that which he has been working for in secret.

How many more like him are still hiding behind a facade of honest brokers, whose only thoughts are the betterment of Britain, and looking after our interests, yet are secretly working against the will of the British people.

It is time we had a house cleaning and got rid of these foreign office mandarins and put in their place men and women who do take their oaths of allegiance to this country seriously, it is time to replace the dishonest secretive establishment figures who consider themselves so very superior to the people that they need not bother to ask what we want, who consider that the representatives we elect to run the country should work to their aims, and not those of the people.

I thought it would be a good idea to revisit some of Austin Mitchell’s claims, as really those claims are at the heart of practically all of our problems with Civil Liberties and the European Union.

The destruction or removal of the British Constitution is in fact not possible in law, the only way that this government can get away with their attempts to change the Constitution, is to ignore its existence.

Therefore when Mr Mitchell claims Britain does not have a Constitution and “What we have is the sovereignty of Parliament which can do anything” he is only reflecting the views of the present government. The present government is not alone in this view, past governments have been enthusiastically, ignoring the Constitution each time they wish to bring in powers for themselves that would not pass Constitutional tests they have ignored it.

When Mr Mitchell states that “Parliament controls the Royal Powers because it is the King or Queen in Parliament which constitutes the pinnacle of power” and “There are certain royal prerogatives are held and operated not by the monarch, who now does as her ministers tell her” he is fact attempting a conjuring trick and suggesting making the act of settlement made the Monarch subservient to the Lords and Commons, in fact it did nothing of the sort. The British Constitution was to set up a series of checks and balances, so that neither Parliament nor Monarchy could grab absolute power. That was ensured by making everybody subservient to law, it is the Law that is supreme and all parts of Government i.e. Both Parliament and Sovereign must obey the law, i.e. the Constitution.
When the Queen decides whether to give the royal assent to new laws she must act in accordance with the Coronation Oath and the Constitution. Any law which has the effect of undermining the Constitution is itself illegal, and has no force, any acts which follow based on that illegal original act are also illegal.
If at some point in our history we had a self-protecting Constitution which was based in law that could not be changed or broken, by either Parliament or the Monarch, so, then unless that Constitution has been illegally broken then it must still stand today. Anyone claiming that Britain does not have a Constitution is going to have to clearly explain how that can happen, and who it was that broke the law and how it is that an illegal law can stand.

Notes:
It was confirmed that no Minister may advise a breach of the Coronation Oath in 1996 by the Prime Minister John Major in the Commons (See Hansard 15/10/96), and in correspondence by the Home secretary Jack Straw replying in ‘light of his constitutional responsibility on 20/7/2000, the Speaker of the Commons Betty Boothroyd 1/8/200, and by the Lord Chancellor in Oct. 2001. This limitation upon Parliament’s power has thus been acknowledged. This has also been recognised in Leading Counsel’s recent opinion to the Freedom Association. All must bear ‘true allegiance’. This is an obligation under oath of office and is a certain duty and prerequisite of office. The Queen accepts the advice of her Ministers but, quid pro quo, there can be no entitlement to place the Monarch in an unconstitutional position with wrong advice, ‘evil counsel’ and thereby cause perjury. This is the logic behind the maxim ‘the king can do no wrong’. Clearly ministers may not advise a breach of the Constitution. Parliament is “omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence” (Sir Robert Megarry V.C. Manuel V Attorney General 1983.).

The Bill of Rights states that any actions taken against its principles are null and void Any notion to the effect that the Bill of Rights is ‘just an ancient Statute’ and no longer relevant under modern conditions must fall as the validity of the Bill of Rights was solidly re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement of November 2001. Desuetude is unknown to English law.

The Royal Prerogative. “No Prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other Statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. Etc”. (Sir Robert Howard.)
The Government may not lawfully suspend our Common Laws

Britain must still have a Constitution and one which must still be ‘active’ because over the last two or three years, it has been either quoted or referred to over two hundred times in Parliament.

The Common Law Constitution, our Bill of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta are a contract between the Crown and the sovereign people of this country. Parliament cannot amend, alter or repeal either; all that Parliament can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.

There is absolutely no authority for parliament, whatever the situation, to remove any part of our Common Law Constitution,

The Royal Prerogative is in the gift of the Monarch, the fact that this Queen has loaned those powers to her ministers, does not remove the legal obligation of the Monarch nor of Parliament to obey the Law.

In just the same way as if I loaned you my car, this does not allow you to then break the law that specifies the depth of tread on the tyres, in fact if you did not maintain the car in the correct manner, not only you, but I would be held jointly and separately responsible, and we would both be fined for the offence.

The Royal Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. It may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v Nichols, 1576, stated,
“Prerogative is created for the benefit of the subject and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”.

If there can be no suspension of the law, then it must logically be necessary for Parliament to repeal or destroy and then re construct the whole Bible of our Constitution, in order to pass ‘lawfully’ these new laws which apparently contradict our Constitution, all of those who govern have sworn not to attempt to do this by their swearing prerequisite to office ‘to bear true allegiance’ through the monarch to the Constitution for the People’s governance. This is also confirmed in the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT as their traditional duty and law, in short the custom!

The Constitution imposes limits on the power of Parliament. Parliament may not legitimately undertake actions that are in contravention of the Constitution or the Rule of Law.

The present Government is doing just that by ignoring the Constitution.

Thanks to J. Bingley. Anne Palmer and Maurice Blackburn