eurealist.co.uk

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