Are we actually incarcerated by Treaties to the EU? Not according to British Law.
The Oath of Supremacy, imposed by the Act of Supremacy 1559, provided for any person taking public or church office in England to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Failure to so swear was to be treated as treasonable. The Oath was later extended to include Members of Parliament and people studying at universities.
Text of the Oath and the Act of Supremacy as published in 1559:
I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.
Text from Bill of Rights 1689
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
The government wants us to believe that the Act of Supremacy has been repealed, but I can find no evidence of this. The Act’s could not be repealed anyway; as they are part of our Constitutional Law, and they clearly state that no foreign power has any jurisdiction in this country. This also means it does not matter if the Royal Assent was valid or not, as the Bill of Rights 1689 clearly backs the Act of Supremacy up.
The Ministry of Justice have just confirmed that the government have no plans to replace the Bill of Rights 1689, so as you can see from the text in red, we most certainly are not members of the EU, and proves without doubt that our government have committed Treason against our monarch, our country and us as a people.
All treaties signed are INVALID, as they are against our Constitutional laws, as I have said many times before, Halsbury say’s “to act against the Constitution is an act of Treason” (Halsbury law - Birth Right of the English People. Available on the internet) The signing of the Treaties and all EU legislation the government have introduced into this country, are not valid, for they are an act against our constitution (Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Supremacy 1559) so they can only amount to Treason.
In the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act the government secretly repealed the Treason Acts as follows:
The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely—
(a) the [1790 c. 48.] Treason Act 1790;
(b) the [1795 c. 7.] Treason Act 1795
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980037_en_4#pt2-pb3-l1g36
The following Acts could not be repealed for the two following reasons.
(1) Both treason Acts are part of our constitutional law, thus cannot be repealed, for the reasons given above.
(2) All Treason Acts were made permanent in 1807 also you can add to the list The Felony and Treason Act 1848. The Treason Act 1351.
So needless to say the government is blatantly guilty of treason and thus can be tried in a court of law for their acts against us. Even more evidence can be found in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, where Blair claimed to have taken the Prerogative Powers from the Queen. He also claimed to be commander in chief of the country, the problem with this bold statement is that only a monarch can be commander in chief of this country, yet again another blatant act of treason. Furthermore Halsbury Law States Sir Edward Coke 1615 ....the prerogative power cannot be removed from a monarch even by an act of parliament... Even more proof.
They have committed a heinous list of offences and blatant treason against us and the proof is in black and white. With combined effort of all our members we can wake the nation up and force the greatest court case in the history of the UK. We could see in the future every MP who allowed this treason to happen, every Prime Minster who instigated acts of treason and even the Queen her self for allowing this to happen, tried in the High court for TREASON. As our protector she should have put a stop to this long ago, as she is only there because of the Constitution, as said by Edward III.
We have a Constitution, it is there to protect us, but it can only do this if we recognise the fact that it exists and is still Law today.
You have this completely
You have this completely wrong. There is one rule of our Constitution, and one only. That is the rule that no Parliament may bind its successor. That means that any law can be undone subsequently, as long as Parliament wishes to do so. So there is no question of treason arising where Parliament passes a law.
Anonymous, above, states
Anonymous, above, states that no parliament may bind its successor - I always thought this to be true until, during the current HoC debate on the Lisbon Treaty, it was frequently pointed out that this Treaty does indeed bind successive parliaments.
If the Bill of Rights and the Act of Supremacy are not binding on successive parliaments but the Lisbon Treaty is, where does that leave us? (purely rhetorical - I think I can guess!)
Lisbon Treaty
There comes a time when we simply have to stand up for what we believe our rights are... and if that brings us into conflict with our own parliament, and our own Monarch for that matter, then so be it. If our political leaders say jump and we refuse to do so then they will send the police and/or army to make us jump... but they wont make us jump if there are more of us than them... it is at this point in time that we say... no YOU jump. We can analyse the law and our constitution until the cows come home... our politiicans do not care about our view of what our laws mean and they have enough corrupt judges to back up their take on the matter. This is a numbers game... the biggest (and toughest) team wins. I'm standing up to be counted... who will stand with me?
Are we actually incarcerated by Treaties to the EU? Not accordin
No new written constitution, including a new Bill of Rights can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you
"Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent schemes by proponents of Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to 'political-moral' entrenchment) with conventional sovereignty".
Parliament did not make these laws of which I write even though Parliament believes it can do anything it likes. Parliament can undo anything IT does but what it may not do is to repeal our long standing Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Rights/Bill of Rights because Parliament had no hand in either.
Certain members of Government seem to have great difficulty in accepting that they cannot just do as they like. That the term, “no parliament can bind its successors” applies to legislation that Parliament instigated. Anything that Parliament has done, can be undone. However, even then they should hold in mind that in unravelling one Document (maybe like the Act of Union) can also have an effect on the Act of Settlement which in turn may affect the whole of the Commonwealth.
Parliament cannot alter one dot or comma of certain EU legislation or Treaties. Although should the time come when our Country wants out of the EU, it could abrogate the EU Treaties as stated by Lord Denning. Messy and very difficult, but it could be done. HOWEVER, should the UK transfer our remaining territorial waters to the EU through an EU Regulation and World Maps are altered to reflect this, could a future British Government take those now EU Territorial seas back? The EU Treaties could be repudiated, And as has been said many times before, all this Country has to do to be FREE is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, BUT after Lisbon, if activated, I rather expect the EU to move very quickly to “meld” together all forces and police and many other parts of the Treaty very quickly so that they could never be disentangled again. As a forward ‘planner’ that is what I would do. I would even have another Treaty at the ready to bring in those parts ‘left out’ that prevented certain Leaders from ratifying ‘The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ and the ‘Treaty of Lisbon’, such as, the flag, the anthem and other considered important articles the EU wants so very much and without debate in ‘national’ Parliaments or ratification as described in “Lisbon”.