Save Our Sovereignty

S.O.S. is the web site of "Save Our Sovereignty", an organisation dedicated to revealing just how much Britain is being taken over and destroyed by Europe.

We are attempting, by highlighting information which is, in the main, freely available in the media, to bring to the notice of the people of this country just what being part of the European Community really means.

For those who are in any doubt about the truth behind the European Union, please read what one of the Founders of the EU had to say as long ago as 1952,

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening.

This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

                                                   Jean Monnet (1888-1979)

If you do not want to be made a member of a "United States of Europe" without being consulted, or even informed that it is happening, now would be a good time to start telling your elected "representatives".

Because, before much longer, it will be too late to change things!

Current Newsletter

October/November 2009 

Once again, many thanks to all who sent donations, information, CDs, DVDs etc.  All communications are very much appreciated.

SOS was about to be sent to the printer when Mr Cameron announced the Conservatives’ new policy on the European Union following the signature by President Klaus of the Czech Republic to the Lisbon Treaty, thereby removing all obstacles to its ratification. Two years ago Mr Cameron gave a ‘cast iron guarantee’ that the Tories would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  Yesterday, 4th November 2009, he reneged on that promise.  According to the Daily Mail, 5.11.09, Mr Cameron pledged that Britain would ‘never again’ allow new powers to be handed to Brussels without a public vote.  He also said that any attempt to scrap further British vetoes without another treaty would require an Act of Parliament.  He promised that the Tories would pass a UK Sovereignty Act which would establish the primacy of British law in certain areas.  Barry Legg, Chairman of the Bruges Group, said: “Yet again a British politician has broken his promises on Europe.  Yet again a would-be Prime Minister has promised us that if we elect him, everything is going to be different.  And yet again, not one plausible detail is offered as to why….With his contemptuous surrender, David Cameron has provided Brussels with the icing on the Lisbon cake.  They have nothing to fear from this man and they know it.” 

The  Daily Mail, 5.11.09, further reported that the Tory leader promised to start negotiations (which he admitted could take years), to repatriate powers on human rights, employment and criminal law, but said that he did not wish to rush into a massive Euro bust-up.  Writing in that same paper, Edward Heathcoat Amory, a special adviser to the former Major government, warns that the bust-up, which Mr Cameron wishes to avoid  could very well happen as it hard to see how our (so called) European partners could be persuaded to grant such concessions.  Stephen Glover wrote that the Tory leader was presented with an historic opportunity to prove his mettle and show the kind of man he really is, although, even armed with the result of a referendum he might not have succeeded in negotiations to change Britain’s relationship with the EU.  The Daily Express, 5.11.09, quotes Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Independence Party as saying that renegotiation of EU powers was impossible and that Mr Cameron was trying to deceive people.   According to Leo McKinstry writing in the same paper, Mr Cameron’s promise to protect British sovereignty and give the public a say on any further transfer of powers to the EU may be meaningless as the supremacy of British law has already been undermined.   

The Irish people were bullied, bludgeoned, frightened and lied to by the EU elite and their own government in order to make them reverse their ‘NO’ vote of last year.  As Professor Anthony Coughlan of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre stated: ”This result does not have political legitimacy, whatever the voting percentages amounted to, because of the fraudulent and undemocratic way in which the referendum was run ….”  He said that the limitless money provided for the ‘Yes’ side by Brussels, European parliamentary parties, the Irish Government and private business firms was ten times as much as that received by the opposition.  The campaign was massively unlawful and breached Ireland’s referendum law.  It was illegal for the European Commission to intervene and the country’s statutory Referendum Commission failed to carry out its function under the Referendum Act.  It was their duty to explain to the citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution.  It was illegal under Irish law to receive donations in a referendum from sources outside the country and yet there was part funding of posters and press advertising by political parties in the European Parliament.  Also, the Irish Government unlawfully used public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of so-called “assurances” given by the European Council.  They followed this with a brochure containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and other material.  Professor Coughlan said there were breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate.

A video available on shows people coming in and out of Cork City Hall, unaccompanied by the Garda or any other security organisation, carrying ballot boxes from centres all around Cork.  Boxes were delivered to polling stations up to 48 hours before they should have been; they are not supposed to be delivered before 7.0 am  The spokesman on the video said he went inside the polling station and found no security whatsoever, and could have interfered with the boxes without being challenged.  In the opinion of Hans Vogel, writing on the Russian newspaper Pravda’s website, (Pravda.Ru, 7.10.09) believes that the vast difference between the recent ballot and that of the previous referendum indicates that the vote was most certainly rigged.  On the other hand, Mr Barroso, the President of the EU Commission, made a statement welcoming the result of the referendum.  According to Mr Vogel, ‘Barroso’ means ‘muddy’, and he suggested that Mr Barroso should be behind bars rather than in a plush office in Brussels. 

According to a report which appeared in four concerned individuals applied to challenge by Judicial Review the validity of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill (2009) because of irregularities.  All were refused ex parte.  The Attorney General had indicated that Ireland was not able to ratify the Lisbon Treaty unless there was a successful referendum and an amendment to the Irish Constitution. These cases are now being formally appealed to the Supreme Court.  In order to justify a second Irish referendum, the EU agreed to give Ireland separate guarantees on abortion, defence, etc.  In fact, the Irish voted on exactly the same treaty as they had voted on previously.   Speaking in the House of Lords, (Hansard,2.7.09) Glenys Kinnock said that the guarantees will become binding in international law when they are translated into protocol at the time of the next accession.  According to the Campaign for an Independent Britain, 27.07.09, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has said that these guarantees make the Brown Government’s 2008 ratification of the Treaty invalid.

[It is greatly to be regretted that we in this country do not have a leader who would stand up for the people as President Klaus has done for the people of the Czech Republic. The Lisbon Treaty, WHICH IS INTENDED TO LAST IN PERPETUITY, contains an amending clause, similar to the Enabling Act passed by Adolf Hitler in 1933, which means that there will be no need for any further treaties.  The EU will be able to take any powers it requires with the minimum of consultation.  THIS WILL BE THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE(Ed)]

Now that the last obstacle has been removed and even before the ratification of the Treaty, the EU is going ahead with plans to turn itself into a global power.  A document has been drafted conferring a full ‘legal personality’ for a new European diplomatic service.  (Daily Telegraph, 19.10.09).   It is worth noting that Germany was unable to ratify the Lisbon Treaty until a ruling was given by its Constitutional Court that the Treaty complied with the German Constitution.  This ruling was given subject to passing a law which gave the German Parliament powers to screen EU laws.  Britain also has a constitution which our government appears to ignore unless it suits them, as was the case recently when it used Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.  A paper entitled ‘Our Common Law and Right’ is appended to this newsletter.

On 16.9.09, José Manuel Barroso, who had just been re-elected as President of the Commission, promised to bind EU states even closer, fight ‘national egoisms’ and push ahead with further integration.  He stressed
that he will be promoting a pro-EU agenda.  Despite reservations about the extension of EU powers, the Tories backed Mr Barroso for a second term as President.  (Daily Telegraph, 17.9.09)  In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, 16.9.09, Mr Barroso claimed that Britain is learning to love the European Union and the economic crisis had prompted Eurosceptics to ‘think twice’ about their hostility to Brussels.  He said: “Even Eurosceptics understand that without a strong European Commission we cannot ensure respect for the single market”.  Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP said: “The idea that we cannot trade without the EU is absurd.   As more daft rules come out of the EU, such as the ridiculous ban on light bulbs, they are piling more straws on the camel’s back.” 

A poll published by Capacent Gallup in the Icelandic daily Morgunbladid, 20.08.09, has found that a majority of 48.5 % is opposed to joining the EU against 38.6% in favour and 16.9% undecided.  According to the Daily Telegraph, 27.7.09, the krona has fallen by half against the euro and, although nothing is cheap prices are affordable.  Alcoa has raised aluminium production to record levels and both metal and fish are being exported.  Iceland had the obvious advantage of not being in the euro.

Graham Watson, Liberal Democrat MEP, is apparently proud of having guided the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) through the EU Parliament.  In his letter to the Western Morning News, 13.10.09, he says that all countries of the EU are signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6 of which states that all persons have a legal right to a fair trial.  He also says that British courts were empowered to refuse extradition.  In the case of Andrew Symeou at a High Court appeal hearing under the EAW the appeal judges could not consider the prima facie ‘evidence’ which was explicitly not allowed.  According to Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP, who sat through the hearing, contrary to what Mr Watson says courts have almost no power to refuse an extradition, except on the narrowest of grounds that did not apply in this case.  The identification evidence against Mr Symeou was completely contradictory and there was clear evidence that the Greek police had fabricated witness statements.  Two of Mr Symeou’s friends had been beaten and mistreated in order to extract statements incriminating him.  These statements were immediately repudiated with British consular officials when the witnesses were released from police custody.  The appeal judges referred the appeal to the House of Lords who refused to hear the appeal on the basis that it was not in the public interest.

British courts have been stripped of their power to protect British citizens from unjust arrest and imprisonment if they are subject to a European Arrest Warrant.  Habeas Corpus, our most basic protection under the law, has been removed and any one of us can be sent to prison in any European country provided that the correct form has been completed by a foreign court official.  According to Christopher Booker writing in the Sunday Telegraph, 25.8.09, the Home Office has admitted that the number of people extradited annually to EU countries under the EAW is likely to increase from about 500 to as many as 1,700, many for minor offences.  As Mr Booker says, what makes this European Arrest Warrant doubly offensive “is the craven servitude to which it reduces British courts, which are required automatically to comply with it”. 

According to the Daily Mail, 24.10.09, huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a multi-cultural Britain.  Ministers hoped to radically change the country but senior labour ministers were reluctant to talk about this policy in case it upset the white working class – their core voters.  The Daily Telegraph, 21.10.09, reports that the government has lost track of 40,000 illegal immigrants.  These immigrants should have left the country six years ago but might still be here.  Now it has been learnt that we may be forced to take more asylum seekers under the EU common asylum plan to harmonise immigration across the 27 EU states.  The EU has stated that it would like the allocation of asylum seekers to be ‘proportionate’ to the population so that each country ‘shares the burden’ of asylum applications.  (   According to the Daily Express, 21.9.09, Jacques Barrot, the EU Justice Commissioner, wants to scrap a rule that immigrants should take refuge in the country in which they first enter the EU, so that Britain can be forced to take in the thousands of migrants from the Calais camp known as ‘the jungle’. 
According to Eurofacts, l6.10.09, the European Commission is spending millions of euros of taxpayers’ money on projects designed to provide continent-wide surveillance and information sharing in order to  snuff out quickly any deviation from what Brussels decides is acceptable behaviour.  The EU is spending €2.5 million of taxpayers’ money on CCTV cameras on SAMURAI – suspicious and abnormal behaviour monitoring – for monitoring people and vehicle activities at airports, railway stations, football stadia, etc.  They are spending €3.2 million on a project called ADABTS to standardise concepts of abnormality in regard to health issues and automatically detect these abnormal behaviour patterns in crowded places.  Then there is INDECT costing €10.9 million, which aims to develop the registration and exchange of operational data, processing of information and supporting the operational activities of police officers.     

A new EU Intelligent Transport System (ITS) raises concerns about citizens’ privacy.  It is aimed at tackling road congestion by collecting data for freight and passenger transport and is said to collect potentially sensitive information, such as driving habits and journey details.  (Euractiv, 24.7.09)
Delegates to the Labour Party Conference cheered when they thought Mr Brown had announced that he had cancelled the ID scheme.  According to NO2ID Newsletter, 9.10.09, he did not.  He said the scheme would be ‘voluntary’.  Anyone agreeing to ‘volunteer’ for an ID card will never be allowed to leave the system and people will be compelled to ‘volunteer’ if they wish to apply for any official document, such as a passport.  Manchester has been designated as a ‘beacon city’ in the hunt for ‘volunteers’.  According to Mail On Line, 6.8.09, the ID card issued to foreign nationals is similar to those being issued to British citizens.  Inside the card is embedded a microchip detailing name, date of birth, physical characteristics, fingerprints, etc.  The Identity Card Act, introduced by Labour in 2006, states that the National Identity Register, which is the backbone of the scheme, could contain 50 separate categories of information about the individual.  The cards are supposed to be unforgeable, but Mail On Line demonstrated how a forgery could be made in minutes using a mobile ‘phone and a laptop computer.  According to Gerard Batten, MEP, the UK Independence Party’s spokesman on Justice, nine council workers were sacked for snooping on the personal records of celebrities and friends held by the National Identity Scheme databases, demonstrating how easily the system can be abused.

The first paragraph in the summary of the proposed EU Directive on Equal Treatment in employment and occupation (2000/78/EC) reads as follows:  ‘Combating discrimination is a major challenge for the European Union.  The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as rule of law.  Hence the EU must take all measures necessary to combat discrimination of all kinds, notably as regards employment and the labour market’.  According to Christian Concerns for our Nation (ccfon), 29.9.09, this directive could have the potential to silence Christians for fear of being sued for ‘harassment’.  Ccfon is concerned by the vagueness of the definition of ‘harassment’, which will make it easy to bring an accusation, and the alarming shift in the burden of proof on to the accused to demonstrate that the person alleging harassment did not, in fact, perceive offence.  This directive will have a negative impact on freedom of speech, freedom to speak to non-Christians about the Gospel, academic freedom and the freedom of religious groups to deliver public services.  According to EU Observer, 4.8.09. Catholics are alarmed by this proposed law and believe that atheists could attack galleries for showing religious art and witches could claim the right to use church bells.  The Daily Telegraph, 4.8.09, reports that Roman Catholic bishops have warned that this equality law is an ‘instrument of oppression’.  It is expected that the Council of Ministers will vote on this directive, which is aimed to curtail discrimination on grounds of religion, disability, age or sexual preference in social situations not covered by existing labour law, in November this year.  In the meantime, the Daily Telegraph, 17.8.09, reported that the Foreign Office is to fund equal rights activists in countries with a record of homophobia.

MEPs have voted to increase the EU budget from £106 billion to £116 billion per annum from 2010.  According to the Daily Telegraph, 26.10.09, this will increase Britain’s contributions by £5 million a day to £45 million.  More than two thirds of the budget goes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and “structural funds”.  Britain has a rebate to compensate for the high cost of the CAP, which mainly benefits countries such as France, but many MEPs want to phase our this rebate, part of which was surrendered by Tony Blair during the UK’s presidency of the EU in the hope of reforming the CAP.  Marta Andreason, UKIP MEP and former Chief Accountant for the EU Commission, speaking in the EU Parliament said that it was unbelievable that in these times of financial and economic crisis, the European Commission proposed an increase of almost 5% for the 2010 budget.  What was worse was that, at its first reading in July, the Council put forward a reduction of almost 2% on the preliminary draft budget.  Marta asked whether this was the way in which the Parliament wanted to bring the budget closer to the people.  She said that the UK had many other priorities in which to invest its money, particularly now that the Commission had warned that Britain was in danger of going bust due to its high level of national debt.   
According to the Daily Mail, 26.10.09, more than 1,000 unelected public bodies were given over £90 billion of taxpayers’ money during 2007/8, an increase of £13 billion over the previous year.  This cost every household £3,640.  The government says that there are 800 quangos, but a survey by the Taxpayers’ Alliance has identified 1,152, employing 534,000 people.  There are now so many quangos that their jobs often overlap.

Marta Andreason, the UKIP MEP and former Chief Accountant for the EU Commission, has told the Institute of Economic Affairs that the only way to fight the proposed directive was for Britain to leave the EU.  She said that the EU Commission played the most important role in the process and that, even if amendments were taken on, the Commission could always override them.  According to the Daily Telegraph, 5.8.09, The European Union’s proposals to regulate hedge funds could cost pension funds as much as €25 billion (£21.3 billion) a year.  This figure was arrived at by research by the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA).  The trade body warned that the cost of leverage restrictions, increased compliance costs and the impact of being restricted to European funds could decrease investor returns on hedge funds and private equity by as much as 2.5%.  It was thought that the European pension fund industry presently had €1 trillion allocated to alternative investments.  The increase in costs could have a seriously detrimental effect on pensions of all Europeans.  London was the home of 450 hedge funds, or about 80% of the European total, but the industry was also dominated by American players.
The Financial Times, 21.9.09, reported that hedge funds contributed approximately £5 billion in tax revenues to the Exchequer last year but the proposed EU rules could cause many funds to move overseas.
In order to stop this bank failing, it was supported by the government at a cost to the taxpayer of £14.4 billion.  .According to the Daily Telegraph, 4.8.09, Northern Rock made a £724 million loss in the six months to June this year as its bad debt soared to £602 million.  The price for being allowed by Neelie Kroes, the EU Competition Commissioner, to continue to support Northern Rock was a ‘significant reduction of its market presence’.  The Government has decided to split this bank into two parts – good and bad assets.  The bank’s loan book is being reduced from the pre-crisis level of £100 billion to £20 billion in order to ensure that its state support does not give it ‘an unfair competitive advantage’.  [It is understood that this will cost the taxpayer a further £8 billion.  (Ed)]RBS and Lloyds are expected to have to close a number of branches and shed 3,700 staff (Financial Times.3.11.09)

Under the heading of ‘Local Elections’ I reported in the July 2009 issue of SOS that the Liberal Democrats were instrumental in pushing through the unitary authority for Cornwall against the wishes of 80% of voters who were given the opportunity of expressing an opinion.  This figure was challenged by a member of Mebyn Kernow.  According to The Cornishman, 14.6.07, results of surveys carried out by Penwith, Caradon, Carrick and Kerrier Districts produced a resounding ‘NO’ to a unitary authority by 89%.
Because unitary authorities are part of the EU regionalisation agenda, a unitary authority for Cornwall was imposed on the county - [typical of democracy EU style!  (Ed)]

As of March this year the statutory powers of the South West Regional Authority have been transferred to  another unelected quango called the South West Councils, on which sit councillors from local South West councils.  The constitution of the new quango is almost identical to that of the SWRA and there is a background staff of over 70 people working at delivering the EU programme of regional government.

The Times, 30.10.09, reports that draconian police powers, originally designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles, are being extended to use against the public by councils, quangos and agencies.  Officials will have the right to search homes, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property.  This measure, which is being promoted by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, is expected to come into force in a few days.  It is an extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act and will be pushed through by a Statutory Instrument, so will not be debated in Parliament.  A report in the Sunday Telegraph, 1.11.09) states that planning changes could cause the destruction of thousands of listed buildings and large areas of the countryside.  The Government is said to be proposing to downgrade protection on old buildings and those in conservation areas in order to ‘benefit developers’ and ‘reduce the number of applications for planning permission rejected on heritage grounds’.  The professional body which represents town planners described the proposal as ‘unfit for the purpose’.

According to EUObserver/Brussels, 7.10.09, there are now to be ‘macro-regions’ which, by 2014, could get their own funding.  The pilot scheme for ‘macro-regions’ is the Baltic Sea Strategy, which will comprise several member states featuring a common geographical characteristic.  This could be followed by a strategy for the Danube region, an Alps region and a Carpathian mountain region, as well as others.  Discussions are taking place as to whether the money will be managed by the Commission, existing structures or a new body.   

In my newsletter of July2006, I reported that the UK Government was committed to spending tens of billions of pounds to equip our forces to play their part in the EU Rapid Reaction Force.  In so doing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were being starved of proper resources.  The situation has changed very little and our forces in Afghanistan are still suffering from lack of essential supplies.  According to the Sunday Times, 23.8.09, ministers have suppressed an official report which revealed that soldiers’ lives were being put at risk by ‘endemic failures’ at the Ministry of Defence.   The report stated that to-day’s projects were £35 billion over budget and arrived five years later than expected.  The Financial Times, 20.8.09, stated thatGovernment ministers had ordered a shake-up at the Ministry of Defence because auditors were unable to find £6.6 billion worth of equipment, which included vehicles, weapons and radios required by our troops.  MOD’s poor record-keeping suggested that officials had been taking important resourcing decisions without knowing where billions of pounds of equipment was located or whether it was in good condition.  According to the Western Morning News, 4.9.09, the head of the EU Military Committee, Henri Bentegeat, a four-star general and former Chief of the Defence Staff at the Elysee Palace, said that the traditional NATO alliance is at risk from the competing efforts of the European Union’s own defence policy.  He told MEPs that the two defence arms, comprised mainly of the same member states, sometimes overlapped their efforts to the detriment of both organisations.

According to the Daily Telegraph, 15.9.09, a landmark judgment in the European Court of Justice has ruled that employees who fall ill during their holidays would be able to claim back from their employers the time lost through sickness.  Staff would be able to ‘phone in, claim they had a cold while on leave and take the time off for illness rather than deducting it from their annual holiday.  Lawyers have said that the ruling would be open to abuse by dishonest workers who wanted to extend their time off.

WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION, by Francis S E Codjoe, Jnr
This is a book of some 800 pages, which has taken nine years to write.  It examines the prophetic writings of Sir Robert Anderson (Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner during Jack the Ripper Case), who foresaw the rise of the EU many decades later and where it is eventually heading.  Although requiring much commitment, it is both a fascinating and unique read.  What is extraordinary is just how accurate Anderson’s prophesies have so far been.  (


Our Common Law & Right
The Treaty of Lisbon
Sedition Against the State
A Constitutional Illegality and a Cheat upon the People

If the people of the United Kingdom believe in anything, it is their freedom under the law, for which their forebears have fought and died. It must therefore be a matter of the highest constitutional importance to them that the re-named constitutional Treaty of Lisbon, which takes in all the other EU Treaties, is found incompatible with our Common Law Constitution under existing foundational statutes still in force. Also, that the Crown Coronation Oath 1953, which upholds the ‘laws and customs’ of the Realm on behalf of the People, is disregarded as a mere bauble to be kicked out of the way.

The Case Against the Ruling Elite
Since 1972 successive Administrations of government in the United Kingdom (the recognised Mother of Parliaments and democratic freedoms in the world) have upheld European legislation which has allowed an ever-increasing conflict to grow on the Statute Book. The ancient rights of the People under English law have been set aside by a political agenda of deconstructive implied repeal. This has been allowed to effect what amounts to “a slow coup d’etat,” as was said by one hugely respected Labour MP.  Also, as another great figure in House of Commons said of our giving more and more control to Europe, especially over our Courts; “A constitutional authority no longer exercised, is no longer a constitutional authority.”

Sitting for decades on opposite sides of the House of Commons, both these former MPs were great parliamentarians and upholders of the People’s Democratic and Constitutional Sovereignty. During the whole process of passing European legislation they believed the People were being betrayed by the political elite in respect of the great European Project. Events have proven them and others correct in their greatest fears. A process of constitutional illegality over four decades has brought us to a very critical point represented by the Treaty of Lisbon – which threatens a thousand years of Britain’s constitutional history.   

Either a statute is in force or it is not and to avoid letting ‘the cat out of the bag,’ politicians (and even the Judiciary) avoided the lawful course of repeal in respect of our great foundational statutes. They simply cheated the People by ignoring these statutes as if we had no history prior to their unconstitutional actions. In effect the Orwellian dream world of 1984 has been made a reality. The People’s trust has been betrayed by the political elite. The time for the People to wake up arrived some while ago.

This process has continued treaty by European treaty until the People are now faced with a constitutional impasse, the like of which has not been seen since the 17th century. The Coronation Oath of 2 June 1953 committed the Monarch to uphold the “laws and customs” of the Realm. This does not encompass the ratification of the re-named Constitutional Treaty of Lisbon. 

It is now the case that future governments are supposedly bound by alien European laws that, under the final ratification of Treaty of Lisbon, will assert an unlawful ‘power to enforce’ a new constitutional settlement for Britain that has never been approved by the People. It is the most serious crime for anyone in the Realm and especially in government, to undermine the Sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament. It is in fact a crime of sedition, punishable under the Treason Act 1351 and the Treason Felony Act 1848, to plan the overthrow of the sovereign supremacy of the nation and the lawful supremacy of the Constitution.   

Successive governments have sought to cover their actions by making English Common Law allegedly subordinate to foreign Civil Law under the Treaty of Rome. They claimed that the European Communities Act 1972 made this law part of the British Constitution as legitimate constitutional procedure, because Parliament, it is said, is sovereign and can do what it likes. This is an entirely false assumption and only of recent constitutional convention in our long parliamentary history. The political elite have committed the People to the European Project by an action of stealth and deception which, of itself, is in defiance of constitutional constraint and therefore an act of sedition – in all reality treason against the State.

The Golden Thread of British History
It is said that in our Constitution the Monarch reigns but does not rule, yet as the Crown the Queen represents the People in Parliament. Since 1992 and the Treaty of Maastricht our Head of State has been made a citizen of the European Union, which on an official royal web site reads like an abdication.  This has compromised and downgraded the Royal Style and Titles of the Crown under the Statute of Westminster 1931, which is damaging upon the great Dominions where the Queen also is Head of State. 

The golden thread of British history is that we always bring the overmighty subject to book. When it is revealed that overmighty subjects have undermined our Constitution, a decisive moment will have arrived for our country and for the Crown. The Queen is the long-stop of our constitution and over our membership of the EU the People have been denied their democratic constitutional voice by the unconstitutional binding of future parliaments.

The consequences of allowing the present constitutional illegality to become irreversible under the Treaty of Lisbon will be infinitely more serious democratically than the scandal of MPs expenses. It has been said that in years to come Britain would have to fight her way out of the EU if it seeks to leave the federal-orientated organisation. In respect of the European arrest warrant, something very threatening is already happening, which is not widely understood by our people and under Lisbon could become far more serious.
In a report by Alex Wade in the Law section of The Times on 13 August, 2009, under a sub-headline it was stated that “Under the European arrest warrant many hundreds of people have been extradited for ‘crimes’ that would never reach a criminal court in Britain. It is time for a rethink?” It was also pointed out that some EU states have only recently begun observing human rights.

Furthermore, under the new article 188R on External Action of the Treaty of Lisbon,
it is quite clear that Europol/Eurogendarmerie, or foreign troops, can enter our Country fully armed with immunity from prosecution. 

The Queen “Deceived in Her Grant”?
The Monarch has the constitutional responsibility to act on behalf of the People; to maintain the peace of the Realm and to uphold our ancient freedoms for posterity. At the Coronation in 1953, the Monarch had the powers invested in her by the People to prevent the sedition of the State. The position of the Crown under present convention is that the Monarch only advises the government of the day. However, under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Queen could eventually find herself in the difficult position of being held responsible for the destruction of the nation state through stealth and deception.

The position at law is that the Monarch can do no wrong, but when Ministers do wrong on her behalf and implicate the Monarch in wrongdoing, it is said that the Queen has been “deceived in her grant.” The Queen is the Crowned Sovereign Head of State, Governor of the nation and Head of the Executive. The longer the present deception and betrayal continues without the issue being brought into the open, the greater will become the constitutional crisis for the nation and its unique constitution system. If the People have no recourse at law – and it is increasingly apparent that they are being denied that recourse – then an explosive situation must inevitably develop.


A Supreme Issue for a Supreme Court
Britain’s new Supreme Court gets under way from October 2009, making us more like Europe at law and changing centuries of legal history in our land. Surely the very first issue that should come before the Supreme Court is the burning question of the compatibility of our Common Law Constitution with the European Constitution under the Treaty of Lisbon?  How ‘strange’ that over the years this issue has been denied its day in our highest Court. The People and their posterity have been ignored because they would never have supported the process of sedition against the State.

Are not the seven centuries of Parliamentary history in Britain of no less importance than the German Constitution is to the German people – a constitution that dates only from 1949 and 1990? The Bundestag must comply with the German constitution and this gave rise to the German Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Treaty of Lisbon where, in addition, there is a Basic Law where every person may file a complaint to that Court when his or her constitutional rights (especially the human rights) have been violated.

In our case, there is a history of the Courts of England accepting that Parliament can change the Constitution without reference to the People. Much of it is in conventions which are unknown by the general population. The People themselves have no option but to trust their politicians not to betray their trust, yet this trust has been abused by governments over the years. Particularly has this been so since New Labour came to power in 1997 as it has been ignoring these conventions at will. The present Administration (‘the Government’ being the Queen’s) believes it can do anything it wants, there is no question about that and it has done so in practice.
The Labour Administration officially ratified the Treaty of Lisbon on 16 July 2008 when the UK’s ‘instrument of ratification’ was deposited with the Italian foreign affairs ministry in Rome (because of the original Treaty of Rome 1957). This was after two High Court Judges dismissed an action on a ‘legitimate expectation’ for a public vote on the matter. The Shadow Foreign Secretary said the prime minister had “no democratic or moral authority to sign Britain up to the renamed EU constitution.” However, there has been no great constitutional outcry coming from the Opposition, let alone from the Judiciary, who refused to allow judicial review on the previous Constitutional Treaty in 2003.
The point about the Treaty of Lisbon, which now incorporates all the earlier treaties, is that it has the effect of altering the British Constitution to such an extent that, when added to the previous changes, it has gone too far. A further point is that while premiers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made blatant changes, Britain remained relatively independent and it was still possible for future Parliaments to reverse them. However, under the renamed Constitutional Lisbon Treaty there are changes to the Constitution which can never be reversed.
The Executive should level with the People immediately. It would require the Queen to take a new Coronation Oath relegating the Realm to a state within a country called ‘Europe’?  This, of course, they could not afford to suggest – it would reveal the seditious agenda. Better they think to let the deception continue because the Judiciary, going on past experience, have no will to make a constitutional stand.
If the Judiciary Act Not – the People have the Right!
The fact is our great foundational statutes remain in force.  The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688-89, when Parliament was suspended, is still there. Magna Carta 1215/1297 which predates Parliament, is still intact, in spite of certain parts having allegedly been repealed. Yet, those parts that have been allegedly ‘repealed’ have actually been used since 1945 to win arguments – so how could they have been used to ‘win’ arguments when they are supposed to no longer exist? In The History of the English-speaking Peoples in the period which covers 1215 and Magna Carta, the famous author wrote that: “ Magna Carta must not be taken lightly as many modern writers would have us believe … whenever the State, swollen with its own authority, has sought to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the people, it is to this doctrine, ‘Magna Carta,’ that they have forever turned and never as yet without success.”
This is exactly the position of the State today in respect of the European Project. The record is its own accuser; the political elite, swollen with their own authority have ridden roughshod over the rights and liberties of the People. However, they have not had the authority to discard, by implied repeal, centuries of statute law. It has not been in their gift to commit the People and their posterity de facto, permanently, to another constitutional settlement under alien laws.
The most important clause in the 61st Article of Magna Carta states that “…it shall be lawful for every one in our realm to rise against us to use all the ways and means they can to hinder us … until that in which we have transgressed and offenced shall have been brought again into due state …” This action would be constitutionally legitimate, as repeated with great distinctness when confirmed by Henry III (1216-72). 
Within the past century, in A People’s Runnymede, it was written that the legalising of rebellion is the bedrock of our democratic institutions. It was accepted by Parliament. To this extent Parliament was limited; it must not violate the Common Law. The People becoming aware of constitutional illegality that has undermined the State, finding no recourse at law, have not only the lawful right, but by implication, the obligation, to react to the offence. It is their lawful right, to dedicate themselves by every means necessary, to restore their heritage of freedom under the law and to bring the overmighty to book.   
Attacks are being made on other great statutes, like the Act of Settlement 1701, which safeguards our constitution, but it has been found that to repeal this and certain other great statutes is far too involved and would unravel the great tapestry of our statute law involving also the overseas Dominions under the Crown. The British people across the globe are actually one people at law whereas most of the countries of Continental Europe have had new constitutions since World War II – hardly a sure foundation on which to build a United States of Europe!
The ruling elite in government, because they do not value or know history and its importance to our democratic freedoms, choose to ignore our Constitution and pretend it does not exist – until they use it themselves because it suits them – as was demonstrated so very recently by their use of Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The trust of the People in our temporary politicians is at its lowest ebb for many years.  The time has surely come for the Judiciary to act as the advocate of the People in Her Majesty’s Courts. Indeed, to represent them on this great issue which transcends party politics? By remaining aloof, they themselves could well become implicated in the crisis and defame our constitutional history.
Our Objectives that require Explanation and Exploitation:                                                To restore the essential sovereignty of our Electorate and to take back power madly conceded to the EU; to restore our traditional relationship between Parliament and Government; to undo the assumption of more and more power by the Executive: these are our most urgent objectives in the days immediately ahead. The cycle of events reveal once more the day of our destiny; 70 years on from 1939, Europe awaits our act of Deliverance – a new D-Day will come!  This time not by our military might and – “it will be marvellous in our eyes.”
Michael A. Clark, Chairman, Covenant Publishing Company Ltd
Geoff Southall, C.Eng., MIEE, MRIN
Anne Palmer, JP                                                                                                                          
3 September 2009

Combined or together with the already ratified/signed EU Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Directive C 321/6 dated 31 December, 2003 in the Official Journal of the EU.

A People’s Runnymede, page 79, by Robert J Scrutton, pub. Andrew Dakers, 1941.