HOW 'SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN' ARE TREATED BY PARLIAMENT

Contempt and arrogance of Parliament

This is the email message sent to my MP.

 

Dear Helen Hayes MP

MP's CODE OF BEHAVIOUR (You can see it in full here), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/1076.pdf

OPENNESS
 

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

---------------------------------------------

Then why has it taken me having to seek the info I require well over a full week making phone calls repeatedly yet getting no information at all.

House of Commons INFO. could not tell me. They said they did not know. Did not offer any advice.

Conservative WHIPS office, on being told what info I wanted, rudely terminated the call.

Labour WHIPS office, likewise wholly useless.

The Speakers office, arrogant, and offering no advice at all. Insisting, that only my own MP can provide info required.

The Attorney General's office: Insisted I send full details to correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk and, as yet, no acknowledgment or reply. Phoning that office again today, (26.7.2016), I am informed that they did receive my email; but, in sheer arrogance I am advised, they never acknowledge receipt.

I sent an email including full details to YOU; Helen Hayes; But, so far, have not received the reply.

INFO REQUIRED

I want to know how and why the "Bill" and "Motion" procedures, differ in Parliament?

A, 'BILL', before parliament, is subject to the full 'scrutiny' of parliament and, the 'Royal Assent', before it can become LAW.

But, a "MOTION" passed by parliament, is not protected by the 'scrutiny' of parliament; and, it does not require the "Royal Assent" before Government may act upon it.

I want to know precisely the differences of the two 'parliamentary procedures; and, I want to know, the true 'legality' thereof?

I want to know precisely where that 'legality' for that 'travesty' lies?

The TRIDENT 'Motion' passed by parliament 472 votes for Yes, and only 117 votes for No, was a "WHIPPED" vote; the Labour Members were provided with a FREE VOTE; but, the Conservative Members were 'Whipped'. And, therefore, in truth, reality, and, by 'precedent of law'; this, 'Motion', has no true legality at all.

The Government is now wholly FREE to spend "30 Billion Pounds" plus; in order to build four new nuclear submarines. And, in all of this, WE, THE COMMON PEOPLE, will have had no say in the matter at all.

TOTALITARIAN REGIME, AT ITS WORST.

 Regards,

Gordon J Sheppard

 

Note: Do you know how and why parliament can treat us like this?

Although, in truth and in reality, we are FREEBORN HUMANKIND.

LAW, in Great Britain, merely classifies us, as, “SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN”;

Where we have no ‘protection of law’ at all.

REVOLUTION, (By, ‘Precedent of Law’), is the only REMEDY.

SIR PHILLIP GREEN-PARLIAMENT-and-CORRUPTION

Members of Parliament attacking Sir Phillip Green, describing him as the "Unacceptable Face of Capitalism", is positively obscene. They, should not "throw stones in glass houses"; because, they are, far more corrupt, than, he ever has been.

They, are, the, "UNACCEPTABLE FACE DISTORTING TRUE DEMOCRACY"

Every one of these bastards accepts and complies with the 'diktat' and instructions of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament; has no legality at all.

These bastards are creating and passing 'LAWS' and 'BILLS', (and, ‘MOTIONS’), in our elected parliament today; without any legality at all. The WHIPS, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE",  and, their political party activity in parliament, flouts and breaches the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/ The Said Rights Claimed".

This paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed", in the “Bill of Rights 1689”, is the, 'precedent of law', set out in the ‘Bill’, which specifically instructs parliament, that, in parliament, applying, any of the "Premises" of the Bill; that nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"

When the WHIPS in parliament 'instruct' elected Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote; this overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' placed upon those Members, by the constituents. This, therefore, does, "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE". In consequence,

ANY, "WHIPPED VOTE", IN PARLIAMENT, IS A CORRUPT VOTE.

Therefore, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, bound in 'Honour' to abide by the "Original Contract", requiring her to "protect" all "Subjects of the Crown"; she cannot grant the "Royal Assent", to corrupt, Law. Yet, that is precisely what she has done, repeatedly, all of the time she has occupied the throne.

THE BRITISH MONARCHY IS NAUGHT BUT A SHAM AND WICKED DECEIT; the very last time a 'Reigning Monarch' refused to grant the "Royal Assent" was in March in the year 1708; when Queen Anne refused to grant 'assent' to the Bill passed by parliament for the "Settlement of the Militia" in Scotland. Ever since that date, the BRITISH MONARCHY has miserably failed, to protect the British People. And, has consistently granted the "Royal Assent" to, corrupt law. Accordingly, ELIZABETH THE SECOND has no 'legal right' to sit upon the throne.

Great Britain, subsequent to BREXIT, today; is now in very serious peril. It becomes more totalitarian, virtually every day. LAWS, BILLS, and "MOTIONS" are being created and passed in our so-called elected democratic parliament, in exactly the same manner, as HITLER and the NAZIS, created their own law.

 REVOLUTION, (By, PRECEDENT OF LAW), IS THE ONLY REMEDY.

I intend shortly to challenge ELIZABETH THE SECOND's legal right to sit upon the throne.

I intend shortly to challenge the JUDICIARY and their ruling, which for centuries has conspired to "pervert the course of justice"; by ruling that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689", is, ABSOLUTE. Thereby, denying, all or any challenge to the ‘abuses’ or ‘prejudice’ of parliament, in the courts. Whereas, in truth, and, by precedent of law, “Article 9”, is not, ABSOLUTE. It, is merely, conditional. Being, entirely reliant, upon the 'conditions' set out in, "The Said Rights Claimed".

Prime Minister, Theresa May; 'Wholly Corrupt'......

THERESA MAY's,

First Prime Ministers “Question Time”

 

In addressing parliament, Theresa May spoke about, “Bosses who exploit the rules to further their own career.”

THEN, leaning forward across the ‘despatch box’ and, with a venomous facial expression of contempt on her face, she 'curled her lip" and stared right at the face of JEREMY CORBYN, sneeringly saying this,

"REMIND YOU OF ANYONE? "

Implying, that JEREMY CORBYN himself, was guilty of that charge.

Note: All Press and Media instantly praised Theresa May, all insisting that her first "Prime Ministers Question Time" had been a great success; many asserted and claimed, 'she had wiped the floor' with JEREMY CORBYN.

But, that remark: "REMIND YOU  OF ANYONE", instantly should have reminded all, that the comment was far more applicable, in truth and in reality to, THERESA MAY, herself.

Note: With this attempt to be so 'clever'; and, with 'this allegation'. She shot herself, right in the foot.

Because, whilst having the responsibility of being the "Home Secretary" at the "Home Office"; she actually completely abandoned her, DUTY; specifically, in order,

TO ENHANCE HER OWN POLITICAL CAREER.

GARY McKINNON, a young British, CYBER CRIMINAL, a wicked 'computer hacker', illegally broke into the, ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPUTERS’, at the Pentagon in Washington; and, during that 'hacking' he caused great damage to those computers, putting at risk the lives of everyone living in the United States. An engineer responsible for those computers stated that the damage was so bad, that it was just about, the worst damage from computer hacking, that he had ever seen.

The Americans verified that McKINNON was responsible for the damage; they notified the British and he was arrested and placed in custody. He was then under the direct 'jurisdiction' of THERESA MAY.

The American's submitted a request for his extradition; and, right at that very moment, the DAILY MAIL newspaper and other newspapers immediately published and promoted a vicious Anti-American campaign: "SAVE McKINNON". The, headlines proclaiming, "SAVE McKINNON", from being sent to the wicked American's, whose 'extradition laws' are inferior to UK Extradition Law. The, DAILY MAIL, insisted, that he should be tried for this crime in the U.K.

Corrupt Anti-American 'Members of Parliament' joined in and supported this campaign; and, the campaign grew in public popularity virtually every day.

McKINNON’s mother and a medical practitioner then asserted and claimed that McKinnon was suffering from ‘’Asperger’s” and, then corruptly asserted, that he should not be sent to America for trial because he could not be treated properly there.

Yet, AMERICA, has all the medical expertise at its disposal, far better, than most other country's in the world; medical treatment that would be certainly available; to any penal and correction establishments throughout America. To be perfectly capable to efficiently treat any disease or ailment, known to man. But, this ploy; corruptly influenced, Theresa May.

 
THERESA MAY noticed all this 'popularity' for this campaign and she immediately recognized and realised that here was the opportunity to enhance her own political career. Wholly abandoning her DUTY, to punish the wicked CYBER CRIMINAL; she, tossed her DUTY aside; and she,

1. Refused the American request for extradition.

2. Further, "sticking two fingers up" to the Americans, she refused to even charge him and try him for this crime, in the U.K.

3. She did not even fine him or put him on probation.

4.  To wholly satisfy the demands of the corrupt Anti-Americanism of the DAILY MAIL; she decided to not even punish him at all. She, just let him walk out of custody; entirely, Scott-Free.

THERESA MAY IS WHOLLY ROTTEN AND CORRUPT. Because, not only did she deny America of justice; in doing this. She also purposely, 'spat in the face', of every computer owner in the U.K. Every computer owner, for virtually every day that they have a computer, they are always fearful of the 'computer hacker' and the damage that they can inflict on their computers. Every computer owner, for 'anti virus' and 'hacking' protection, are therefore forced to pay software providers repeatedly; in order to try and combat this threat.

Gordonj

The "Special Relationship" - America Beware....

America Beware….

The British constantly and repeatedly claim that a ‘special relationship’ exists between the United States and Great Britain; in order to intimidate and pressure the United States; into providing ‘special advantages’ for Great Britain; economically, strategically, and militarily; that the United States does not provide, for all other nations of this world. The British are forever ‘harping on about’ this, ‘special relationship’. IN ORDER TO SECURE, ‘special advantages’ for themselves.

The very interesting thing to note, for all Americans, is that this ‘special relationship’, if it exists, ought to be a, ‘joint exercise’; in that America and American’s should benefit from the, ‘special relationship’, in exactly the same way as the British. But, in every instance where America has been in need of this ‘special’ consideration and urgent need, expected, of the British; the British conveniently ignore the ‘special relationship’ as though it ‘did not exist’. Where, the British, wave their ‘Union Jack’ flags, relive the ‘glorious days’ of Empire all over again; strike up the attitude; “Britain and British is Best”; and, ‘sticking two fingers up’ at the United States; makes the decision to go its own way.

 

THE EVIDENCE:

THERESA MAY, is now the Prime Minister, of Great Britain. Yet, when she was the, Home Secretary, in charge of the, ‘HOME OFFICE’, responsible for the prevention and punishment for all crime; she abandoned her 'DUTY' and, purposely let a wicked CYBER CRIMINAL; a filthy 'computer hacker'; go absolutely free. In order to specifically enhance her own political career.

 

GARY McKINNON, this wicked, CYBER CRIMINAL, hacked into the United States "National Defence Computers" at the Pentagon in Washington; and, during that ‘hacking’, he caused damage to those computers, which might have caused the serious, ‘national defence risk’, to everyone in the United States.

An engineer at the Pentagon, responsible for those computers, stated, that this was, "the worst case of hacking and hacking damage to a computer that he had ever seen". Subsequent, to investigation, it was verified that McKINNON was responsible for this crime; he was arrested; and, the United States authorities lodged a request for his ‘extradition’, with THERESA MAY. The, ‘Home Secretary.”

Right here and, then, this was the moment for the real test of that ‘special relationship’ that the British so readily claim as existing, between the United States and Great Britain. This was the moment to verify if that ‘special relationship’ had any true validity? Here, the American’s were asking the British, to extradite or punish this CYBER CRIMINAL that had put, ‘American National Security’, at risk.

 

But, right at this very moment, the true “Anti-American” attitude of the British, becomes apparent. The “Daily Mail” newspaper published and mounted a massive “Anti-American” campaign, proclaiming, “SAVE McKINON”, from extradition to the United States; alleging and asserting, that the U.S. law in respect to ‘extradition’, was inferior to British ‘extradition’ law. Wholly corrupt “Anti-American” politicians, ‘Members of Parliament’, (for their own vested interests), readily gave support to this campaign. The Daily Mail insisted that McKinnon should be tried for this crime, in the U.K.

 

Most British newspapers and Media, repeatedly, promoted the campaign. “SAVE McKINNON"; promoting and insisting; that he should be saved from, "the wicked American’s”, and, "Their corrupt extradition law". And, this campaign gained in popularity, virtually every day.

 

THERESA MAY, entirely motivated by the "Daily Mail", and, witnessing this huge public popularity, for the campaign; immediately saw her opportunity to enhance her own political career. (With her eyes focussed on the ‘top job’ of Prime Minister), she corruptly abandoned her ‘duty’;

 

1.     She, refused the Americans the right to extradite him for trial in the United States.

2.     Then, ‘sticking two fingers up’, to both America, and, all American’s;

3.     She, refused to even try him in Great Britain, for this crime;

4.     She, refused to even fine him; or, put him on probation;

5.     She, just let him 'walk out of custody' entirely Scott-free.

 

Specifically, in order, to enhance her own political career.

 

Then, what, of the ‘special relationship’? Even, if it did exist? Here, she just ignored it completely and, just tossed it aside.

 

Now, she is the, PRIME MINISTER. And, what is the first thing she does being responsible for that office; in sheer “Anti-American” intent and in construction of her ‘Cabinet’, in order to govern; she selects and appoints BORIS JOHNSON MP as her Foreign Secretary. Yet, he was the man who wickedly insulted America; when he was very much in charge during the ‘LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION’ campaign.

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA when asked of his opinion, in respect of Britain leaving the E.U., he happened to state that in ‘his opinion’ that, Britain ought to stay in the E.U. He said, that he was of the opinion, that Britain would be better off remaining in the E.U.

 

BORIS JOHNSON then mounted a most vicious attack on President Obama, insisting, that he had no right to interfere in British affairs; and, worse; he actually attacked President Obama, vilifying him and, his Kenyan origin, and, his African heritage.

 

BORIS JOHNSON, during that ‘LEAVE EUROPE’ campaign, actually insulted every, Member Nation, of the E.U. He lied and vilified repeatedly, throughout the entire ‘BREXIT’ campaign.

 

THERESA MAY was well aware of all of this, when she appointed him as her Foreign Secretary.

 

BRITAIN, now that it is out of the E.U. will soon be begging America and American’s for, TRADE. AMERICA, should tell the British, that this “Anti-American” attitude cannot now persist; therefore, any ‘special relationship’ has now been put on hold. From here on, America will treat all nations, exactly the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

URGENT NEED FOR NEW GENERAL ELECTION...

This petition to the Queen calls for immediate dissolution of parliament and a new fresh General Election:

https://www.change.org/p/her-majest-the-queen-petition-to-the-queen-demanding-immediate-dissolution-of-parliament

Unless you are content to tolerate TORIES dominating our 'elected' parliament; and, unless you are content with the bastards foisting upon us, THERESA MAY as a new Prime Minister; who is wholly unsuited to that task,

YOU MUST SIGN THIS PETITION AND PERSUADE ALL OTHERS TO SIGN.

THERESA MAY as Home Secretary, 'spat in the face' of every computer user, in order to specifically enhance her own political career; with the office of 'Prime Minister' in mind, she specifically abandoned her duty; and she let a wicked 'computer hacker' go free. THIS LADY IS WHOLLY CORRUPT. SHE MUST NEVER BE, PRIME MINISTER.

If you don't want her as Prime Minister; you must write and register that you "HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN HER" to Her Majesty the Queen; and to your own MP; and to all Press and Media today.

TORY LEADERSHIP

THE 'DIRTY TRICKS' CAMPAIGN

“Having Children” providing an edge.

 

The corrupt TORY press trying to discredit the chances of ANDREA LEADSOM, in the, TORY, "Leadership" campaign; purposely vilifies her; for what she said about "having children", during the interview she gave to the reporter of "The Times".

But, actually, and, factually by, 'having children', she does have an 'edge' over Theresa May.

The 'edge', she has; that, Theresa May, does not have; is that in 'having children' her stake, in the future of the country, is far greater; because, she has the PERSONAL 'evidence' that, she has the 'posterity'; for which she has to take care of and provide for, in future generations. Whereas, Theresa May, (not having children), has not the same, evident level, of responsibility, at all.

That is precisely what ANDREA LEADSOM intended to convey, in that interview. But, the corrupt reporter of "The Times" and, "The Times" newspaper, purposely 'twisted the motivation' to suit their own corrupt purposes: the intentional, DISCREDITING AND VILIFICATION OF ANDREA LEADSOM, in order to further promote, their favourite for the leadership, Theresa May.

Politics, sadly, is a 'dirty', power seeking, game; but, it is nowhere near as, 'dirty'; as a corrupt and rotten press and media, trying to lie, cheat, and manipulate, "THE PEOPLE", all of the time.

ANDREA LEADSOM most certainly did not say: that ‘having children’ provides an, ADVANTAGE. In fact, she has been specifically careful to explain, that, “Everyone has the same rights”.

This entire interview displays, ‘honesty’, rather than deceit.

MICROSOFT ARROGANCE AND INCOMPETENCE.....

Microsoft UK, Head Quarters,

Contempt for Consumers.

 

Attention of all MICROSOFT investors and consumers worldwide.

I, hereby assert, MICHEL VAN DER BEL, Chief Executive of Microsoft UK, is wholly incompetent, and arrogant, and the administration of his “Head Quarters” office in the UK, is an absolute disgrace. The facts for this, assertion, I set out here.

Note: I have always had a great deal of respect for the “MICROSOFT” name; and that is why I have purchased MICROSOFT products.

In the very early days of computing, it was necessary to be an expert in the field of electronic technology, in order to participate. For years I was unable to participate, all the technical ‘codes’ of ‘Basic’, ‘Machine Code’ etc. etc. far beyond my capability, and interest.

Then along came MICROSOFT with, “WINDOWS”, and the world-wide web was then open to me. That’s why I value the MICROSOFT name. No one else provided me with help to use a computer.

 

Details of the complaint:

22.5.2016
Letter sent to MICHEL VAN DER BEL.

Sent by: “Royal Mail” Recorded Delivery Service.
Subject: “Highly Confidential” – “New Idea for MICROSOFT Product”

25.5.2016 
Verified, delivered to MICROSOFT HQ at 11:09 am. Signed for by, “HOLLAND”.

Note:
This letter was to introduce to MICROSOFT the possibility of a new, “Two Million Consumers” plus, market; which MICROSOFT had not catered for, before.

To this very date, 9^th July 2016, I have not received one word of reply.

 

9.6.2016
I phoned MICROSOFT Head Office (0344 800 2400)

Switchboard operator refused all assistance.

Switchboard operator advised me, that, MICHEL VAN DER BEL, and, his personal assistant, would not accept any calls, from the switchboard.

Switchboard operator, then advised me that the only thing I could do was to register a complaint, by sending an email to: switch@microsoft.com.
She said, that she would then forward this to his personal assistant.

I sent that email providing, full details including the original letter, by attachment.

I did not receive any acknowledgment or reply.

9.6.2016 
Later that day, I phoned MICROSOFT Head Office, again.

Switchboard operator advised me; that my email had been received, and that it had been forwarded to “EMILY” the personal assistant to MICHEL VAN DER BEL. I requested to speak to “EMILY”; but, again, the switchboard refused.

CONCLUSION

Having been treated by this arrogant incompetence and wholly inadequate administration; I can only conclude; that, MICHEL VAN DER BEL, should be responsible, for the ‘perfect administration’, of the UK Head Office under his command. Yet, here, is the stark vivid evidence that, ‘He’, has undoubtedly failed to carry out that requirement: the proper responsibilities, of that office, under his command.

There are only two possibilities why I have not received ‘one word’ of reply.

A.   MICHEL VAN DER BELL has seen my letter and has chosen not to reply.

B.   Some person at MICROSOFT UK Headquarters has arbitrarily appointed themselves as, CENSOR, and has kept my letter from, MICHEL VAN DER BEL, eyes.

Whatever, is the cause of this arrogance, is of no consequence.

Every investor of MICROSOFT; and; every consumer of MICROSOFT PRODUCT; must now realise; that, MICHEL VAN DER BEL, is wholly incompetent of the administration of the UK, Head Office. And, that he should be replaced at once. MICROSOFT, should also ensure, that there is a complete 're-organisation' of that Head Office.

 

BREXIT and the 'Constutional' crisis..

Patrick O’Brien

BREXIT and the ‘constitutional’ crisis…

Here’s his interesting feature about the, “Changing of Minds”.

 

by Constitutional Law Group

Richard Ekins n his post of last week, argues that political and legal elites should resist the urge to ‘treat other voters as fools or monsters or deny the outcome of the fair and legitimate decision-making process which they did not otherwise contest’. The many and varied legal and political arguments offering ways to soften, reverse or ignore the vote to leave the EU cannot avoid the central political fact that the result now has a huge weight of political legitimacy behind it. I want to sound a note of caution about the idea that in a democracy voters cannot change their minds. I think it is unlikely that a decision to remain could have democratic or political legitimacy after the referendum result, but for the reasons I offer here I believe that that is not quite the same as saying that it is impossible, or that debate to that end is improper.

Changing minds in democracy theory

Richard rightly points out that the referendum has been highly divisive, producing clear class and generational divisions that will be difficult to heal. We ignore or demonise leave voters – and the discontent that motivated them – only at great cost to the political system. It would be an equally serious constitutional error were this to end in the courts. To resolve a question of political identity in a courtroom would be deeply damaging to the independence of the judiciary and the legitimacy of politics more broadly.

So far I am with Richard, but I disagree that the constitutional politics of this discussion end with the referendum vote to leave. Richard argues that the referendum vote must now be respected and in effect argues that it is irreversible: ‘Political fairness and democratic principle require one to respect the outcome of the referendum now even if one is persuaded that Brexit would be a very bad idea.’ Democracy is vague and conceptually spare (as, for that matter, are ‘legitimacy’ and indeed ‘politics’) and bald appeals to ‘democracy’ require caution. Normally, they act as placeholders for other political ideas. In modern constitutional democracies, democratic rule by the people (rule by each person equally) is achieved in a host of ways: elections, referendums, political horse-trading, and peaceful protest amongst them. Democracy is practiced, expanded, defined and redefined by law and politics. Democratic decision-making is the source of political legitimacy and authority in a democracy.

But there is nothing about the concept of ‘democracy’, vague and contested as it is, that suggests that decisions, once made, cannot be unmade. In abstract, if a referendum results in a vote to do something that turns out to be deeply damaging or impossible – to spend the national budget on magic beans or the Emperor’s new clothes – there is value in its retaining the capacity to vote again to do the opposite. Some decisions will be irreversible. A decision to spend £100 on X rather than Y will leave no money left for Y. But this is a feature of the decision made rather than something innate in the idea of democracy. As a matter of practice, repeated referendum votes are a feature of countries that we regard as democracies. ‘When the facts change, I change my mind’ as Keynes put it. Electorates do the same. Ireland and Denmark have each both voted twice on EU treaties. Ireland has voted repeatedly on the issue of abortion in recent decades, and is likely to do so again in the next few years. Political legitimacy in a democracy is fluid rather than a moment frozen in time and space. This is especially true in Britain’s political constitution which is defined so substantially by politics. This capacity for change is a strength. A democratic system that is incapable of responding to changes of fact, context or popular mood damns itself to decline and demagoguery.

The politics of the UK’s constitutional moment

The Brexit referendum was a ‘constitutional moment’: a referendum proposed to heal a long-standing fissure over Europe that has deep roots in British politics and British identity. It was billed as a once-in-a-generation decision. It is constitutionally possible for Parliament to ignore it, but to do so merely because those who lost the argument found the result unpalatable would be politically and democratically unacceptable. This does not, however, mean that debate about the issue must now end. Leave campaigners made it clear prior to the Brexit referendum that they would not let the matter rest if the decision did not go their way. That’s politics. Remain campaigners are now doing the same. That’s also politics. It is part of democratic politics that politicians and activists argue for a position and try to secure public support. The requirement that those who are disappointed by the result of the referendum must now be quiet seems to me to be wrong as a matter of principle and also in these very unusual circumstances of constitutional crisis. This approach requires voters on all sides to accept that political debate has now been settled and frozen in a constitutional moment when the current political and economic turmoil suggests exactly the opposite. This constitutional moment is not yet complete.

Richard offers the example of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, arguing that it would have been wrong to put the decision a second time had the vote gone the other way. I quite agree, but Scottish independence was a very different kind of question. The EU referendum debate did not produce anything like a clear vision for ‘Brexit’. There are radically different visions of ‘leave’, from buccaneering libertarianism to xenophobic nativism to radical redistribution (sometimes, and incoherently, all three at once) that reach far beyond external relations with the EU. Some barely differ from the arrangement that exists with the EU at present. Some are – in the technical legal sense if in no other respect – revolutionary (see here and here). Key promises made during the campaign were abandoned by leaders of the leave campaign the moment the result was announced. The political legitimacy of the result has been undermined by the fact that key factual arguments made in support of the leave campaign were demonstrably false. There are, for that matter, radically different views of what ‘remain’ might mean should the matter be re-opened. In the case of Scottish independence the uncertainty was significantly less: there are clear precedents for what statehood means and for what secession from the UK entails in the examples of Ireland and the commonwealth countries. A vote for Scottish independence would also have been extremely difficult to unwind in practical terms. By contrast no one seems to know what Brexit should look like and all the distinct visions for Brexit are profoundly politically salient, reaching into matters not just of identity but of domestic politics, economics and human rights.

The Brexit referendum has provoked a constitutional crisis. The status of Scotland and Northern Ireland is now in doubt – a second Scottish independence referendum is now on the agenda in these changed political circumstances – and the party-political system, the normal mechanism for conducting democratic politics and the bedrock of so much of the modern political constitution, has broken. Unlike in Scotland, where there were clear party-political divisions on independence, the two major parties at Westminster do not currently compete along the now key fault-line of Europe and a significant majority of MPs were not in favour of a leave vote. The inability of the Tory party to reach an internal peace on Europe prompted the referendum. It now looks likely that its stance in any negotiation with the EU – its choice from the wildly varied menu of Brexit options – will be determined by an internal competition between Tory leadership candidates and decided by 150,000 party members who make up a tiny 0.35% of the electorate who voted in the referendum. The Labour party has been shattered, perhaps permanently, and is currently unable to offer any real opposition to whatever the newly elected leadership of the Tory party might propose. This state of affairs does not feel any more intuitively democratic than does the prospect of ignoring the referendum result.

For democrats there is no straightforward way out of this. A crisis of political legitimacy is now inevitable. There will be a crisis of legitimacy if the political class simply ignores the vote to leave the EU. But given the division within the leave side and the large body of disappointed voters on both sides of the debate it is doubtful that there is anything like a democratic mandate and political legitimacy for any one viable stance in relation to the EU. Should an unelected Prime Minister approach the result of the referendum as a ‘winner takes all’ endorsement of his or her preferred flavour of Brexit and proceed accordingly there will be a different crisis of political legitimacy.

The constitutional politics of this new world require a general election to secure democratic legitimacy for the next step. Within the context of such a general election the political parties will have to compete for their visions of ‘leave’ and perhaps ‘remain’ too. Richard is correct that those on the remain side must proceed in the knowledge that a majority of voters were against them last Thursday. This was a constitutional moment – no ordinary political decision – and deserves special respect. Having played by the rules of the referendum and won, leavers have political legitimacy and political momentum on their side. I find it hard to envisage circumstances in which the referendum result itself could be reversed unless there is some very radical change of circumstances. It should go without saying that a decision to reverse the decision would require an overwhelming popular endorsement. A really overwhelming majority for the remain side in a UK-wide general election and in each of the countries of the UK taken separately might do it. A referendum run on exactly the same lines, without any change of circumstances, might not. Yet defining Brexit will remain intensely political. It is not simply a matter of working out the detail. There is nothing inherent in democracy or democratic politics that requires remainers to now stand back from the debate, or that prevents them from offering realistic ‘remain-minus’ or ‘leave-lite’ scenarios to the electorate in order to seek political legitimacy for their preferred course of action. There is also nothing about democracy that prevents remainers advocating a return to the EU should Brexit be completed. That’s politics in a democracy.

Patrick O’Brien is a Fellow in Public Law at the London School of Economics

(Suggested citation: P. O'Brien, 'The Democratic Legitimacy of Changing Your Mind: A Response to Richard Ekins', U.K. Const. L. Blog (5th Jul 2016) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))

NOTE: TORIES assume that all they have to do is elect a new Prime Minister, in order to resume 'Government' as it was before; but, as is clear from this feature, WE, the 'common people' of this land, must insist on a "General Election"; in order to resolve this.

Gordonj

Where's the bloody Queen?

BREXIT

And, the “State of the Country” now.

 

Where the hell is the Queen?

 

Right now, after this disastrous referendum where the British people have stupidly elected to leave the E.U. The country is in a terrible state with no ‘government’ and no ‘security’ and no ‘direction’ at all.

1.     The TORY government is entirely in disarray, with the Prime Minister David Cameron resigning, and many Tory politicians fighting each other to become the new leader of the Tory party. Assuming, that they only have to elect a new leader, for the TORY government to proceed thereafter, without the consent of the people at all. Sheer chaos and disaster, with absolutely no TORY, negotiating with the EU, in respect to our, leaving the EU.

2.     The Labour Party, is absolutely useless as an ‘official opposition’; the PLP assumes it owns the party and resolutely holds all the ‘grass root’ members of the party in sheer contempt. Corrupt members of this PLP, in a conspiracy with the ‘right wing’ press, have now mounted a coup to unseat JEREMY CORBYN, the official ‘leader’ of the Party; and they have issued a ‘no confidence vote’ in order to secure a fresh new leader.

3.     The LABOUR PARTY is finished; it will never recover from this outrage. It will never be government again. So, the Labour Party, likewise at present, provides no ‘direction’ and cannot influence in any way, how Britain must now negotiate with the EU.

4.     The confidence in the ‘financial market’ and, the confidence in the country, is failing; and, the ‘£’ falls and flucturates in value every hour.

5.     The country is now in a terrible state, and there is no one at all in charge of the administration of the country; who is capable of sorting out this mess.

6.     They are all concerned with their own ‘political ambitions’ and the ‘securing of personal power’; and, “The People”, the ordinary ‘common people’ of the country; HAVE NO PROTECTION AT ALL.

So, where is the bloody Queen?

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has the ‘DUTY’ to protect the People.

As, all, ‘Reigning Monarch’s “, of this land, she has the ‘duty’ to honour the “Original Contract” requiring the protection of the people. If, she fails to provide that protection she, ABDICATES THE THRONE. Precedent of ‘English Law’ determines, that this is so.

The British people do not endure their ‘imposed’ subjugation to the British Crown; denied all right of true ‘citizenship’’ and being denied all protection of law; in order that the ‘Reigning Monarch’ – who they are bound in law to give allegiance to – shall enjoy all the privileges of CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY; shall act as patron to various Charites and Institutions; shall officially open new building and establishments; shall host garden parties; and, shall travel the globe promoting British products and British prestige.

The days of the “Divine Right of Kings” has long since gone; it departed this land, when, King Charles the First, had his head cut off.

Today, in spite of any conspiracy, betwixt Monarch and Parliament when CONSITUTIONAL MONARCHY was introduced, (replacing the “Absolute Monarchy”, there was before), every ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, who sits on that throne; they are still bound by ‘precedent of law’ to honour the “Original Contract” and protect the People.

The actual ‘evidence’ for this, is provided here:

A.    King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688; for, “Breaking the Original Contract Betwixt King and People”.

B.     The CONVENTION determined that he had ‘failed to protect the people and their religion”, declaring that thereby, he had ‘abdicated the throne’. The CONVENTION declared, “The Throne was Vacant”.

C.     In a huge debate named “THE DEBATE AT LARGE” held in the “Painted Chamber” of the House of Commons in early February 1688, between both ‘Lords’ and ‘Commons’, they debated at length the words: “ABDICATED” and “THE THRONE IS VACANT”; and, at the conclusion of this debate, they declared as follows:

D.    Henry Powle, The Speaker of the Convention (Parliament) 1688, said this:

“It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."

The Earl of CLARENDON’s speech in this debate, is immensely valuable: in the sense that he has realised, that, by their decision that day, they were creating Legal precedent.

(And, that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also, might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now).

The Earl of CLARENDON insists on the Lineal Descent, he states: "when one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir''; (and, then he goes on to say); “But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority, 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the Contract" as well; he also, could be Deposed."

CONCLUSION

There can be no ‘legal argument’ against this; if the “Reigning Monarch” of England, “Breaks the Original Contract” and “Fails to protect the People” they, ABDICATE THE THRONE”.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that contract, once, all of the time she has occupied that throne. She has repeatedly granted the “Royal Assent” to corrupt laws and bills passed by parliament, under the influence of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament, has no ‘legality’ at all.

 

What should the Queen be doing?

 With the country in a complete state of turmoil; with no government, with no official opposition; with no direction whatsoever from those elected to represent us; with absolutely no one dealing with the fact that the country has decided to leave the EU, and that the people are desperately waiting for ‘direction’ as to what is supposed to happen next; and with absolutely no one taking up negotiations with the EU, as to the terms of our leaving; the Queen has only one option: Under the terms of the “Original Contract”,

SHE MUST PROTECT THE, BRITISH PEOPLE.

1.     She must use her powers under the “Royal Prerogative” to order the immediate dissolution of parliament; ordering a new general election.

2.     When that new government is formed; she must immediately use those powers again to ‘warn’ her Ministers that she will not grant the “Royal Assent” to corrupt law. She must instruct her Ministers that the political party WHIPS in parliament are ‘unlawful’ and that, any ‘Law’ or ‘Bill’ passed in parliament under their influence and direction, is corrupt law.

In the event that Her Majesty the Queen does not do this;

Then, there is no need, nor any requirement; for a MONARCHY at all.

“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.

IF, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, DOES NOT PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION.

She Abdicates the Throne.