This is what happens when WE give other’s the ability to make decisions for us. No true accountability. No respect. Just TAKE. Yes, the corrupt ‘officials’ just do their own thing – they do not want Brexit and although they were shocked bu the majority voting for OUT, they regrouped and planned how to disrupt the process. Cameron falling on his sword and wanting the new PM to see it through (albeit a year later). You know the rest. Soon we will have foreign soldiers stopping civil unrest.
The longer these Brexit negotiations take the more obvious it must seem to even those who voted to ‘Remain’ that the EU does not represent anyone but themselves – those who work within its offices – and are ruling as a multinational elite group, facist in every sense but without an army to stamp their authority…….. Obviously they now feel the need to put that right.
No. Absolutely not. This is the continued objective of the New World Order. Each nation must maintain its unique individuality & remain sovereign to its own people. This move with overthrow Brexit. She is not a friend to the UK.
NO!!! I served over 23 years in the army and I swore allegance to the monarch. I would never accept serving some parasitic beaurocrat in europe and I hope presently serving millitary all feel the same.
Our Military signed up for Queen and Country! Not, to Serve For a Corrupt EU Government! We were taken into The EU Illegally by Ted Heath and We The People, Have Voted Democratically To Get Out Of This Undemocratic Club!!!
Sharia May Seems To Have No Intention Of Taking Us Out Of This Elitists Club!!!
My first question is: Who would the soldier swear his oath of allegiance to, Queen or some foreign dictator of the unelected EU ? Then in the event of mob rule or anarchy. say in Italy or Greece or even Spain does that mean that British troops will be sent to quell the uprising knowing full well the number of European citizens that live in this country, this country would be torn apart by divided loyalties. I can understand us wanting to share intelligence with the EU as we do with the USA but to let a foreign have control of our Army is madness, We are British people proud British people and We want our country back, We demand to make our own laws , We demand to be in control of our own destiny, We have the finest judicial system in the world built up over hundreds of years of British history only to be given away by deceitful and treasonable men whose only object was self-interest and financial gain, Which comes back to your question Do I agree that a foreigh should be in control of the British Forces My answer is No No a thousand times NO
The deceitful charade will continue by the Government as this is their game, this is what you do in politics. Nasty people, unrepresentative of the population at large. Must be brought to account for their actions by deselection. The last 50 years of this EU nonsense has torn the heart and soul out of this Country. Keith Riddle.
For 5 centuries this country has shed blood and treasure to defend freedom in Europe and rescue smaller nations from the mess they got into. It took us until 2006 to pay off the debt to the USA for the last war. Now it appears the whole bizz is starting again. Not only do we need Brexit NOW, we should be supporting populist and nation state movements across the Continent not talking about a ” deep and lasting relationship” with the EU tyrants.
I pointed out years ago that being in the EU would result in an EU (German, Bulgarian, French or Romanian) admirals finger on the trigger of our nuclear forces. No one apparently thought that would happen but it is obviously bound to happen if we sign up our forces to the EU. The UK taxpayers have paid a lot of money to procure ans support our nuclear and other weapons and forces and yet we are going to give these away to the EU for nothing. In the meantime the arrogant EU is demanding that we give it £80 billion of taxpayers money before they will even START to talk about a trade deal. And this is to keep trading with a group of countries which has already cost us over a £1 trillion. WE have lunatics in polotics.
The choices that th PM are all in the best for the EU unelected in Brussels. She has shown without a shadow of doubt that she works for them and has absolutely Nothing good for Britain and us Brits. She is an out and out traitor. She must be removed from office and stand on trial for treachery.
NO way should we have a coalition army. Our own military forces should Be built up to today’s standards with all the modern artillery and weaponry enough to fight the EU army should things get that bad!
I am an ex soldier who has family who are where also military and NO 100% do not agree with the forced unification of our military forces, I swore an oath to protect my Queen, my country and its people against ALL enemies foreign and domestic and I will 100% uphold that oath, Brexit or blood!
An article on servicemen’s obligations and rights:
“1495 and All That, Lawful Orders and PESCO.
John Hurst. Magna Carta Society.
Some thoughts on “transfer” of the command of British Forced to non British control.
It seems to me that the issue is, is it lawful for British armed forces to be subject to foreign control and what are the responsibilities and rights of individual members of the Forces when tested?
A second issue is the lawfulness of sending Forces abroad and thereby undermining the defence of the Realm.
A third issue, which I will not progress here, is the Bill of Rights prohibition on funds raised by taxation being used for purposes which Parliament did not agree to.
It is axiomatic that if The Sovereign is placed in control of the Forces by the common law it must be unlawful for the present incumbent to relinquish that control. That by the Coronation Oath Act 1688:
“The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
In other words, a Sovereign may not lawfully give an Order by Herself or Royal Assent to a statute which breaches the law and customs of the Kingdom.
Now consider the Military Oath (not taken by members of the Royal Navy but binding in law on them also):
“I A. B. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and
Successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully
defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and
Dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of
Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors and of the Generals and Officers
set over me.”.
Note the twice repeated “ Heirs and Successors”.
“Heirs” is a legal term with a specific meaning. “Successors” is a broader term including “ One who follows or comes into the place of another…”.
My understanding of the reason why “successor” is included in the Military Oath is the Treason Act 1495, otherwise known as the “Rex de facto statute”.
With the usual cautions about relying on Wikipedia, below is the text of an article on this topic as it stands at the time of writing 11/51 hrs on 02/11/2017. Following the article are some of the references referred to in it. Blackstone is the most authoritative.
What I have in mind is the concept that no member of the armed forces may be required to transfer his allegiance to another legal entity away from the de facto Sovereign and the 1495 Act protects him from retribution.
A person with legal standing could test this proposition by Judicial Review of either an Order or purported statue to that effect.
Treason Act 1495
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Act 11 Hen 7 c 1 (sometimes informally referred to as the Treason Act 1495 or as the Rex de facto statute) is an Act of the Parliament of England which was passed in the reign of Henry VII of England. The long title of the Act is “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” The Act states that a person serving the king de facto for the time being is not guilty of treason, or of any other offence, if he wages war against the king de jure. William Blackstone wrote that the Act is “declaratory of the common law.” It is still in force.
Henry had become king after defeating Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485. However he backdated the start of his reign to August 21, the day before the battle, enabling him to prosecute anyone who had fought under his rival, and to execute them for treason. This was highly controversial at the time, since it meant that, in a future battle, anyone who fought for the rightful king against a usurper would be at risk of execution if they lost, and this might undermine their courage in battle and their loyalty to their king. Nevertheless, Henry VII had his way at the time as Parliament was then in no position to oppose him (although later that year a general pardon was issued to those who had fought for Richard).
However, ten years later Henry’s position on the throne was sufficiently secure that he could afford to grant Parliament what they wanted, when in 1495 they passed a bill to prevent the treason laws from being abused in this way again. The resulting Act is still in force today, and was applied to Scotland in 1708.
The Act was cited by Sir Harry Vane in his treason trial in 1662 following the Restoration. He was one of those accused of serving with Oliver Cromwell against the king during the English Civil War, and in his defence he relied upon the Act. However the court ruled that the 1495 Act was only intended to protect those who fought for a king, not to protect republican rebels who fought to abolish the monarchy. He was convicted and executed.
In New Zealand, section 64 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides that obedience to the laws of a person with “possession de facto of the sovereign power” is protected from criminal responsibility.
Leonard Casley of the Principality of Hutt River (an unrecognised micronation in Australia) used this Treason Act to his advantage by declaring himself a prince, thereby purporting to protect him from prosecution by the Australian government.
• High treason in the United Kingdom
• Treason Act
References and notes
• The Act has no statutory short title.
• Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. 1999. Page cv.
• Talmon, Stefan. “Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile”. Oxford University Press. 1998. ISBN 0-19-924839-7. Page 44, footnote 1.
• Text of the Act 11 Hen. 7 1495 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk
• Annotated original text, scroll down to (E)
• William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, chapter 6 (1769)
• A precedent had been set when Edward IV became king in 1461 and Parliament declared that his deposed predecessor, Henry VI, had never been the rightful king, but “to avoid great public mischief” also declared him a king de facto, and people continued to be punished for treason against Henry (except for assisting Edward in deposing him). State of Connecticut v. Carroll (1871) 38 Conn 449, “The American Law Register (1852-1891)” vol. 21 no. 3 (new series vol. 12) p. 170
• 1 Hen.7 c. 6; The Statues at Large, vol. IV, Danby Pickering, Cambridge University, 1763, page 24
• Treason Act 1708
• New Zealand Legislation
• Macbeth, Alex (24 April 2010). “A man’s Hutt is his castle”. The Age. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
Confirmation that the 1495 Act is a Statute in Force from legislation.gov.uk:
The Act 11 Hen. 7 1495
Persons serving the King for the Time being, in War, shall not be attainted of Treason, &c.
“…That it is not resonable but ayenst all lawes reason and gode conscience that the seid subgettis going with their sovereign Lord in Werres attending upon hym in his persone or being in other places by his commaundement within this land or without, any thing shuld loose or forfeite for doyng their true dutie and service of alliegeaunce: from hensfourth no maner of persone ne persones whatsoever he or they be, that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this lande for the tyme being in his persone and do him true and feithfull service of alliegeaunce in the same, or be in other places by his commaundement, in his Werres within this lande or without, that for the same dede and true [X1service] of alliegeaunce he or they be in no wise convycte or atteynt of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by acte of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of lawe, wherby he or any of theym shall [X2mowe] forfeit life landes tenementes rentis possessions hereditamentis godes catelles or eny other thingis, but to be for that dede and service utterly discharged of any vexacion trouble or losse; And if any acte or actis or other processe of the lawe hereafter therupon for the same happen to be made contary to this ordynaunce, that then that acte or actes or other processes of the lawe whatsoever they shall be, stande and be utterly voide…”.
The extract from Blackstone referred to in the Wikipedia article (I have inserted paragraphs for clarity, the original does not have them) :
“1. “WHEN a man does compass or imagine the death of our lord the king, of our lady his queen, or of their eldest son and heir.” Under this description it is held that a queen regnant (such as queen Elizabeth and queen Anne) is within the words of the act, being invested with royal power and entitled to the allegiance of her subjects:9 but the husband of such a queen is not comprised within these words, and therefore no treason can be committed against him.10 The king here intended is the king in possession, without any respect to his title: for it is held, that a king de facto [in fact] and not de jure [by right], or in other words an usurper that has got possession of the throne, is a king within the meaning of the statute; as there is a temporary allegiance due to him, for his administration of the government, and temporary protection of the public: and therefore treasons committed against Henry VI were punished under Edward IV, though all the line of Lancaster had been previously declared usurpers by act of parliament.
But the most rightful heir of the crown, or king de jure and not de facto, who has never had plenary possession of the throne, as was the case of the house of York during the three reigns of the line of Lancaster, is not a king within this statute, against whom treasons may be committed.11
And a very sensible writer on the crown-law carries the point of possession so far, that he holds,12 that a king out of possession is so far from having any right to our allegiance, by any other title which he may set up against the king in being, that we are bound by the duty of our allegiance to resist him.
A doctrine which he grounds upon the statute 11 Hen. VII. c. 1. which is declaratory of the common law, and pronounces all subjects excused from any penalty or forfeiture, which do assist and obey a king de facto. But, in truth, this seems to be confounding all notions of right and wrong; and the consequence would be, that when Cromwell had murdered the elder Charles, and usurped the power (though not the name) of king, the people were bound in duty to hinder the son’s restoration: and were the king of Poland or Morocco to invade this kingdom, and by any means to get possession of the crown (a term, by the way, of very loose and indistinct signification) the subject would be bound the his allegiance to fight for his natural prince today, and by the same duty of allegiance to fight against him tomorrow. The true distinction seems to be, that the statute of Henry the seventh does by no means command any opposition to a king de jure; but excuses the obedience paid to a king de facto.
When therefore a usurper is in possession, the subject is excused and justified in obeying and giving him assistance: otherwise, under a usurpation, no man could be safe; if the lawful prince had a right to hang him for obedience to the powers in being, as the usurper would certainly do for disobedience.
Nay farther, as the mass of people are imperfect judges of title, of which in all cases possession is prima facie evidence, the law compels no man to yield obedience to that prince, whose right is by want of possession rendered uncertain and disputable, till providence shall think fit to interpose in his favor, and decide the ambiguous claim: and therefore, till he is entitled to such allegiance by possession, no treason can be committed against him. Lastly, a king who has resigned his crown, such resignation being admitted and ratified in parliament, is according to Sir Matthew Hale no longer the object of treason.13
And the same reason holds, in case a king abdicates the government; or, by actions subversive of the constitution, virtually renounces the authority which he claims by that very constitution: since, as was formerly observed,14 when the fact of abdication is once established, and determined by the proper judges, the consequence necessarily follows, that the throne is thereby vacant, and he is no longer king…”.
Not referred to in the Wikipedia article, but relevant to understanding the present situation, is what happened to the 1661 Militia Act:
Charles II, 1661: An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in King and for the present ordering & disposing the same.
Recital that the Command of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea and Land, is the undoubted Right of His Majesty;
IV. Proviso against compelling Subjects to go out of the Kingdom.
Provided That neither this Act nor any matter or thing therein contained shall bee deemed construed or taken to extend to the giving or declaring of any Power for the transporting of any the Subjects of this Realme or any way compelling them to march out of this Kingdome otherwise then by the Lawes of England ought to be done http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp308-309#h3-0004
Returning to Wikipedia:
The King’s Sole Right over the Militia Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England (13 Car. II. c. 6), long title “An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in King and for the present ordering & disposing the same.” Following the English Civil War, this act finally declared that the king alone, as head of the state, was in supreme command of the army and navy for the defence of the realm.
It was repealed, except for part of the preamble, by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863; and in full by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Sole_Right_over_the_Militia_Act_1661
Note the use of the 1969 Act. As I have said before, the late 1960’s were when the conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution became visible.
I would appreciate some Peer review of this document.