The propaganda publication which tells of the creation of a “European Banking Union” with the European Central Bank taking responsibility for regulating the largest Euro Area banks, called ‘Scotland’s Future’ or as I would call it, ‘Scotland’s Demise’ is by definition, seditious. It also calls for a new constitution written by impostors which will no doubt purport to remove rights instead of list them.
“Scotland’s participation will not conflict with wider obligations under the EU Treaties.” and that “Scotland’s transition to independent membership will be based on the EU Treaty obligations”
So what are these supposed “wider obligations” under EU Treaties?
Firstly, under Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty (1992), those in Scotland are assumed to be Citizens of the European Union and are no longer the sovereign people they have always been. The Article declares that the people are “subject to the duties imposed thereby”. This includes the current current holder of the Office of the Queen which illegally still contradicts not only major constitutional law, but also the Coronation Oath, and all oaths sworn to the self proclaiming Monarch which are subordinate to that Coronation Oath. (No oaths made in parliament have been made legally since that signing).
This European Treaty which is also based on an “unlimited duration” is inconsistent and contrary to the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 and Articles III and XVIII of the Treaty and Acts of Union in 1706/7.
These “duties” are undefined and are thus both unknown and unknowable. One of them is however perhaps discernable since the Maastricht Treaty left unamended Article 192 of the Treaty of Rome. This reads:
“Decisions of the Council or of the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than states shall be enforceable.”
The people of the UK were deliberately kept in the dark about the destruction of their constitution and how the Maastricht Treaty and the European Community Amendments Act effectively threw out many of the most important statutes in British Parliamentary history. The first strategy of the tyrant is secrecy. The second is to lose the detail in a mass of superficiality and generalisation. Both were evident in the passage of the Maastricht Treaty ‘Bill’.
The Scots, effectively, gave up their Parliament only in return for the guarantee that the new (English dominated) Parliament would not curtail, imperil or in any way diminish their rights. If they did so (as has happened under the Maastricht Treaty) then the Act of Union would be null and void and not only would the United Kingdom cease to exist but so would the authority of the Parliament at Westminster which was spawned by the Act of Union.
Secondly, the illegal Nice Treaty (which amended the treasonous Maastricht Treaty) includes:
Article 24, which transformed the EU (that the Maastricht Treaty created) into an independent state with powers to enter into treaties with other states which would then be binding on all member states, subject to agreement determined by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV = Any person within the European Union may come to Scotland and vote, taking the right away for the people who were born in Scotland to make fully democratic decisions on their own future.
Article 23, which allows the EU to appoint its own representatives in other countries, effectively with ambassadorial status.
Article 191, which assumes for the EU the right to “lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU]” and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not “contribute to forming a European awareness.” A clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of sanctions to suppress public opinion.
Articles 29 and 31, which established common policing and judicial cooperation (Eurojust). If Scotland rejoins the EU “as an independent country” (which is preposterous) and which we were never legally in at constitutional law, then we can expect we lose our Police AND Military to a foreign force with no withdrawal.
Article 67, which allows matters of justice and home affairs to be agreed by QMV. These articles open the door to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the UK (article 31 specifically calls for cross-border policing and prosecution, and the removal of conflicts of jurisdiction), and the deployment of armed Europol law enforcement officers on the streets of Britain. These matters were originally dealt with under article 280, which mysteriously disappeared from the draft of the Nice Treaty at the very last minute, in part at least following heavy pressure from British euro-realists.
Article 17, which establishes a common foreign and defence policy for the EU, with its own military force. The House of Commons was told on 11 December 2000, that:
“…the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. NATO will be kept informed”
In a Strategic Defence Initiative Briefing Sheet (dated: 25 January 2017) titled ‘SDI: Overview of the accelerating EU absorption of the British Military to form the EU Military and a nuclear defence shield’, it is described that:
“The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon (a strong EU advocate and former EU Movement supporter) are continuing the path to EU military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of UK military forces into the EU structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media forums, which is testimony to the usual EU policy of implementation by stealth where possible.
Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the EU commercial military procurement and supply chain, operating under an EU treasury already being declared and implemented. Once locked together under EU procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-EU military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the EU political tactic of creating ‘interdependence’ between EU member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the ability to act as an independent nation state.
Understanding EU Military Integration Policy
The EU has consistently and publicly stated that the goal of the EU is to form a single integrated supranational state, with law, internal security, defence and foreign policy controlled from Brussels.
The EU Organisation for External Action (Foreign Policy vehicle of the EU) recently quoted Frederica Mogherini’s policy as follows:
“Security is a priority for the EU … We have hard and soft power. We have done more on defence in the last seven months than in decades. Building on the ideas in her Global Strategy for EU Foreign and Security Policy, Mogherini has illustrated the European Union’s three-pronged set of measures to strengthen the EU’s security and defence capability … In a reshaping world the only way for the Europeans to be global players is through the EU.”
The implication is clear — EU security and defence capability is to be strengthened as a centralised Brussels-led objective. This is not simply an invitation for member states to contribute more to EU security and defence at will. Many further official EU policy quotes emphasise the integrated EU defence objective.
Forming an EU military required a number of significant hurdles to be overcome. These included:
A. integration of EU member states’ armed forces with a wide spread of operational performance, equipment types and levels, experience and historic theatres of operation.
B. imbalance between Britain as a top-tier NATO partner and many other EU nation states.
C. significant strategic imbalance between the maritime strength of the Royal Navy and that of other EU navies, whilst acknowledging the size and capability of French maritime forces.
D. the strong US-UK ‘special relationship’, at both military and military intelligence levels, which produces a tiered military structure favouring the US and UK over EU member states other than the UK.
E. negating the perceived threat to NATO strength and operations by the creation of an integrated EU military.
F. achieving a unified defence procurement and build environment across the EU member states, particularly one which could replace and equal the power and impact of US-procured weapons and equipment entering the EU supply chain, especially via the UK on the back of its special US relationship.
G. integrating the UK and French strategic nuclear deterrents to bring them under centralised EU political control.
H. common agreement on defence levels, budgetary contribution and policy amongst EU member states — this includes a single EU treasury.
I. establishment of an EU command, control and communications structure.
EU policy has always been to secure its political objects step by step, salami slicing, using the so-called ‘ratchet mechanism’ and the doctrine of never relinquishing any aspect of the acquis communautaire to ensure that member states can not easily retract from progress made towards a political goal. This can also be described as a soft power approach, where change and political agenda is drifted in under distracting labels and language.
In considering the drive to EU military union, we must recognise that alongside the call for military union arising externally to the UK, i.e. by the EU itself, this key EU political has been driven in parallel from within the UK by our own pro-EU governments, be they Labour, Conservative or Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. (N.B.: An important comment is made on Brexit at the end of this briefing.) Since the UK’s internal pro-EU military agenda has been largely driven by stealth, or at least by obfuscation of the real political agenda — a smoke-screen of half-truths, spin and outright denial of the ultimate Westminster goal of a fully integrated EU military — we must look to the broader evidence for this political goal.
A simple Internet search on the subject of an EU army reveals entry after entry for mainstream media articles reporting the plan for this key step towards an EU military. These include: Juncker calls for EU army, Juncker proposes EU military HQ, European Parliament backs plans to create a defence union, Europe forges ahead with plans for an EU army — the overall press and media coverage is too numerous to list, and has spanned many years.
The plan for an EU army has thus been ‘hidden in plain sight’ whilst largely publicly denied by the UK government. See particularly the European Commission’s European Defence Action Plan of 30 November 2016, COM(2016) 950 final.
Behind the scenes, the Westminster political strategy towards the EU military has proceeded apace with a number of key defence-related policies which now, seen together, and with the advantage of hindsight, give a strong pointer to the undeclared pro-EU military line.
EU-driven policy for the formation of an Integrated EU military At this point, we return to the potential obstacles to EU military union, and add the measures taken by the EU and its agents in Westminster to overcome the difficulties.”
An EU Millitary takeover?
We can see that the imposition of this dangerously unconstitutional agreement is already fully underway, with no debate in either of the supposed parliaments.
What has Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson or any of the other so-called MSPs and representatives done to warn the public about this threat? Nothing because they are all intent on hiding the truth.
What most people don’t seem to realise about both of these traitorous puppets is that they are both concealing the same crimes.
“It is disappointing that UK representatives agreed to so many separate EU military plans even after the country voted to leave the EU.” – Major-General Julian Thompson
If and when Scotland does get forced into an EU Military “defence shield” (or control shield) it will forever lose the right to have it’s own Military Forces. And thus will relinquish our chances of becoming an independent country as protected and reinforced in the Treaty of Union in 1707.
The propaganda publication released by the purporting Scottish Government also states that Scotland “has been an integral part of the EU for 40 years” which is a complete lie. It was once a supposed “open common market” and nothing more. Try 25 years of “EU” invasion since the damning Maastricht Treaty was signed and sealed by impostors within Westminster in 1992, the same Treaty that is majorly inconsistent with Scottish people’s constitutional rights.
It is an indisputable and proven fact that we were tricked into both the the “common market” and the EU. It too was actually in contravention to constitutional law. This is proven by both the Kilmuir Letter and FCO 30/1048 which meticulously documents the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.”
Both of these documents remained top-secret for THIRTY YEARS.
‘Shoe-horned into the EU’ (which contains FCO 30/1048) is an enormous batch of PDF documents which unmistakably demonstrate the subterfuge that took place to get Britain into the E.U. The Heath Administration were fully aware at the time that there would be an inevitable “loss of Sovereignty” which was even admitted in the Kilmuir letter. However at the time this was all hidden in secrecy and so the people of the UK were fooled and duped into what would turn into foreign Rule.
These now-public files prove that Heath’s government knew the 1972 EEC Treaty would lead to the loss of sovereignty. They had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain, its people and their laws to be abolished after the turn of the century.
The authors, all civil servants or ministers, are very pro EU, their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished.
In public Heath’s government all lied saying that the treaty would not affect our sovereignty. This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor, at a point it was put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. He was reassuring to say his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted.
Even the Bill which took us into the EEC, said: “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”. This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper which attempted to bury the truth. Nothing changes as we shall see.
The subsequent ‘corrective’ referendum was void as it misled the people. It was misleading in two ways. Firstly we were never lawfully in the EEC, due to the breach of major constitutional law, therefore how could or can we vote to “leave” or “remain” in something we are not lawfully in from the first place, and secondly it was never made clear to the people that joining the EEC was anything more than a trade agreement. Prior to the referendum it had never been explained to the people that the system would evolve into a European Government.
Parliament is bound by Constitutional Law in many ways, including the prohibition to give away sovereignty to a foreign authority. The Declaration of Rights 1688 clearly states that:
“no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.”
This sentiment is also repeated in the Act of Settlement 1700 which states that:
“no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.”
Article 46A of the Treaty of Lisbon, which the traitor Gordon Brown signed in 2008, “The Union shall have legal personality” is evidence of high treason being signed and sealed by imposters within Westminster throughout several decades.
Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. Therefore ‘legal personality’ brought the European Union into changing from an alleged trade agreement, to its intended state as a new supranational union. Which is a type of multinational political union whereby negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states.
That being the case in fact, Britain became a vassal state. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as a tributary state.
Article F3 of the Maastricht treaty;
3. “The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.”
So what policies are they referring to?
On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty.
At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty – University of Nuremberg. Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?)
Professor Schachtschneider made the point that this clause is particularly outrageous as it had been cleverly hidden in a footnote of a footnote and would not have been detected by anyone other than an exceptional expert.
A quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Executive Intelligence Review, 7 April 2008. Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations.
And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty is a covert scam to destroy the Nation States, we accepted also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible.
Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote. The “footnote” in question, directly quoted, is as follows:
3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the “negative” definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
“Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
“A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”
By voting for Brexit, which was (and still is) a trap, those who voted WILL be granting the Lisbon treaty authority by granting Article 50 authority in order to leave the EU. To grant authority to a foreign entity overriding British law (especially Magna Carta article 61’s invocation in 2001) is treason.
‘Scotland’s Future’ says:
“Scottish forces will only ever participate in military activity that is internationally recognised . . . in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter.”
The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny and global dictatorship. After giving lip service about not intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state …,” the UN Charter continues, “but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”
Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to “be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.
Of course in terms of “Wider obligations” and the propaganda publication (‘Scotland’s Future’) released to further deceive the Scottish people, it is obvious where we are all heading, and it doesn’t look good at all. The unconstitutional EU Treaties cannot be repealed like an Act of parliament can be. The repeal the EEC Act will do nothing but confuse the people more.
Not only are the quislings in public office trying to hide the facts of the past (and current) constitutional crisis and betrayal, they are also trying to hide the solution to all these problems.
What if you had a solution that would well and truly end the tyranny imposed by the fascists and impostors within Westminster? Would you use it for the betterment of your country?
What is the solution?
On the 23rd of March 2001, ancient revolutionary rights were invoked for the first time in over 300 years. The last time they were triggered was during the start of the Glorious Revolution in 1688 whereby the Bishop of Salisbury (Gilbert Burnet) acted on behalf of the barons and bishops of England to invite William of Orange and Mary to come to London, after King James II had failed to re-establish Roman Catholicism in England and Scotland and faced deposition before fleeing the country.
The Enforcement (or Security) Clause as it is known as has been used on numerous occasions and provides remedy for the subjects when the state becomes tyrannical or corrupt.
Article 61 allows subjects of the realm to draw up a petition of grievances which a properly constituted committee of Barons (Lords) must take to the Monarch, who must redress the grievances. And as Article 61 recognises, it must be redressed “without delay” and “within fourty days”. If it is not corrected, the subjects may wage war (peacefully) against their own sovereign.
The reason why this law was invoked was because the Lords who formed the Barons committee for the people to swear allegiance to seen the deciet and betrayal against the people and their constitutional law and wanted to put an end to it. They invoked these rights (diffidatio) for us all to use.
The Barons seen that the Nice Treaty was a treasonous document which further imperiled the rights of the subjects and surrendered yet more vital parts of the Constitution and on the 7th of February at noon the petition was sanctioned to Elizabeth II (I of Scotland) demanding that she withhold any assent from any Bill which if passed may ratify that treacherous European (Nice) Treaty.
Not only did the Queen respond through her then-private secretary (Sir Robin Janvrin) on the 39th day of the 40 days given to “correct those transgressions without delay” with an inappropriate reply, the Nice treaty was passed into law anyway without the consent of the people.
If Scotland becomes independent, it loses the right to overthrow tyrannical administrations of governance peacefully and lawfully, which can only lead to civil unrest, which is what the impostors want. And with fully militarized EUropean police who swear oaths to the EU commission, it will have no luck enforcing British constitutional law after supposed ‘independence’, and with the European Death Penalty for “Rioting” (and who knows what else), the people wont even be lucky enough to reinforce the the Rule of Law.
An attempt was made prior to the invocation of Article 61 to bring these and other matters (wrongdoings) to court in 1972 by Ross McWhirter of The Freedom Association. He invoked the English Bill of Rights to show that the government did not have authority to give away the right and liberties of the people. He was mysteriously assassinated before the matter was decided.
His brother Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, whereby he uncovered 8 serious breaches of constitutional law, which they laid before the courts of England and Scotland. Summonses were issued against the then Foreign Secretary for treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the case and then drop it as “not in the public interest”. Yet the Declaration (Bill & Claim) of Rights prohibits “suspending laws or the operation of laws”. His action was also contrary to natural justice because the Attorney General was sitting in judgement in his own cause, which is illegal (non judex in re sua).
‘They’ want to replace your Constitution.
The impostors and traitors to the people and the real constitution within the illegaly devolved regime have taken plans to “replace the UK constitution.”
Why would the peope let a constitution which has been created throughout generations of uprisings against tyranny in the past be “replaced” by a phony constitution which will no doubt authorise ‘Government’ to abolish the rights granted at will, like the European Charter of “fundamental rights” (Article 52) signed by quislings at the Blitz in 2000, contrary to the rulling in R v Thistlewood 1820 which establishes “to destroy the constitution” of the United Kingdom is an act of Treason.
The propaganda publication warns:
“A written constitution will be a significant step forward for an independent Scotland. It will replace the central principle of the UK constitution.”
Similarly, seporate plans by the Westminster (un)establishment confirms that a new “British Bill of Rights” will be imminent.
The reason why you should not want your real constitution to be replaced by a phony treasonous constitution is beause we already have a full constitution which also gives us the right of redress when the state becomes unjust in it’s own actions. The constitution we have as identified by Mackintosh v Lord Advocate, 1876 and Macgregor v Lord Advocate, 1921, is also a shared constitution between not only the UK, but major parts of the Commonwealth.
The people are the only ones who can re-write their own constitution. This regime which purports to be Government have no authority to make such a set of laws because the ones we have cannot be altered. The so called Scottish executive wants to re-write the rules so it suits them. Imagine if the people actually let that happen? The peoples constitutional rights at the hands of an illegaly devolved and legally deposed regime sounds like a sincere case of despotism and needs everyone’s attention.
Is Scotland in the Real UK Union?
For 141 years after the Union between England and Scotland (as the new United Kingdom), we had a very good system of justice. No one was denied their inherent rights, freedoms or privileges. This was of course until 1848 when Grand Juries were illegally repealed, and 210 years after the Union in 1911 when the so-called “parliament” pushed through the highly unconstitutional Parliament Act which unlawfully surrendered the royal prerogative. This meant that future legislation was not subject to the fully needed scrutiny. All legislation since then has been treasonable. This is why we see fascist “law” today. It was after 1911 that lawmaking had been treacherously altered from it’s good state.
Regardless of any other illegal infringements after this period of time, such as 265 years later when the people were unconstitutionally dragged into the “eec” in 1972, what we are in today is not at all what the real union was supposed to be. If we were truly in the union as it was designed, the people would be a little bit more keen on staying in it.
Today, the so-called unionists and nationalists of Scotland are both the same kind of traitor. The only difference is that one wants to walk away from something they have been denied for generations (the real Union) no matter the cost, whilst the other wants to deliberately lie about the union and what has happened over the last century, whilst pretending to support it.
How can Scotland leave the UK Union when it isn’t even in it as it is supposed to be? Plus the fact the argument is based on “being dragged out of the EU against our will” as Nicola puts it.
Scotland would be leaving the fake Union which we have all had a chance of fixing since 2001. If Scotland votes into a treasonable and legaly deposed administration of governance we will lose not only our services, but the ancient rights and liberties conferred in the real constitution which leave us with nothing
Again, I am not saying that Scotland should never be independent. By constitutional law it is already, and especially since the constitutional contract between England and Scotland was majorly broken in 1992. Another thing that is closely under wraps by the (un)establishment in Westminster and puppets of Brussles in Scotland which the treasonous Tony Blair administration started.
In the same publication that says “The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.”
It contradicts itself by saying “Following a vote for independence in 2014, agreements will be made between the Scottish and Westminster Governments, in the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement, setting the parameters for Scotland’s transition to independence”
The ‘devolution’ of 98 was done illegaly?
There are three main reasons why the 1998 devolution was unconstitutional.
The first reason is as follows;
Before Tony Blair was known as a war criminal, he comitted Treason in the attempted signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 which increased the European Union’s powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol and was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair and his quisling administration. Even if he never comitted Treason, his Oath to the supposed ‘Queen’ who is an EU citizen under Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty (singed in 92) contradicted constitutional law.
A year after he first betrayed the people by signing the Amsterdam Treaty, which was the same year as the devolution of 1998, Tony (the impostor) Blar tried to repeal the 1795 Treason Act in section 36 of the ‘Crime and Disorder Act’ which was a further act of Treason by the war criminal. He would face justice for all that he has done if only the people would unify under their constitution.
Secondly, since Tony Blair is the subject, the Maastricht Treaty (a highly illegal and constitution destroying Treaty like all European Union Treaties) was signed and sealed by impostors within Westminster in 1992, thereby surrendering not only the citizens of the United Kingdoms status (including the Scottish as sovereign peoples), but the Queen herself. The current holder of the Office of Sovereign is no longer a Sovereign, but under Article 8 of that damning (Maastricht) Treaty, a CITIZEN of the EU. Blair’s contradicted Oath bared no political or legal weight, nor do any parliamentary oaths today. He was never Prime Minister to proceed with the devolution. Not only this but the Maastricht Treaty infringes Articles III and XVIII of the Treaty of Union in 1707 which according to Institutes, IV, 1,16-19, is said to be two of the “fundamental articles of the union.”
Thirdly, on the 10th of August 1911 parliament pushed through the Parliament Act which being an unconstitutional and therefore unlawful act, surrendered the Royal Prerogative to the House of Commons which was an act of Treason. This meant that although Royal Assent is meant to only allow acts and statutes in keeping with the constitution, it was diluted and those powers all but removed. This being the second act of treason to our knowledge that was committed since the Grand Juries were removed from service, the governing ministers and the monarchy have failed to uphold their duty and their oaths to the people they are meant to be serving and broken the law a thousand times over since then. All acts and statutes since 1911 are treasonable, that means they need to come under close scrutiny and reassessing as to whether they are still valid under constitutional law.
Even King Edward VII REFUSED the assent outright to what became the 1911 Parliament Act ordering the prime minister Asquith to go to the country on the grounds the bill was unconstitutional and also removed protection from his subjects. Asquith and his ministers went around the country lying about the Lords who thought it beneath them to reply. Asquith won the election and put the bill through, the King in his speech at the opening of parliament said that the only reason he was doing this was at the instruction of his ministers. A clear indication that this was against his wishes.
The theft (if you like) of the Royal Prerogative which illegally surrendered supremacy powers to the House of Commons from the House of Lords meant that the Scotland Act 1998 is a treasonable and therefore unconstitutional Act.
The house of Lords used to (and still should) play a very important constitutional role in the development in the law making of Parliament. Their role was as follows;
1. To champion the people against arbitrary and ill considered law making by the House at Commons;
2. To correct the errors by the House of Commons. influenced as it is by every fickle gust of passing opinion;
3. To protect the people from laws passed by a House of Commons that does not really represent their wishes (if it does not comply with the constitution);
4. To carry out the will of the nations when the House of Commons wilfully or mistakenly acts contrary to It;
5. To balance the caprices of the House of Commons, and to counteract the frequent reversal of policy which would otherwise happen every few years when a change at Government took place.
The ruling in Nichols v Nichols 1576 included the words: “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice.”
Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative:
“The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogativa regis is merely declaratory of the common law…”
In 1707, Queen Anne withheld the Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill when it became apparent that James Francis Stuart (pretender Prince of Wales, and the Queen’s halfbrother) was planning with Louis XIV of France to invade Scotland from Calais in an attempt to establish a Jacobite sovereign. Were such an invasion to be successful, the Queen feared a Scottish militia might be turned against the monarchy. Thus, parliament’s will was denied in the interests of the sovereignty of the nation and the security of the realm.
If the people allow this to continue, it will never end.