Welcome to Peter Eyre's Space

Thank you for joining my space. The world is truly a remarkable and beautiful place but somehow we have lost our direction. Why can't we all get on together and live in peace? Why so much agression and no compassion or love for each other? Why do our leaders want to wage war in order to gain an economic advantage in controlling the natural resources of our planet? Why do such nations as the USA allow the manufacturing of weapons containing uranium components and yet profess that they are promoting disarmament? Who do they, the UK, European Countries and Israel insist in using these WMD's. I sincerely wanted to welcome you all in such a very nice and gentle way but I carry so much pain for the innocent men, women and children of past and current war zones that have sucumbed to these evil uranium weapons. We must all try to prohibit DU/EU or any other "Dirty Weapon" and learn to live in peace. We in the west have to close all bases that exist on Islamic soil and learn to trade instead of fighting. So I again welcome you to "Peter's Space" If you support war in any shape or form please do not enter my space. If you are a Christian Zionist or Jewish Zionist please do not enter my space. If however you are against war and any form of intimidation you are most welcome to take over my space.

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW3?

Part 6 - New World Order breaches UK Constitution

Sedition and Treason

In my last article (Part 5) I started the story relating to Sedition and Treason that the UK Government has been progressively carrying out since the days of Prime Minister Edward Heath back in 1971. All governments since that time have been chipping away at the UK constitution right up to the current day. Anyone implicated in this activity are guilty of a very serious crime, namely the crime of Sedition under common law and the crime of treason under common law.

Because of the seriousness of these crimes it is important that a full account be given of the brave attempts by concerns members of the public to halt this, under the counter manipulation, of the UK Constitution. If the citizens of the United Kingdom do nothing then within a very short timeframe the country as we know it will be gone forever.
This is the continuation of Part 5:

By Mark Welsh
First of all, I do not profess to have any background in the study of law and certainly not Constitutional law. It is also extremely difficult to find any Law firm which does practice Constitutional law. I suggest there is good reason for this. Furthermore, I read an article, recently, which suggested that the UK government were suggesting that the teaching of British history within our schools would not go further back than 1700 - An interesting point in time, if this is so, since it means that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the introduction of the Bank of England in 1694 would never be taught - not that, as I understand it, the latter issue has ever been taught in our schools except, perhaps, to state the year in which it was established. What happens when a society grows up unaware of its past and the significant events which transpired to create today’s society and culture within the UK? It ends up providing a clean slate upon which, the government establishment can rewrite history and recreate and form the society it so pleases. A perfect environment to shape entirely new policy and legislation to allow the imposition of a totally new form of government - a form of government which is based upon laws being created by Banking and Corporation interests. A form of government, therefore, which is purely focused on revenue and profit being squeezed out of every single individual. A form of government which does not recognise free men and women but demands that every citizen creates value, otherwise they are dispensed with. This is not at all difficult to achieve. It already exists to a great extent through propaganda - the stigma attached to the unemployed while the state does not provide an environment which allows for full employment. When a country destroys and/or sells off its industry, what does one expect? However, i digress. There was a letter sent to our government by a “Loyal British Voter” some time ago which I picked up on and re - present here:

EU Directive Consultation Response,
Government Equalities Office, 9th Floor,Eland House,
Bressenden Place,
London,SW1 5DU.

HRH Queen Elizabeth,at her coronation in 1953,swore on oath before Almighty God to govern the British people according to Gods Law and customs per the Bible. Likewise, it is incumbent on all politicians including the prime minister to obey those laws in support of the Oath sworn by our Queen.

Further,in accordance with the Declaration of Rights 1688,they are required to resist the encroachment of a foreign power(e.g the European Union),and all Directives emanating from the EU are in contradiction of those laws and have no jurisdiction in this realm of the British Isles.

The Declaration of Rights of 1688 is a settlement treaty and NOT an Act of Parliament and therefore cannot be repealed by Parliament.

Therefore it is imperative that the present Prime Minister and Parliament repeal the European Communities Act of 1972,from which the EU derives all its authority,and stop trying to enforce those Directives on the British people,or else the Parliament should be dissolved and the British people given the chance to re-elect a Government which will truly represent them,without any European influence.

So the aforementioned EU Directive consultation is therefore null and void and a waste of public money,therefore any person or Parliamentary candidate is guilty of TREASON in trying to implement it.

I also advise you,that you personally who are involved in this consultation,are considered to be a party to an act of treason and traitors to your countrymen,and therefore should also be tried for participating in an act of Treason.

Yours Sincerely. THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RE SOVEREIGNTY To consider this treason issue further, it is necessary to look deeply into the term “Sovereignty” and how the Constitution is framed to protect such sovereignty..... What is Sovereignty and where does it lie in the UK?

What is Sovereignty?

" Sovereignty is the legitimate and exclusive right to exercise power within a given area"
In other words - Sovereignty is Supreme Power.

Different types of sovereignty exist:

~ Legal Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies according to the law

~ Political Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies in reality

~ Pooled Sovereignty (In the EU, a supranational organisation, decisions are made by European Institutions on which all members are represented, but none has a overall say)

Most democratic political systems have both the separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent a single institution becoming omnipotent although, in practice, when the Executive Branch of government - the Cabinet - can plant who they wish within the judiciary, then that separation is lost.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution. In other words, Parliament holds the supreme authority in the UK.

In what ways is Parliament sovereign?

- Parliament has the ultimate political authority. Most key decisions (but not all, as some military and foreign decisions are in the hands of the PM) must be approved by Parliament.

- All powers exercised by ministers (except for the prerogative powers of the PM), devolved governments, local governments and other public bodies are granted by parliament and can be removed by Parliament.

- All new primary legislation must be passed by parliament and secondary legislation made by ministers can be overruled by Parliament.

- Parliament is not bound by its predecessors (i.e. past Parliaments cannot control the actions of the current Parliament).

- Parliament cannot bind its successors (i.e. it cannot pass laws that cannot be repealed or amended by future Parliaments).

So, is Parliament really Sovereign?

Parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined in a number of areas:

- Political Parties:

Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons. Combined with the dominance of political parties in elections since the start of the C20, this has led to tight party control over MP's and disciplined parliamentary groups that make the business of the House of Commons very predictable.

- Executive:

Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes - an 'Elective Dictatorship'. Also backed by the Civil Service 'machine' it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, Prime Ministers who systematically repress the powers of party and parliament tend to meet their fate - Margaret Thatcher is a classic example of this. However this hasn't happened yet, with Brown, and doesn't look to be on the cards for some strange reason (But I won't get into that for the moment).

- Public:

At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years. That sovereignty of parliament however, exists within the legal/lawful framework of our Constitution.

~ European Union:
When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 (an Act of treason by Edward Heath supported by the FCO and BBC amongst others) it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament.

So, upshot? Yes, Sovereignty lies with Parliament/Executive Branch of government.

HOWEVER, as you can see, at the point of elections, Sovereignty actually lies with the people. It always truly has and that's exactly why "They work for you". So let's say the population woke up one day and realised that the three main parties simply were 3 legs of the same establishment tripod (which they are). And let's even assume that this happened sometime after the Lisbon Treaty was fully ratified.

IF we elected a brand new party into power who we KNEW would remove us from the EU and, because we had realised the con of the false left/right paradigm so we were "on the government's case” and ensured they did as WE THE PEOPLE demanded of them, then that government (whoever it was) - because of the fact that "Parliament cannot bind its successors" - could repeal ALL of the laws and the EU policy within the UK and restore our sovereignty WHICH belongs to US.

What could it do after that? It could re-instate laws which had been repealed such as the TREASON LAWS and we could do what was necessary and just to those who had been elected to office BY the people previously and committed such treason.

Now, you may ask, how can I be sure I'm right? Here's why:

So it would seem from this taken from the UK Parliament website:


In this Chapter, we consider those features of the Lisbon Treaty that appear to have direct implications for the UK constitution.


92. We now consider whether the Lisbon Treaty would change the relationship between EU law and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Like the current treaties, the Lisbon Treaty contains no express provision about the principle, enunciated by the ECJ since 1963, that European law takes priority over any inconsistent national law. Under this principle, any national court or tribunal (from a bench of lay magistrates to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) must immediately set aside any statutory provision or other rule of national law which is determined to be incompatible with EU law. However, Declaration 17 appended to the Lisbon Treaty does state that "in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law". Dr Anthony commented, though, that "the questionable legal status of such Declarations may mean that the doctrine can only ever continue to lack an agreed basis" (p 11).

93. The Government told us that the principle of the primacy of EU law-whether formally articulated or not-does not have implications for parliamentary sovereignty:

"Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972 and has continued to do so in passing the legislation necessary to ratify subsequent EU Treaties. The UK Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at any time. The consequence of such repeal is that the United Kingdom would not be able to comply with its international and EU obligations and would have to withdraw from the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty does not change that and indeed for the first time includes a provision explicitly confirming Member States' right to withdraw from the European Union" (p 21).

94. Dr Anthony told us that it "is highly unlikely that the new Treaty will add anything to debates on the effects of EU membership" on parliamentary sovereignty (p 11). Professor Chalmers agreed (p 14), as did Professor Dashwood who explained that primacy of European Union law "remains a principle developed in the case law of the ECJ" (p 17). We agree with this analysis.

95. We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty would make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States' right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union.
Here is ANOTHER issue which I picked up on with this "so called" new Bill of Rights:

Recognise the deception in this. Recognise the "one way street" being proposed under the "flag" of Human Rights/Bill of Rights. And remember also that the establishment want you to forget about out existing 1688 Bill of Rights.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights

Background to proposals for a British Bill of
Rights and Duties
Standard Note: SN/PC/04559
Last updated: 3 February 2009

The Joint Committee on Human Rights announced in May 2007 that they would hold an inquiry into a British Bill of Rights. Their report, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, was published on 10 August 2008.

In short, the Committee recommended that the UK should adopt a Bill of Rights and Freedoms "in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalized and vulnerable people in particular".

They stated that:
Adopting a Bill of Rights provides a moment when society can define itself. We recommend that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should set out a shared vision of a desirable future society: it should be aspirational in nature as well as protecting those human rights which already exist. We suggest that a Bill of Rights should give lasting effect to values shared by the people of the United Kingdom: we include liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and the rule of law.

Just ONE thing. Note: "and the rule of law"

The Committee recommended that some additional rights, such as the right to trial by jury and the right to administrative justice should be included in a Bill of Rights. They also considered the inclusion of environmental rights (or 'third generation' rights as they are known). The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights but a situation where the Government would have a duty to progress towards realising certain rights of this kind:

We suggest that the Bill of Rights and Freedoms should initially include the rights to education, health, housing and an adequate standard of living. Government would have a duty to progress towards realising these rights and would need to report that progress to Parliament. Individuals would not be able to enforce these rights through the courts, but the courts would have a role in reviewing the measures taken by Government.

Now, do you recognise it? Do you see the outright deception here? How the Government will PROMOTE "Human Rights" and a "Bill of Rights" BUT, ultimately, it is total nonsense?

No? Then let me explain:

"The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights"

What does that mean? As follows:
Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.
Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

Upshot? If your Human Rights under a Bill of Rights is breached in any way, you don't have recourse to complain. There's NOTHING you can do because the matter is not "justiciable".

You could be beaten to a pulp and thrown in jail because you were a vocal dissenter with ANYTHING the government did and you would have NO comeback. (I hark back to my issue in Singapore)

Therefore bottom line: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. And, it will only get worse if we allow it to by our apathy. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking it will never impact your life. It does today and will tomorrow.

Yet, how would you respond to this: "A Human being is born free and with unalienable rights. As long as a human being causes no harm, loss or injury to another human being then there is no higher authority which has power over that "person" (be careful with the word "person"). Statutory Legislation (Statute law) is NOT law, in fact, but is given the force of law by the governed. Statute law is, in fact, a form of commercial law and, as such, is a form of contract. In being such, it requires an actual contractual agreement between both parties and, therefore, the "person" must accept to contract with the organisation wishing to enforce such statute law upon him". Think about the above. There ARE no “rights” if they can be taken away - which they are now and have been many times in history. They are granted “privileges” yet you must ask yourself very fundamental questions here such as: “Which person or group has a right, under law, to strip me of MY rights - my inalienable rights - under ANY circumstances at all UNLESS I cause, harm, injury or loss to another?” The answer to this question can only be this: No-one!
Continuing the Sovereignty/Constitution/Treason issue: The basis for the coronation oath, which forms part of the coronation ceremony, is enshrined in statute in the Coronation Oath Act 1689. This Act required the King William and Queen Mary, as joint monarchs, to swear an oath during the coronation ceremony. The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Accession Declaration Act 1910 make a statutory requirement on the monarch to take the coronation oath.
The legal obligations surrounding the oath are set out in Halsbury's Laws:
28. The Crown's duty towards the subject. The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath are:
(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs;
(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch's power;
(3) to maintain the laws of god, the true profession of the Gospel, and the protestant
reformed religion established by law, to the utmost of the Sovereign's power;

By the Act of Settlement s 4, it is declared that 'whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same...the same are....ratified and confirmed accordingly.

On 12 February 1688 a declaration was drawn up affirming the rights and liberties of the people and conferring the crown upon William and Mary, then Mary's children, and, failing any heirs, Princess Anne and her heirs; and failing also that, William's heirs. Once the declaration had been accepted by William and Mary, it was published as a proclamation. The declaration was subsequently enacted with some additions in the form of the Bill of Rights 1688, and the Acts of the Convention Parliament were subsequently ratified and confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 which also acknowledged the King and Queen. In this way, the Bill of Rights was confirmed by a Parliament summoned in a constitutional manner and thereby acquired the force of a legal statute and appears as such on the statute book.

I won't copy here the Bill of Rights WE HAVE since you can find them online at your leisure.

What I WILL say is this however:

There is a working document in Parliament named "The Governance of Britain".

July 2007 Green Paper on constitutional reform, "The Governance of Britain". The note sets out each proposal and progress made since the publication of the Green Paper, including the contents of the Constitutional Renewal White Paper and draft Bill published in March 2008. The Government has said that it will bring forward legislation "when time allows".

One of the FOUR major proposals in it is as follows:

Britain's Future: the citizen and the state - this included a discussion of the need to develop a British Statement of Values, and perhaps a British Bill of Rights.

No British Constitution and Bill of Rights? Today, you hear Parliament, Government and media discussing "A British Bill of Rights" WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE!!

But the fact we have one is hushed up! Ever wondered why?

On 25 March 2008 the Government published a White Paper and Draft Bill, The Governance of Britain: Constitutional Renewal.

Speaking in the debate on the Queen's Speech, Jack Straw responded to questions on the status of the constitutional renewal proposals as follows:
...The constitutional reform Bill is specified in the Gracious Speech. Everyone knows that what has changed since then is the overriding imperative of dealing with the world economic downturn, but the Bill will require parliamentary time. The Queen's Speech states: ""My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures.""
As ever, Her Majesty meant what she said-and that is my intention, too.

The Governance of Britain Green Paper was published by the Government a matter of days after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. The Labour administrations of 1997-2007 oversaw major changes to the constitutional structures and systems of the United Kingdom including the establishment of devolved administrations in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

And THAT is what this is all about. The entire Constitutional debate and the promotion of "a British Bill of Rights" (when we already have one) and changes to the Act of Settlement etc, is to have us slot into Europe - NOT to think first of the rights of British Citizens. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with us and the government AGAIN are pulling the wool over our eyes.

The Green Paper echoes several proposals for constitutional change by the Liberal Democrats in their 2007 paper Real Democracy for Britain, and by the Conservative Party's Democracy Task Force, chaired by Kenneth Clarke.

Ken Clarke: Constitutional reform chaired by “MR. BILDERBERG”.

And as “Mr Bilderberg”, he works alongside Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown to ACHIEVE what they are trying to achieve because BEFORE these people work for the British people and British Government THEY WORK FOR THE AGENDA OF BILDERBERG AND THE BANKERS WHO "OWN" them. Once the goals are achieved, they personally do pretty well for themselves. as you may realise later. Who, in this country of ours, would suggest that the present government under Blair and Brown’s leadership, has conducted itself in the best interests of the British Public? We have had broken promises: No Referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Illegal Wars fought but NOT in our name and for an elite agenda which is obvious when one has studied the subject in depth. Gold sold at less than market price by what would appear to be a Chancellor of exceptional incompetence. However, let’s have a closer look at this gold sale. Is it possible there was a much larger agenda at work here while certain people end their career in No.10 doing very well for themselves?
Read this.... http://www.timesonline.co. uk/tol/news/politics/artic le1655001.ece "Among five exemptions it has claimed to block publication is that “such information relates to the location (past or present) of the UK’s gold holdings, which, if made known, could increase risks to security”. This information is on the Bank’s official website." Now consider this.... http://www.imf.org/externa l/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/I NT051B.htm
“First, the amount is limited to the portion of the Fund's gold—about 400 tons—that had been sold and repurchased in a transaction about seven years ago. Second, the sales should be fitted in with the existing sales programs of central banks, mainly European ones, so that they won't result in any additional gold sales. Third, the IMF should set up a group that examines the technicalities of the marketing of gold.”
Coincidence? Now unless I'm mistaken, this secrecy about who bought the gold is still under wraps but let me just add this, as you will clearly recognise, there was no-one else selling 400 tons of gold in that timescale except Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Not that I am aware of. So, again: Coincidence?
Now let's think this through a little.
• JP Morgan were involved in the meeting with Brown when discussing the sale of 400 tons of gold. • The IMF publication referred to, has the JP Morgan International President stating the IMF bought 400 tons in the very same timescale. • Tony Blair leaves 10 Downing Street to land a windfall $2M/yr job with guess who?
JP Morgan! Who “pimped” our Tony to the Banking establishment? Evelyn and Lynn De Rothschild. Cozy isn’t it? It is transparent. Unless the government wishes to open the entire detail of the gold sale to the public to prove otherwise but, as with so many of the government’s “little secrets” it is deemed “ Not in the Public interest”. This phrase is a wonderful, all encompassing phrase which is actually extremely deceptive. What it honestly means is that it is “Not in the establishment’s interest that the public are aware”. The reality is that it is ENTIRELY in the public’s interest to recognise the sheer scale of corruption which is carried out by our government and establishment. Think, for a moment, about the case of Hollie Greig and the arrest of Robert Green in Aberdeen on charges of “breach of the peace”. What “breach”? What exactly did the man do? Answer: Nothing. What he was about to do was to bring it to the public’s attention that there had been long term sexual abuse of a Down Syndrome child over a period of 14 years and members of the establishment were implicated while other members covered it all up. The “breach of the peace” was solidly based upon the point that such information being brought to light would, in establishment terms, not be “In the Public interest”. Does this crystallize for you what “In the public interest” actually means? Is it “in the public interest” for me to write this article? An expression of my thinking and simple straightforward questions which my representatives in government refuse to answer. Would this be construed then as a “breach of the peace”? If so, then what exactly is this “freedom and democracy’?
Someone once asked me the question -

"And since the treason laws apply to all who take the oath of allegiance, how can the Sovereign commit treason when they don't take that oath? No one takes an oath to themselves surely?"

Precisely! The Queen does NOT take an Oath to herself.

What is an Oath? It is to swear one shall carry out responsibilities.
The CORONATION OATH is just that.

Meanwhile, the QUEEN is NOT the MONARCHY. That is, the flesh and blood person of the Queen is NOT the MONARCHY.

The flesh and blood person of the Queen takes on the RESPONSIBILITY of the MONARCHY and is therefore the MONARCH.

The MONARCH is there to uphold the LAWS of this country. OUR SOVEREIGNTY has been established by our having it protected FOR US by the MONARCHY.

Think of the Queen (and all those monarchs before her) as simply the CEO of a CORPORATION.

IF the CEO of a Corporation was found to be guilty of not performing their duties and actually, perhaps, working against (embezzlement for instance) the LAWS/POLICIES of the Corporation, they would be sacked and very possibly jailed. They have, in effect, committed a treason of sorts.

Now, the Queen (the human being) is JUST that! She swears an oath. Again, the question remains: To who?

Meanwhile, it gets a little more complex because of the Sovereignty of PARLIAMENT.

The Queen actually holds the sovereignty of the PEOPLE of the UK. The PARLIAMENT work against this (actually the Executive Branch of the Government) to strip away the sovereignty of the PEOPLE FROM Her Majesty. They promote such as giving more "power" to Parliament and Parliament being elected by the people etc....

The PROBLEM lies in the fact that the people, generally, are apathetic, disinterested etc. So what happens is that the government hype the "benefits" of Constitutional change while what they are actually doing is subverting it to allow accession to the EU.

So then: "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; comes into play doesn't it? For, remember, enemies NEED NOT use bombs and guns to wage war when their aims may be achieved by subversion, stealth and economic means.

The Queen (the human being), by acquiescing to the government's agenda, is in breach of her Constitutional DUTY and she is NOT protecting the subjects of "her" Kingdom.

She has signed ALL EU treaties. She is allowing the sovereignty of the nation to be passed into the hands of a subversive government who are then passing OUR sovereignty to a FOREIGN POWER.
THE PRIVY COUNCIL Taken from the UK Parliament website: The Privy Council is an ancient and dignified institution of government, which has its origins in the earliest days of the monarchy.
The Privy Council goes back to the earliest days of the monarchy, when it comprised those appointed by the King or Queen to advise on matters of state.
1 Monarchs would rule through the Privy Council without turning to Parliament, and under Edward I it was difficult to identify whether legislative acts emanated from the King-in-Parliament or the King-in- Council.
2 Throughout the 14th century, however, there was a great deal of friction between the Council and Parliament, and in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V there is evidence of the Commons petitioning the King against the jurisdiction seized by the Council. By this time the Council was exercising judicial powers in relation to both criminal and civil litigation with enforcement of the criminal law (where offences against the State were alleged or officers of State were involved) carried out by the Court of Star Chamber. Parliament therefore objected that the Star Chamber was usurping the function of the common law courts.

With the rise of the Cabinet system of government in the 18th century, the Privy Council gradually lost much of its powers.

Membership of the Privy Council is today a titular honour, with the office recognised as a reward for public and political service. Appointments are made by the Sovereign on ministerial advice and are for life - there are no fixed numbers of Members. By convention, all present and past Cabinet Members are appointed to the Privy Council. Also included in the membership are members of the royal family, senior judges, two Archbishops, British Ambassadors, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Prime Minister and Cabinet Members, present and former leaders of the Opposition, and leading Commonwealth spokesmen and judges. The Council now numbers about 420 members, and members are entitled to the prefix 'Right Honourable.'

Now, THEIR OATH is as follows (in part):

"You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."



It requires those taking it to 'keep secret all matters...treated of in Council.' The Oath (or solemn affirmation for those who cannot take an Oath) is still administered, and is still binding, but it is only in very special circumstances nowadays that matters will come to a Privy Counsellor on "Privy Council terms". These will mostly concern matters of the national interest where it is important for senior members of Opposition parties to have access to Government information.

Despite the many powers conferred by statutes on individual ministers, the Order in Council remains a principal method of giving the force of law to acts of the government, especially
the more important executive orders.
The Judicial Committee has also in the past examined and reported on matters of constitutional importance, such as the legal basis of the practice of telephone tapping and matters affecting state security. A committee of six Privy Counsellors reviewed British policy towards the Falkland Islands leading up to Argentina's invasion in 1982; after the Prime Minster had consulted with five former Prime Ministers to secure their consent, the committee had access to the papers of previous governments and secret intelligence assessments.
I have also written to Mr Malcolm Chisholm MSP on this subject who has suggested he would defer the entire question back to Mark Lazarowicz MP as it is, in Mr Chisholm’s words “A UK matter and not a devolved matter” (unlike the Hollie Greig issue which Mr Lazarowicz deferred on to Malcolm Chisholm!). I brought the following David Cameron speech to Malcolm’s attention:
“Never again should it be possible for a British Government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people in a referendum.” The European Communities Act 1972 can be amended to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum. “This is a major constitutional development...... Powers cannot be given away without their EXPLICIT approval.... after all, it is not politicians’ power to give away. The power belongs to the people.” See and hear the entire speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1b4zE3kjwA Now, while Mr. Cameron goes on to make promises and speak of “made up referendums which would not stand serious scrutiny” the fact is he has drawn a line under what has ALREADY been done by the British Government and DOES NOT STAND SERIOUS SCRUTINY within the terms of our Constitution! He EVADES this yet he has stated CORRECTLY that the powers which the people of this country PROVIDE to our government DO NOT INCLUDE the power to hand such powers to a foreign entity such as the EU or ANY foreign entity. Our constitutional documents are entirely clear on this and our government (successive ones since Heath’s government of 1972 when he signed the EC Act 1972 - Sedition and treason according to Constitutional law) have proceeded to do exactly that.
So, in ending this article, unless someone (anyone) can actually refute the above content and what I am convinced 100% is the situation here (without simply attempting the evasion of Ken Clarke that is), I would put this to you very firmly: The sovereignty of the United Kingdom is being attacked from without and such individuals, Banks and Corporations involved in this attack, are being collaborated with from within. That is nothing short of war. It is true to suggest it is, to an extent, also an “Infowar” since the people progressing this agenda know exactly what they are doing while the vast majority of the populace are in blissful ignorance while they stare at the TV news and wonder what is happening to our country. Meanwhile, our present monarch, Elizabeth II, swears an Oath during her coronation to US, the people and to the OFFICE of the Monarchy. If she did NOT swear such an Oath, then just as William and Mary were offered the Monarchy/Crown on the AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of their DUTY as Monarch, if Elizabeth had NOT sworn such an Oath, she would NOT have been crowned Queen. Our entire body of law in this country flows from the Constitution and the requirements and oaths taken by those who PROTECT that Constitution. If those highest of laws can be broken in an effort to progress an agenda which Mr. Rockefeller states so clearly has been his aim, then is it any wonder why our country finds itself in a state of near anarchy? An anarchy not brought on by the people but orchestrated by our very government while our “justice” system does not provide Justice but a purely revenue-driven, “corporatisation” and corrupt version of “justice”. The question is: Has Elizabeth knowingly and purposefully broken her oath - as have our Privy Council and our Parliamentarians over decades - or have her hands been tied and she has been coerced? Bilderberg and New World Order and the subversion of our British Constitution is no silly “Conspiracy theory”. It is a deadly serious matter and is as clear as can be ONCE you do a little study, sit up and take notice and connect a few dots. To ignore it or state “What can I do about it?” is NOT good enough. If you truly care for your children and, perhaps, THEIR children, then you have a duty to them. A duty to ensure that their world is a safe, non corrupt and free world. I have two children. Their happiness and to inherit a peaceful world is my ultimate goal. People talk of “We’re British”. We have millions of people every week attending football matches and thousands attending England and Scotland International matches who suggest they strongly believe in their nation. I have to tell you, supporting a football team while you speak of being proud of your nation is all hot air and has no substance when you allow to happen what I have just tried to explain to you. The way forward in overcoming this threat however, is through an understanding of it and educating others then using that knowledge intelligently and peacefully to drive the change and ensure those who have committed these crimes are held accountable.

This is the final part regarding the UK Constitution that has been extremely complex but none the less extremely important. I sincerely hope that some readers will take time out to study it in great deal and reaslise that all the political parties are taking away out country brick by brick.

The current series will continue on with Part 7 which will cover the New World Orders intimidation of Iran and their concerns regarding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. It will reveal how both the US and the UK allowed nuclear weapons to be stolen and yet at the same time also reveal that these shonky deals became private transactions with the political elite involved, their parties and the arms dealer. Basically we can say with great confidence that we gave nuclear weapons away to countries who they now call “The Axis of Evil.”

It is so sordid and corrupt that those involved are still playing leading roles in the politics of today. They have become smart and arrogant and think they are untouchable by law. Because of this gross neglect millions have died unnecessarily and some of those key players are now attempting to clear their names via the Chilcot inquiry. This Iraq Inquiry is an absolute farce and certainly does not go back far enough to encompass these missing nukes. Cameron, Blair, Brown and many others on both sides of the pond certainly have a lot to answer for. However the New World Order protects its own with unlimited cash that was stolen from the taxpayers of the world……..will we see justice prevail?....will we see heads roll?.....stay tuned for the next very exciting article.

Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 13/4/2010

No comments:

Post a Comment