Surely HM is above the law and cannot be prosecuted in her own courts. At least that's what I grew up with. This is because the original appointment of justices, by the sovereign hundreds of years ago, was to dispense the monarch's justice, and make it available to everybody in the land, in contradistinction to whatever was being handed out by local barons.

A propos this, I note with disgust that the new 'Supreme Court' which has been wished on us at vast cost does NOT have the Royal Arms above the judges but some sort of bunch of flowers mural. So perhaps we have agreed (well I didn't but maybe Nu Labour did) that our courts no longer dispense the Queen's Justice (although the new SC justices swore to HM in the news clip). Trial by jury, and the unpaid lay JPs who deal with 95% of criminal cases with qualified legal advice by what used to be called clerks of the court, won't last long in the new fascist European dictatorship.

My point wasn't that HMQ was about to commit a crime, more that Gordon Brown had signed a document that placed a foreign jurisdiction over the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury (PM) has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, an oath that Gordon Brown has deliberately broken, he has usurped the Crown.

Originally Posted by CQMS

My point wasn't that HMQ was about to commit a crime, more that Gordon Brown had signed a document that placed a foreign jurisdiction over the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury (PM) has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, an oath that Gordon Brown has deliberately broken, he has usurped the Crown.

Interesting scenario, have you any further thoughts on this? Does it constitute treason and if so is he impeachable because of it? What a pleasant thought to take to bed with me!

I would say that there's a Prima Facie case of High Treason to answer. He can't even use the defence that "it was the will of the people".

Originally Posted by CQMS

I would say that there's a Prima Facie case of High Treason to answer. He can't even use the defence that "it was the will of the people".

I would say that there's a prima facie case of "some men in white coats are outside asking if you're in".

Originally Posted by CQMS

My point wasn't that HMQ was about to commit a crime, more that Gordon Brown had signed a document that placed a foreign jurisdiction over the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury (PM) has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, an oath that Gordon Brown has deliberately broken, he has usurped the Crown.

In what way?

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by CQMS

My point wasn't that HMQ was about to commit a crime, more that Gordon Brown had signed a document that placed a foreign jurisdiction over the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury (PM) has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, an oath that Gordon Brown has deliberately broken, he has usurped the Crown.

In what way?

I return to my original point, is HMQ an EU citizen beholden to EU law?

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by CQMS

My point wasn't that HMQ was about to commit a crime, more that Gordon Brown had signed a document that placed a foreign jurisdiction over the Crown. The First Lord of the Treasury (PM) has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, an oath that Gordon Brown has deliberately broken, he has usurped the Crown.

In what way?

In every way possible. He is a traitor as designate by the treason act, as are you.

Originally Posted by seaweed

A propos this, I note with disgust that the new 'Supreme Court' which has been wished on us at vast cost does NOT have the Royal Arms above the judges but some sort of bunch of flowers mural.

Which has a Crown above it.

A quick quiz.

The Crown is a symbol of:

(i) The Monarchy

(ii) The Fascist EU Commie Dictatorship

Answer in your own time.

CQMS - Yes.

And

No.


In broader terms, she is one of several hundred million people living in Europe, but her position is somewhat different, since she is the head of state.


If she wishes to sack Brown, she can. She doesn't (for reasons which we've been over several times before), but she can. All her other powers/prerogatives regarding the appointment of a PM, etc remain. Lisbon does not remove her ability to do this.

Lisbon will not create a situation where Cherie Blair (if Tony gets the job) will be able to insist that HMQ curtseys to her, as some people suggest on here on a regular basis. HMQ is not the only monarch in Europe, and not the only one fondly regarded by her population (and those of other nations). Any attempt to get King Juan Carlos, Queen Beatrix, Queen Margrethe, King Carl or King Albert to curtsey/bow to her would be likely to get the same reaction from those nations as an attempt to make HMQ curtsey to her. Lisbon gives no such regal powers to the partner of the President of the European Council (not, despite what the Mail is attempting to make us believe, the President of Europe, with powers akin to those of Obama or Medvedev).

Attempting an EU arrest warrant against HMQ would be pointless - the situation of the government stripping HMQ of immunity as outlined by Parapauk over-simplifies the matter.

We'd be into a fully-fledged consitutional crisis if a government attempted that, be it at the behest of the EU or a domestic matter. The only way to avoid such a crisis would be for HMQ to surrender herself to the courts, which would require either (a) abdication or (b) a republic.

As for the supreme court, the semi-heraldic description of the emblem is:

The emblem combines four heraldic elements, equally represented in the design, reflecting the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom:

* England: a symmetrical five-petalled wild rose, with stalk and leaves, an English symbol since the Tudor dynasty
* Wales: the green leaves of a leek, deriving from the medieval legend that St David ordered his Welsh soldiers to wear leeks on their helmets during a battle against the Saxons
* Scotland: a purple thistle, associated with the tradition that an early Scottish army was saved when barefooted Viking invaders stepped on prickly thistles in the dark, crying out in pain and waking the defenders
* Northern Ireland: a light blue five-petalled flax flower, representing the linen-weaving industry which was so valuable that nineteenth century Belfast was known as ‘Linenopolis’

These four national elements are embraced by an almost-circular frame representing both Libra, the scales of justice, and Omega, symbolising the final source of justice for the United Kingdom.

At its most formal level, the Royal Crown surmounts the emblem, as the Monarch is the source of The Supreme Court’s authority.

However, it did cost £50,000 to come up with this, according to the Law Society, so the keys to the outrage Transit can be signed out.