Armed Forces no longer to serve Her Majesty the Queen?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by AlMiles, Jun 25, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/06/25/ftbrown125.xml&DCMP=ILC-traffdrv07053100

    Interesting comment regarding Lisbon:

    Slightly off topic but EXTREMELY RELATED.... brown forced us to join the EU against our wishes ....

    But some thing else happed which so far has escapped the notice of nearly every one ....

    The QUEEN was (forced to) sign and give Royal assent to the Lisbon Treaty ....

    This is a very interesting development.

    Giving the Royal Assent to this Treaty which places a foreign Constitution upon us effectively repeals and cancels our own Constitution; and EU Constitutional Law is superior to our Constitutional Law by virtue of ECA1972.

    We cannot serve two masters. However the Constitution, and the Constitutional Law, on which the Queen's Sovereign status depends is the original British Constitution which she has now set to one side and which she has effectively destroyed.

    In Rex v. Thistlewood (1820) the legal precedent was set that it is treason to destroy or attempt to destroy our Constitution. In Lord Halsbury's Laws of England Vol 14 para 984 Supremacy of the Sovereign he states that "The Law of the Constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with sovereign supremacy and pre-eminence. She is, however, bound by the terms of the Coronation oath and the maxims of the common law to observe and obey the law.". At one fell swoop she has confirmed that she has destroyed our constitutional law, that clothes her with sovereign supremacy and pre-eminence, and thus her own Sovereign position and status.

    However as our Armed Defence Forces of the Crown all swear to defend her in person, dignity and Crown their whole existence is rendered pointless.

    How then can she and her "government" continue to deploy her Defence Forces, who no longer have a lawful duty to do, in Iraq and Afghanistan if they have ceased to have any legal status and where all the officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned, have ceased to have any authority, which was vested in them by the Sovereign, to issue lawful orders under the Army, Navy and Air Force acts?? The same goes for all the other institutions and offices of state which includes all of her ministers!!


    I suppost an interesting headline might be ...

    “THE QUEEN HAS JUST STEPPED DOWN and is now just another rich family … so ignore her !!!”

    or "RECENTLY RETIRED MONARCH SEEKS NEW VOCATION"


    Maybe this is why Labour has worked to remove the TREASON laws .... because within British Law what they have conspired to do is TREASON
     
  2. Now that is frightening.
     
  3. You are correct in all respects. The true constitution still stands. We are very much in the same position we were in prior to the "Glorious Revolution" that led to our Bill of Rights.
     
  4. Not quite true, matelots as members of Her Majesty's Royal Navy don't swear anything, no oath, no nothing. The inference that they will defend the crown is there by their very existance. (if there actually are any matelots left of course)
     
  5. am i correct in thinking that the eu constitution cannot become law unless all members ratify it?

    if so, ireland really has saved the UK and the monarchy!
     
  6. I'm not sure that the poster on the Torygraph site is strictly correct. The 1820 case he mentions involves the Cato Street conspirators, who were plotting to assassinate Lord Liverpool's entire cabinet, and who were prosecuted for High Treason.

    Second, the Queen can still, in theory, do a Judge Dredd impression, proclaim 'One is the Law', and refuse to sign assent. The idea that she was 'forced' to do so is a grossly simplified account (IMHO) of how the signing of assent is undertaken. HMQ could say 'no' whenever she damn well pleases. It would create a constitutional crisis - and since it would be the unelected sovereign defying the will of the elected parliament, it has always been held that this would mean the end of the monarchy, since the government would resign, an election would be called and fought on the issue and... frankly, Broon is damned lucky that HMQ takes constitutional convention so seriously, since I can't see him winning any election called on the basis that HMQ must go because she wouldn't given assent to the Lisbon Treaty. If it had been me, with less regard for this, I'd have refused assent and taken the opportunity to head for the Commons to clear out the chamber with the aid of whichever btn is on ceremonial duties at the moment...

    Third, HMQ has not 'destroyed our constitutional law' at 'one fell swoop', since the way in which British constitutional law is famed means that it doesn't work that way. IMO, the citation from the 1894 work is based on a misunderstanding - precedent means that the monarch follows the laws and customs, but if he/she wants to ignore them, then he/she can.

    If anything, the Torygraph post reads to me as being that by a Euro-sceptical Republican...
     
  7. When von brown gets rid of the treason act and we find out then him and others did a treasons act (s) could he be tried for it or will he write him self a get out of jail free card ?
    All this ship started with ted heath and its gone down hill from there
    Is von brown going to finish what hitler tried to do by armed force ?