British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their, English country scene

free spins no deposit win real money | All Posts

The Queen's ministers lose the plot

This letter needs no introduction except to say that most of British history has been a long and successful attempt to check the power of the Sovereign. Today, power resides in Parliament and in the EU, and requires the Sovereign, supported by her people, to curb it.

8 December 2008

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA


The response of the Ministry of Justice to the questions forwarded by Mrs Bonici on Your Majesty's behalf has raised radical concerns about Your Majesty's constitutional role as Sovereign.

As Your Majesty will recall, Mrs Bonici replied to my 29 September letter on 24 October 2008 by stating that Your Majesty had "taken careful note of the views you express regarding Her Majesty's action in recently granting her Royal Assent to the Treaty of Lisbon. With regard to your comments on constitutional issues, I have been instructed to send your letter to the Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP, Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor, so that he may be aware of your approach to The Queen on these matters and may consider the points you raise."

The reply, which I recently received from Ms Emily Oyama, Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Settlement Division, suggests that the Ministry of Justice has a very peculiar and startling view of the British Constitution and Your Majesty's constitutional role.

Flatly contradicting the sovereignty of Your Majesty, the Ministry declares that "it may be said that Parliament is sovereign as it holds sovereignty on behalf of the people it represents. . . .The Queen no longer has a political or executive role. . ."

This view is false. It is contradicted by last week’s events in Canada where, according to the Wall Street Journal of 5 December, Your Majesty’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, won “the right to suspend the Parliament in a private meeting with a representative of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, the official head of state". It appears that Your Majesty exerts political and constitutional executive power in Canada but not in the United Kingdom.

The Justice Ministry’s phrase “the Queen no longer has a political or executive role. . ." shocks us. Pray, may we ask when this new constitutional settlement occurred? Exactly when did Your Majesty lose her Sovereignty in Parliament?

The British people chose to enter into a covenant with Your Majesty on 2 June 1953, when you promised to rule according to our laws and customs. Pray, may we ask how Your Majesty’s ministers presume to reject or ignore this covenant?

The same people who say that Your Majesty "no longer has a political or executive role" have also said that there is no written British Constitution. This is nonsense. Your Majesty will recall that John Adams, the second President of the United States, whose ideas contributed to the American Constitution, called the British Constitution "the most stupendous fabric of human invention" in history.

It is true that just as a family's Christmas traditions are unwritten, some parts of the British Constitution are also unwritten. However, many crucial parts of our Constitution are written down and have been for centuries. They are:

1) Common Law

2) The Coronation Oath

3) Magna Carta

4) Statute of Westminster, enabling Parliament

5) The Declaration of Right

6) The Act of Settlement of 1701

7) The Act of Union

Your Majesty will be acquainted with the fundamental aspects of these magnificent documents.

It may interest Your Majesty that the oak tree, which is the national tree of England, Wales and the United States, presents in its structure a visual sketch of the organizing principles of the British and American Constitutions.

Both these constitutions have three great branches - 1) the Sovereign (in America, the executive branch), 2) the two houses of Parliament (the legislature in America) and 3) the courts. These three branches are meant to balance each other, just as the three main branches of the oak tree balance each other. If one branch becomes too large, it will topple the tree, especially if another branch withers away.

The great supporting 'trunk' of our Constitution is rule by just law. The 'roots' of the Constitution are the people. The 'earth' is the people's birthright of freedom, given to them by God. The people and their freedom nourish the Constitution, and are nourished by it.

On the 8th February 1952 when Your Majesty made Your Declaration of Sovereignty, you declared, "By the sudden death of my dear Father, I am called to assume the duties and responsibilities of Sovereignty. . .to uphold constitutional government".

The assumption of sovereignty with its clear charge to uphold constitutional government requires the Sovereign to balance and check the powers of Parliament. If the Sovereign does not provide a check and balance, the legislature, as John Adams warned, will become tyrannical. One of the Sovereign's checks is the Royal Assent.

Those who willfully flout the British Constitution assert that the Royal Assent must be automatically given. This is another effort by Parliament to usurp the constitutional duties of the Sovereign by summoning a fictional automatic Royal Assent like a spirit from the vasty deep.

We fear that Your Majesty's ministers have grossly misstated Your Majesty's constitutional role. To assert that intervening in a political matter "would not be consistent with Your Majesty's status as a constitutional monarch" is an oxymoron and suggests that the Justice Ministry holds an absurd and treasonous view of Your Majesty as an extra-constitutional ceremonial appendage.

Many friends and colleagues fear that Your Majesty shares the views of your ministers.

Your Majesty, will you please tell us that you do not share your ministers' views and that you will act as the constitutional monarch with whom your people entered into covenant?

Yours sincerely,

David F. Abbott


HRH The Prince of Wales, HRH The Princess Royal, HRH Prince William, HRH Prince Henry

The letter from the Ministry of Justice is attached.


Comments (23)

Anne Palmer.:

Emily Oyama and those that ratified the 'Lisbon Treaty' believe that ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is not unconstitutional. The one thing that ALL seem to be forgetting is that each Member of Parliament swear solemn and binding true allegiance to the Crown, and through the Crown to all the people in this land. Violation of that Oath is the greatest betrayal of all and many in the past have lost a vital part of their body to prove that point.

I would argue very strongly therefore that it is the people that are sovereign for without the people's vote, the present Government would not even BE in Parliament and without the solemn Oath of Allegiance to the present holder of the Crown, Queen Elizabeth II, they would not be in parliament to sign any treacherous Treaty of Lisbon.

The contents of that Treaty so eagerly ratified by this Government are indeed Constitutional, very constitutional.

The major laws and Treaties are made by Ministers through the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown. That prerogative cannot be passed to others, particularly for foreigners to use. Rather, should Her Majesty's Ministers no longer wish to use it, or have the responsibility of using it, it should be returned to its rightful owner, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

The smallest Article in the Treaty of Lisbon (art 47) "The Union shall have legal personality" means that the Union would be able to ratify Treaties on behalf of this Country. This, in our case can only be done through the use of the Royal Prerogative. It is not in the Government's gift to give that Royal prerogative away, even for Parliament to use.

The Royal Prerogative cannot be used to incorporate Foreign laws because that once again is contrary to the solemn Oath made by the Queen at her Coronation.

kate b:

Thank you for persisting with this important issue which affects every British citizen.

This must not be allowed to settle. People in their Royal jobs must understand who they are protecting. British citizens also ought to be worried that history is being hacked from the school curriculum and must teach their children at home.

Furthermore, British citizens must know that fairly recently invented countries with no history of their own are hell bent on ruining our own country through purposeful mis-education and propaganda that even their own are believing themselves; stirring strife and loathing of our own country amongst extremist groups, making us feel ashamed of our past when they have nothing better to offer. They do this knowing our country and the coronation of our Queen is based upon principles directly borrowed from the Bible - again something which they won't allow.

I do believe in the Bible and do pray that we may be one of the 7 shepherd nations and also ask the Almighty to remember the covenants of our nation's fathers - great things happen when the Eternal 'remembers' the people who love Him.

John Dearing:

Unfortunately we are now living under a Fascist state, which has no respect for the rule of law. The time may come when Britons have to take up arms to defend their liberties if those to whomw e shoudl normally look for that defence fail us

I find Constitutional matters very confusing but I would like to thank you, David, along with all at Brits At Their Best for helping me to understand and for putting into words, so eloquently, what some of us are thinking and wondering about. Added to that, for eliciting some very sinister responses from the EU/British Ministry of Justice, a contradiction in terms.

As an aside, listed on the EU Justice government link, the UK is shown as having a Ministry of Justice and a Ministry of the Interior, so do we then have only a fictional Home office? These two Ministries were listed there before John Reid's announcement of splitting our Home Office into two, due to terrorism, of course. I have printed proof of this.

May I say this is an excellent website which will appear at the top of my website.

I for one would like to start by stating:

'I will abide by British Law pre-72. I will NOT bow down to the illegal dictatorship of the EU and I refuse to reckonise it's over us as a nation since Edward Heath signed the illegal treaty of Rome without consulting the British Citizens.'

Would anyone else like to take this stand with me to restore our nation which our forefathers fought so hard for in times past.

The people of this once great nation need to be woken from their sleep otherwise they will discover they have slept through the storm and been overcome by these eu pirates and our own so called countrymen we employed to govern us ... but instead have sold our birth rights to the enemy.

Yours for the best cause known to the British Citizen,

Robert H. Brown

P.S. If you would like to add my website to then please do.

John W P Llooyd:

Re ; Your letter to HM dated the 8th of November.

Dear David,

Once again may I praise your continual efforts in pursuing the truth of the situation . Whilst many of us fear the worst , we should not forget the treason that originates in Parliament and its cabinet. You will be aware of the recent arrest of Damien Green MP and yet the silence from the PM and other members of the cabinet, except for their denials. The truth is that many members of Parliament and those in the cabinet are from the 60's era and follow left wing thinking. It has also been proven that some are communist inspired, thus the underhand ways in which things are being done in our names. It is hoped that your continued work brings to us the principles we grew up to expect from National Government, currently we have the opposite .
Sincerely ,
John Lloyd

Mike Smith:

Thank you, Dr Abbott, for your excellent advocacy.
We need this debate in the national consciousness. At least the Orwellian Ministry of Justice seems to accept that a future Parliament would be able to extract us from the European Union.

Peter Beukers:

In addition to wishing I could write letters like David Abbott, I heartily endorse his letter to H.M. The Queen. It is so late in events European now that I fear the only route to recovering our freedom is through the Queen herself. Regrettably our Sovereign is now in excess of 80 years old, and may not have the stomach for the fight: we can but try. It is for sure that Automatic Royal Assent is treasonable.

James D. Haeberle:

This article has clarified that which I always knew and taught to be true, namely that we Americans and the great English people are related by more than shared genetic information. Just as we count on the President to protect us from a tyrannical Congress, so you depend on a strong monarch to protect you from the excesses of Parliament. Just as Magna Carta clearly outlines the limits of Kingly authority, so the three major sections of the U.S. Constitution place specific limits on the powers of government here.

It has ever been the right and duty of Englishmen and Americans to assist the well-behaved branches of government in reining (or reigning) in the powers of the other two. The power of the people to perform this function (or, from the point of view of the overreaching branch of government, this threat) is and can be maintained only by an armed citizenry. In recent decades the British people have lost practically all their rights of self-defense and virtually all their power of correction of government through the passage of ill-advised and dangerous laws which restrict their rights to be personally armed. A strong move is afoot here in the States to do this same thing.

A government which does not trust its people to be armed is a government which plainly has no good intentions towards those people in its heart. May God save the United Kingdom of Great Britain. May God save the United States of America. And may God save the freedoms and powers of the common people of both these great democracies.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments and with your permission will reproduce this article on my web site.
It may be of interest, that our dear leader Gordon Brown was helped into the safe seat of Dunfermline East by the Scottish Communist Party, according to Paul Routeledge, his political biographer.

The Milibands grandfather Samuel served in the Soviet Army, father Ralph moved to the safety of Britain. In true communist style he then attacked the political democracy of the UK.

Tony Blair Son of barrister Leo Blair who worked as a copy boy on the communist Daily Worker and was secretary of the Scottish Young Communist league 1938 - 1941.

Nick Clegg, Son of a half Russian banker father, his aristocratic grandmother fled St Petersburg after the Tsar was toppled.
With friends like this who needs enemies.

Dr Iain Clayre:

Well done, David. A question in my mind is about the mind-set of those who do the job of responding: have they the least interest in the grave questions you raise, or are they like the mindless phone answering machine voices we constantly have to listen to, telling us that our call is important to them and to push Button 1 or Button 2 until we get so frustrated be hang up - and they win again.

Andrew Moncreiff, UKIP PPC, Chichester:

An interesting exchange - and a very good letter.

I have a very slightly different take on this :

The Sovereign takes a Coronation Oath undertaking to protect the country from foreign powers, princes etc (can't remember the exact words) but the
Bill of Rights (I think) decrees that the making of laws is devolved to Parliament and the sovereign must accept laws properly passed by the peoples' representatives in parliament AS ADVISED BY HER MINISTERS AND PRIVY COUNCILLORS. The key point is that all ministers and privy councillors also
swear a similar oath and thus are sworn not to advise the sovereign contrary to his/her oath. The critical point in the chain, it seems to me, is the
advice to the sovereign (to sign Acts giving away sovereignty) by ministers IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.

I think this is the point that Stuart Wheeler should have tested in court.

My understanding is that Wheeler received favourable Counsel's Opinion on this from Leo Price QC ("a good case and a 50% chance of success" in spite of the difficulties of getting such a judgement). However, for reasons I have never been able to establish, Wheeler was persuaded to ditch Leo Price in favour of a barrister from the Matrix Chambers (which includes Cherie Blair) who advised him to go with the "promise of a referendum", an argument which always seemed weak to me as there are many precedents for ministers not being held to promises once circumstances have changed (which they nearly
always do).

When I win the lottery I will take this case myself with Leo Price.

Best wishes,



The Magna Carta Society has on several occasions written to the Palace, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Office of Constitutional Affairs, asking this simple question. Is the Queen still Sovereign Monarch as she was on the day of her coronation in 1953? We have never received a reply.

Here it seems is the answer. Parliament no longer recognises the Queen as Sovereign Head of State, just as it no longer recognises constitutional supremacy and constraint.

It would seem that at some time in the 1960s there was a parliamentary coup in which the supremacy of the people's sovereignty as represented by the Monarch was overthrown and assumed by Parliament. The next stage was to hand over that assumed power to the Franco German Axis, which came about with the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1972.

It was the sworn duty and obligation of the Queen to crush the rebellion by dissolving Parliament. It was for just such a circumstance that the Monarch is made Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to uphold the sovereign supremacy of the people against a despotic Parliament, and to prevent the
Armed Forces from being used by such a Parliament as a pugilistic force against the people. Not only did the Queen neglect her sworn duty and obligation to the British people, she backed the usurpation of their lawful sovereignty by signing up to the Treaty of Rome, she perpetuated the treason by signing up to subsequent treaties culmination in her signing up to the EU constitution, and when that fell by the wayside she signed up to the Lisbon Treaty.

All the available evidence now suggests that not only did the Queen acquiesce and participate in the political take-over and the plan to destroy this country as a nation state, she may well have played a leading part in the conspiracy. It cannot be over-looked that the Queen was privately tutored by Sir Henry Martyn, believed to be a Roman Catholic and known to be a Fabian Socialist. This nation, its Constitution ignored, its laws suborned to a foreign power, its courts, judiciary and police forces politicised, its Church now subservient to a foreign church and the supremacy of the people's Crown overthrown, is indeed a nation undone. All has been achieved with typical German stealth, deceit and precision, and no one person could have
been better placed to steer through the process than the Monarch, the official Governor of the nation, the one person always in place from one Parliament to another, and the very last person anyone would suspect, or would wish to, until the "Grand Plan" is finalised, which will pass unnoticed, if it has not already done so. BL

Anne Palmer.:

This below is taken from this website - -
where is says quite clearly "As a national of the UK, The Queen is an EU citizen, but that does not affect her prerogatives as the Sovereign.


People often wonder whether laws apply to The Queen, since they are made in her name.

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name).

In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom's national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity.

However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.

As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign". END

I doubt very much Her Majesty ASKED to become a European Citizen, for she is after all Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Head of State. How on earth therefore can she be both at the same time? I believe her hands have been tied for many years, in the same way we find ourselves in an organisation that should all new attempts fail will probably end up in civil disobedience, or civil war. Those words on that site are demeaning to our Monarch, degrading, an insult. Was she asked if she wanted to be a citizen? Did she really sign that Treaty? It certainly is not Her Majesty's signature on the Treaty of Maastricht at all. Were any of you who are reading this asked if YOU wanted to be a Citizen of the European Union? Many have tried to do their Duty as a true and loyal subject of the Crown and have failed in Court. Other wills Try. Did Churchill give up HIS fight when all the odds stacked up against him? The answer is NO, and I and many more people like me will continue to fight for our freedom once more as their loyal duty to the Crown will never allow any of us to rest if not. The alternative does not bear thinking about.

Not a surprise sadly.

She can move to Canada. If the socialists want to do, well what they do.

No one wrote the Magna Carta down id ten t!

John Bull:

A well reasoned article which sadly will probably become as ignored and deliberately falsified as all others in its genre by a wilfully unlawful administration.

Those commenters who forecast civil uprising will result from this imposed dictatorship of Brussels origin, are probably closer to the truth than those who dream of any positive achievements through our established but now corrupted "Courts of Law".

None of the three main political parties show any inclination to defend the sovereignty of these isles whatsoever, and we must conclude they are acting together in conspiracy with a "Common Purpose" !

My own view is that anyone who, in the European Elections of 2009 ( for MEP's ) votes for any of the LibLabCon-supported Prospective MEP's, will be stupidly giving aid to the very political parties which have treacherously forced us into the present situation.

The old scam put forward by these traitors that it is "Better to seek reform from within than from outside the EU" is very obviously debunked by the very fact that they have already had 30 years of 'opportunity' within this scheming self-serving maladministration, and have achieved NOTHING !

It must be clear to any thinking person, that only a vote for a political party or non-aligned individual 'Independent' publicly committed to withdrawal from the EU can have any meaningful effect on this country's rights of future sovereignty.

Are we "Freemen and Women or not ?"

The alternative proposed by the EU is one of "Serfdom" - in other words the sole purpose of the individual will be to provide the funding (TAXATION) for "The State", and the role of the State will be to continue to control and enforce its will upon the serfs ( citizens as they call them ).

This is a Mediaeval concept updated in true Orwellian fashion.

Anne Palmer.:

"John Bull" a national personification of the United Kingdom very much alive as the fighting spirit in the second World War, his waistcoat depicted our Union Flag. Sadly the John Bull above does not appear to live up to his/her name sake.

May I suggest you start fighting back? Start by voting - even if you do not normally vote in an EU Parliamentary election - by putting your Country first and not your Party by voting for a real pro British Party.

Use next June's EU MEP's election as a starter of this fight because MEPs can only speak in that Parliament for about 90 SECONDS before the mike is cut off. Fill the place with Eurosceptics. Have any one of YOU felt that putting a Conservative, Lib/Dem or Labour person in the EU Parliament has REALLY made any difference to any of your lives except for paying THEIR WAGES and Vast Expenses? Has their presence helped to PREVENT the burden of endless EU Legislation? Wasn’t there enough opposition to it?


I have no idea what name ‘Eurosceptic’ Political Parties go by on the Continent, but the people that are living in those Countries do. They, as well as we, should also remember it was not one Eurosceptic Party that misled, (some say lied) and deliberately denied the people their right to have a say on the constitutional Treaty of Lisbon. The “Eurosceptics” or Pro-British Political Parties here in the UK have never ratified one EU Treaty yet, yet those that did, still pick up the same pay as if they were instigating all our laws. Remember that too.

As there is a list system for EU elections make sure the MEPs voted for are definitely EU-sceptic. In these elections we will be voting for a political party, not a person, we will have to vote for a known EU-sceptic political party. Voting Tory because they pretend to be EU-sceptical is not enough, many of their MEPs vote pro-EU over there in the EU parliament and talk anti-EU over here.

One Conservative MEP recently voted to ditch our CROWN CURRENCY, the control of our own reserves all be it after all these years of Labour I doubt there is much left. Is this the action of someone that is true to their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and his own Country?

I do not belong to any political party or organisation; I never have belonged to one and never will in the future. I just want freedom and liberty for our Country once more and our own longstanding constitution, not a foreign one. Temporary Governments have no mandate to give our country away to foreigners to govern.

John Bull:

If I may be permitted to respond to Anne Palmer ?

Having read and reread both our submissions, I remain at a loss as to why you should feel the need to criticise ME when the points I made are precisely the same ones you make in your own later submisssion !

The point we BOTH stressed, is that no one should vote for ANY of the LibLabCon triad in the European Elections next year, as ALL 3 have failed to carry out their promises for more than THIRTY years !

Be so kind as to explain to us all just what it is that THIS "John Bull" has done or stated above that offends YOU , for I feel sure that we share the interests of the United Kingdom ; Great Britain and not least, England, in defiance of that great usurper of power - the would-be Federal EU.

Anne Palmer.:

Because the John Bull that I refer to was all fighting spirit. Your first three paragraphs are not what I mean by fighting spirit.

I want all to notice, very much so, the whole article written by David Abbott and the letter written back from the Palace in Particular. So much so that many more letters are written to the Palace and to Prince Charles in abundance. I certainly do not want anyone to IGNORE any of them. Yes, I too will be writing again, inspired by Emily Oyama.

I certainly do not agree with your "probably closer to the truth than those who dream of any positive achievements through our established but now corrupted "Courts of Law".

Courts of law have to take account of the treacherous Treaties Government have ratified and also the legislation they have made. If all believed what you have written, there would be no point in going to Court at all, which may be just the thing that this Government may want. No one challenging. But you see, Sir, Government have made many mistakes, and they must be challenged, for if we do not, we will lose the Governing of our Country forever. From the EU legislation in the back ground, I do not believe even our Government fully understand what is to come.

Your third paragraph with its Common Purpose. People could say the same about me perhaps because I have indeed a Common Purpose, plain for all to see.

The rest of your letter Sir, I applaud. Keep positive.

Michael Stuckey:

The queen must be well aware by now, that she has accrued more counts of treachery than any politician. The queen can now be presumed; complicit in the surrender of our country, to a foreign power. We have now taken our discontent to the highest level. Do we now waste the time we have left, writing more letters, to be dismissed? Do we now send more emails to politicians, in the hope that they will miraculously change from traitors to (I will not say loyal subjects to the queen, because there seems little to choose between them) honorable patriots. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable; and it is certainly unreasonable to surrender one's sovereignty, freedom and way of life, and that of your countrymen. Shall we waste more time until the war has been won by our enemies? That would be an easy victory; and a gutless yield to an attack on the British people. We have not come this far by sitting on our b**s in a 2-dimensional reality. Wars & battles were not won without the, mobilization of SPINES. From our inactions we allow actions against us. Action is not, letters emails, speeches, petitions, radio/TV talk shows; it is mobilizing & massing bodies to physically complete tasks. And I must insist that, if we are to get control of our country back, it is necessary to get of our B**s, stand, and be counted. I for one will not, hand over my country to any dictatorship, or its cohorts.

Roger Hayes:

When will we all stop pussy footing around?
If you are mugged by a thief you do not waste your time telling him that what he is doing is against the law, he knows that already, he just doesn't care.
So it is with our politicians, they know they are scamming us, they don't care what our views are and so it is pointless having the debate with them.

We need only agree amongst ourselves what our constitution means to us and then set about reasserting our authority to ensure that our views hold sway.

With our interpretation of our constitution outlined and contrasted with that of the duplicitous political establishment, we then ask people to make the choice.

The majority of people will support our interpretation when the opportunity arises for obvious reasons, so our job must be to raise awareness of the issue. i.e. the demise of our constitution brought about by the political establishment - why?.

We will occupy the pro-British corner and put the establishment in the pro-EU and thus anti-British position.

Our tactic must be to then call for all MP's to support OUR VERSION of the British Constitution which would be seen to defend our sovereignty and watch as they squirm trying to defend their version which in contrast permits the surrender of our sovereignty - NO CONTEST.

Ours version can also be seen to protect individual liberties, versus theirs which protects the State... and the EU State to boot.

MPs will not support our version of the constitution because they can't - that would mean opposing the Lisbon Treaty which they have already voted for. They are now boxed in.

It is at this juncture that the full extent of their duplicity would become fully exposed - obvious to even a child and it would be at this time also that we could call for a national boycott against the 3 main political parties until such times as we were given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as promised.

Remember, people in general our sick and tired of the entire political establishment. They need a change from the tactic of voting out the party in power only to get the same lot they voted out last time. We would be giving them the opportunity to vote them ALL out of office.

The national mood is ripe for a touch of rebellion and a national boycott could just be be the right tactic at the right time.

I believe there is a sufficient number of voters who would love to poke a finger at the collective establishment and support a national boycott. Which by the way would encourage people to vote for 'any other' candidate.

If you doubt that rebellious actions work... the tongue in cheek rebellion at the last census which flew across the internet in weeks called for people to fill in 'Jedi' for religion and a staggering 400,000 people did just that... and then it found its way to Australia and New Zealand.

Remember also, rebellious acts have enormous appeal to younger voters - the majority of whom do not bother to vote.

Rebellious actions, younger voters, internet... fill in the gaps yourselves.

Combine that with a sizable number of mature voters many of whom are not beyond a bit of rebellious thinking.

If we strike the right cord, a national boycott could take on a life of its own.

The doors are then wide open for the pro-British affiliations (the hundreds of anti-EU groups) to step in and fill the void.

There is a real prospect that a national boycott could be the tactic that destroys them... it is their worst nightmare and to be frank the only tactic currently on the table.

It's worth a try.

Anne Palmer.:

The EU will crumble if Lisbon isn't ratified, and there is time for even THIS Government to realise that the British people are "getting restless".

They also know that the people can no longer afford to pay for an extra layer of Government, or to continue to pay a full set of MP's full pay and vast expenses yet only do about 75% of the work now and even less of Lisbon comes in.

Time enough to get writing more letters, and yes, they may end up in the dustbin, but not before their nerves begin to rattle so loud the people may even hear them. The letters to Buckingham Palace and Prince Charles will let them know the people are with them. Time to give the a b..... nose at the EU parliamentary elections

I believe the Government's actions re Lisbon, have shown they look upon the people as their enemy, this because they know they are in Parliament because we have voted them into power "to speak on our behalf". They have betrayed not only the people, but the one they swear their allegiance to, and they know that without any doubt at all. If you all had done what THEY had done, how would you feel? Other things will take place that have not been accounted for. Other things that have nothing to do within this Country. The people of other Countries are not so placid as the people in this Country and more disturbances will take place. Quite simply, people do not like being taken for fools, or being lied to, and those that do not realise what Lisbon is REALLY about, will indeed find out the truth. Time is on the people's side.

Roger Hayes:

A dose of reality.

In the last few weeks I have taken the opportunity to ask a number of complete strangers i.e. a couple of casual workers at my office, some young friends of my son and the man at the garage, what their views were of the Lisbon Treaty.

They universally didn't know what I was talking about.

We have to remember that in order to give momentum to any strategy that we implement to get us out of the EU it has to be grounded in reality i.e. we have to talk about things that people understand.

I believe they understand the concept of individual freedom, but they do not know that our constitution is our ultimate protector.

We have got a lot of work to do telling people about our constitution.

free login bodog casino no deposit bonus codes_login bonus free bets no deposit_login bonus lucky 88 meaning

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)