“A BILL TO Repeal the European Communities Act 1972; and to make provision for the Secretary of State to repeal any enactment that has been a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972.”
This morning one of my friends posted the proposed European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (HL Bill 25) on a social media network, from which the above quote and the one below are taken:
“1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
(1) The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed.
(2) Secondary legislation made under that Act shall continue in force unless it is subsequently amended or repealed, and any such amendments or repeals may 5be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a
resolution of either House of Parliament.
(1) The Secretary of State may be order made by statutory instrument repeal any Act which is rendered obsolete by virtue of the repeal in section 1.
(2) 10No order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
3 Denunciation of Treaties
The Secretary of State must, within one month of this Act coming into force, put in place measures to commence the withdrawal from or the denunciation 15of the Treaties listed under section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.
4 Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2013.
(2) This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.”
This comes hot on the heels of the proposed Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL], which states in section 3:
“Removal of Queen’s and Prince’s consent
Nothing in any rule of law, or the law, or practice of Parliament shall require a Parliament to seek the consent of the Monarch, the Prince of Wales or the Prince Regent to the consideration of public bills which pass through Parliament.”
Section 4(2) continues:
“Save for the provisions of subsection (3), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.”
Let us take a moment to reflect upon that information, in order to ascertain its logical sequence, without jumping to any premature conclusions. In broad strokes, the first bill is intended to have the effect of nullifying Elizabeth Windsor’s ratification of every EU Treaty, from the treaty relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community, signed at Brussels on the 22nd January 1972, to the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community signed at Lisbon on 13th December 2007 (together with its Annex and protocols) and the Common Foreign and Security Policy; and sections 2 and 4 clearly prescribe that the responsible Secretary of State would be authorised to order by statutory instrument the date upon which the bill will purport to be law, but could only repeal acts of Parliament which are affected by the statute by the authority of the resolutions of both houses. The clear intention of the bill, therefore, is, at the very least, to restore the power of veto to the House of Lords over constitutional reforms. The second bill very pointedly seeks to abolish the purported hereditary right of the monarch and her lineage to veto or give assent to legislation before it can be purported to be law by Parliament and the Judiciary.
Since the United Kingdom could only ever be claimed to have legitimacy under a constitutional monarchy, the UK constitution can be legitimately declared void on the simple and straightforward ground that the monarch and her descendants appear to be on the brink of being deposed by the proposed resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. However, should the proposed bill abolishing the alleged superiority of the European Commissars’ jurisdiction over the people of these lands be rejected, the resources of Britain would be placed at the mercy of the unaccountable controllers of the European Union; the Financial-Capitalist-Communist International by another name. However, the fact that Parliament has tabled a bill to nullify the ratification of the treaties which were criminally entered into by the monarch, or her plenipotentiaries, leads to the perfectly logical deduction that, as of the date of the enactment of these bills by both Houses of Parliament, British citizens could no longer be considered to be under the government of either a constitutional monarchy or the European Union dictatorship.
In other words, the fictional kingdom created by the treaty unifying of the fictional kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1706 must now be declared a nullity under international law, since no government can be legitimate without the unequivocal mandate of the people it purports to govern. These issues could not be of greater importance to the future of our children and future generations, and yet internet researches reveal an easily discernible lack of interest from both the mainstream and alternative media industries in these highly significant political developments in London, the heart of the beast.
Nevertheless, it is recorded here that the bill to withdraw from the EU had its first reading in the Lords on 15 May 2013, but a second reading does not appear in the current schedules; whilst the bill to abolish the Royal Assent is scheduled to be heard by a Committee of the Whole House on 06 December 2013 – in less than 72 hours from now, following its second reading in the Lords. The implications of both these bills being passed into legislative existence would almost certainly render the House of Windsor powerless on these shores [at least, visibly], along with an army of technocratic bureaucrats and empire builders in Brussels, who continue to perpetrate crimes against Mankind in the name of those they have subjected to the unaccountable hidden-hand of the House of Rothschild and the tentacles of its Military-Media-Industrial Complex.
Another set of measured terms typed into an encrypted search engine also led to the discovery of the following passage in Hansard’s record of the 2nd reading of the bill to abolish the Royal Assent, which was heard on 08 November 2013:
“Clause 3 has rather been overtaken by events. It concerns the issue of consent from the Queen or the Prince of Wales before a Bill receives Royal Assent. The Minister kindly indicated the consent at the start of this debate. I do not need to go into this topic in any particular detail because, in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on 31 October, the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament basically said that Parliament could change that; it would not need any legislation but if it wished to stop this, it could do it. To demonstrate why we need to change the current arrangements, I have a couple of examples of cases where approval was not signified for a Bill. The Clerks’ evidence is that this has happened twice. Although the legislation was not refused—this is a deferential way of “not saying no but meaning no”—two Private Member’s Bills were affected. One was the Second Reading of the Military Actions against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill on 16 April 1999, in which Tam Dalyell tried to require Parliament to give approval of declarations of war, which did not go
ahead because the Prime Minister of the day almost certainly advised the Queen that it would not be a good idea to go ahead, perhaps because he might want to bomb Iraq without getting the approval of Parliament —we can debate that. The other was the Third Reading of the Pig Husbandry Bill on 3 May 1991. I do not know whether the Royal Family keep pigs in Windsor Castle, but why that did not go ahead I also do not know. All I can do is quote John Kirkhope, a public notary and chartered insurer who has given me a lot of help with this information:
“I am surprised Parliamentarians tolerate this situation which means, in effect, if you introduce a Bill to Parliament someone taps you on the shoulder and says you need the consent of the Duke of Cornwall because it may affect his private interests!”.
In conclusion, there is much that needs doing, sorting out and cleaning up in many areas of the relationship between the monarch, the Prince of Wales and Parliament. I hope that the constitutional monarchy survives and prospers but at the moment the Prince of Wales in particular is put in an impossible position in seeking to do what he believes is best in a kind of feudal environment that started 600 years ago but in the 21st century is not appropriate. Change is necessary, but we have to get away from this deferential relationship of obfuscation and silence that is hampering the debate. I hope that the Bill, covering only a small part of that relationship, will start an open debate and eventually some very necessary change. I beg to move…
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.“
Incredible though it may seem that such things can go unnoticed by just about every international political media outlet, the House of Lords Reform Bill [HL] 2013-14 has also progressed to the second reading stage in the Lords, although no date appears to have been scheduled. Nevertheless, this bill overtly seeks to reverse in part the illegal House of Lords Act 1999 and to prevent further abuse by unaccountable, undeserving peers, as confirmed at the beginning of the bill:
“A BILL TO Make provision for permanent leave of absence from the House of Lords; to provide for the expulsion of members of the House of Lords in specified circumstances; to make provision for the appointment of a Commission to make recommendations to the Crown for the creation of life peerages; and to restrict membership of the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerages.”
In simplistic terms, the bills seeks to remedy the constitutional fraud committed by the Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament by purporting to enact the 1999 Act, which effectively expelled from government the class of peer which has most consistently stood up for the causes of the people of Britain over previous centuries – the hereditary peers, who were unceremoniously stripped of their right to call a government to task without being subjected to the machinations of the party political whipping system, which traditionally allowed them to more easily resist the temptation to give in to the bribery and corruption which is so utterly and hopelessly endemic across every political state of centralised power in the so-called modern world.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, given the information currently available and its seemingly natural logical sequence, that a bill will be heard by a Committee of the Whole House in less than 3 days from now, which, if passed, will result in the following consequence:
The Queen and her family will no longer have any claim to the hereditary powers of a constitutional monarchy over the people of these islands.
In the event that the bill to withdraw the UK from the EU is also passed:
The fictional domain of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will be withdrawn from the European Union; and
Parliament will immediately become constitutionally illegitimate because it is incapable of functioning without a legitimate monarch and the consensual mandate of the people it claims jurisdiction over.
As such, the bill to restore the House of Lords to some semblance of its former and intended state, notwithstanding Parliament’s arguable illegitimacy since the abolition of the Lords’ right to veto all bills with the Parliament Act 1911, could not be passed into law by a purported legislative body without a sovereign mandate that has been established by the voluntary consent of those who subject themselves to collectivist government in a free and fair public vote.
To add further perspective, it is significant that of the 33 Private Members Bills proposed in the House of Lords over the past year, none were passed into statute law. During the same period, 10 Private Members Bills were proposed in the House of Commons and all ten bills were passed, with no recorded amendments being made by the House of Lords. Since all three of the proposed bills were proposed in the Lords, it is quite likely that all three will be rejected by the House of Commons, even if the bills are passed by the Lords, purely on a statistical basis, in which case the establishment will hang on to their ill-gotten gains a little longer. However, if these issues were being openly debated in the public domain, the sheer strength of feeling among the people that the feudal system of government and the UK’s membership of the EU should have been abolished long ago might well force through at least one of these bills, each of which would have a significant impact on the course of history on these islands. This is why I urge you to share this article with everybody in your networks, so that we might have a chance of informing the people of Britain what is being done in their name behind closed doors, as well as the potential consequences of not taking immediate action.
Whichever course of events transpires in Parliament, are you really comfortable about entrusting control of your nation’s land and resources to people who are already responsible for the poisons in the medicine, air, food and water supply, the destruction of the water tables, the depletion of essential minerals and the irradiation of you and your children?
Now is our opportunity to declare the independence, sovereignty and self-governance of the indigenous peoples of these islands, under the guiding principles of Natural Law, as expressed in the Treaty of Universal Community Trust and in accord with the Law of Nations and the unalienable Right of Self-Determination; on the grounds that the abolition of Her Majesty’s Criminal Government is clearly progressing through both Houses of Parliament, without any substantive disclosure to the people, whose future is scheduled to be determined by parties who are as yet unknown and unaccountable, as the blackmailed, bullied, bribed and compromised politicians of Westminster appear to be heading either blindly or willfully towards a potential coup d’etat, without any effort being made to consult the people about matters which affect every single aspect of their lives, leaving us all vulnerable to the possible dissolution of parliament by tyrants unknown, who will almost certainly attempt to inflict the false utopia of International Communism upon the people, for which Russell Brand has so conveniently laid the foundations.
If not now, when?