A Question of Sovereignty


“And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly.”

An extract from the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

There is compelling evidence to suggest that no public bill or act of parliament has been validly enacted since the Parliament Act 1911. The act abolished the power of the House of Lords to veto any public bill introduced in the House of Commons, other than a bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years or a bill for confirming a Provisional Order, although it does not affect statutes introduced in the House of Lords, private bills or delegated legislation.

Parliament Act

The effect of the act was that the House of Lords could merely delay those bills that it could formerly veto, thereby comprising a breach of parliamentary due process under the unequivocally extant Bill of Rights, since both Houses of Parliament must preside over the passing of legislation in order for it to have any legal or lawful effect.

Just as there is compelling legislative evidence that any and all attempts by the Papacy, its Jesuit overlords and foreigners in general to govern the people of the Islands of Britain are illegal and void, as is clearly expressed by another extract from the Bill of Rights below, the House of Commons doesn’t have the constitutional recourse to disable the vetoing powers of the House of Lords.

And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

In any event, every piece of legislation since the House of Lords Act 1999 is most certainly void, on the basis that the House of Commons did not have the constitutional mandate to revoke the Letters Patent from the 92 hereditary peers which statute black magic unceremoniously stripped of their entitlement to membership of the House of Lords, under section 1 of the 1999 Act, which states:

Exclusion of hereditary peers.

No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”

The implications of this on EU related legislation cannot be overestimated, since the Parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty appears to be entirely reliant upon the legal validity of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which states in section 6:

Increase of powers of European Parliament

The Treaty of Lisbon is approved for the purposes of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (c. 24) (Parliamentary approval of treaties increasing the European Parliament’s powers).

For the avoidance of doubt over the imperative nature of the 2008 Act, in terms of establishing the treasonous transfer of Parliament’s powers to the European Union, section 12(1) of the 2002 Act prescribes the following on the atification of treaties:

No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the European Parliament is to be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament.

(2)In this section “treaty” includes—

(a)any international agreement, and
(b)any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.

In other words, it may well be determined by a competent tribunal of superior jurisdiction that every EU-related bill, act, directive and order is void and of no legal effect under British constitutional law, if that forum is not, in reality, long since null and void, on the basis that the power to govern the British people cannot be offered, given or conceded to any other authority, whether by Parliament or the monarch, via parliamentary representation or otherwise, notwithstanding the eloquent expressions of the contrary position by knowledgeable and distinguished legal researchers, who continue to argue that Parliament has been sovereign, not the reigning monarch, since the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1688.

It is my own considered position, however, that the holder of the British Crown, illigitimate of not, has never had the power or authority to abdicate the right to govern the people, despite the fact that the people have the unalienable right to revoke their consent to be governed at any time, under both natural and international law; whilst and any and all attempts by Elizabeth Windsor and her plenipotentiaries to hand over the sovereignty of the British nation to any other party are void and illegal under article XXV of the Union with Scotland Act in 1706, since the terms of the union incorporated all the inherent rights and freedoms enjoyed by the peoples of the English and Scottish nations at the time of the execution of the treaty of union:


Laws inconsistent with the Articles, void;

That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.

For the sake of further clarifying these points, the opposing view is somewhat revealing. If the Queen has effectively abdicated sovereignty by giving her purported power of governance to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, why does almost everybody and everything on this planet act as if the opposite is true? Mere custom or politeness are no satisfactory explanation of this global phenomenon, which continues to generate enormous wealth for its in-bred beneficiaries.

What is seldom given the diligence it deserves is the undeniable fact that the treaties of European Union were all ratified under the authority of the reigning monarchs of the surviving royal dynasties, whether executed in their own hands or the hands of plenipotentiaries, so it is reasonable to deduce that this is prima facie evidence that they are all still acting as sovereigns over all the nations concerned; and the public face of government is nothing more than a front, which has been manufactured to protect them with a cloak of plausible deniability. That way, if and when the shit hits the fan, others will be expected to bear the brunt of the blame for their crimes and misdemeanours.

By way of one emphatic example:














RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities,

RECALLING the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent and the need to create firm bases for the construction of the future Europe,

CONFIRMING their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law,

DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions,

DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions so as to enable them better to carry out, within a single institutional framework, the tasks entrusted to them,

RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency,

DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,

RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,

RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world,

REAFFIRMING their objective to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by including provisions on justice and home affairs in this Treaty,

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,

IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,

HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union and to this end have designated as their plenipotentiaries:…”


Nothing, except the truth, is ever what it seems to be, in the monocultural wasteland of the Huxwellian, military-industrial, total-surveillance dictatorships of the Northern Hemisphere. The Matirix by another name.

All the available evidence suggests that the House of Rothschild long since steered the merging of aristocratic bloodlines and vested commercial interests by controlling the flow of information, creating economic booms and depressions and commissioning secret intelligence services to start wars and incite revolutions right across the planet, in order to replace their enemies and adversaries with family members and compliant self-serving stooges, mercenaries and dupes.

Democratic government is nothing more than a crudely manufactured illusion of freedom for the people, shaped by those who have enslaved Mankind to debt, fear and amoral mind programming, which covertly dictates that whatever happens, it’s all good, even the slaughter of the innocent, on the basis that there can be no light without darkness. This creeping new age philosophy is a really an implanted meme that teaches us to accept and embrace the darker side of our nature, as if such an approach to life is a spiritual tool of self-realisation, rather than a contributing cause of the perpetuation of the misery and suffering of others.

The generational pirates and usurpers, also known as the moneyed aristocracy, who control most of the declared stashes of gold bullion and other commodites, would like nothing better than the people’s acceptance of an unelected world government and a global currency of electronic credit backed by gold, except perhaps a global currency that is backed by nothing and can only be created by the same vested interests of global capital they already control.

The European Union appears to have been intended from the outset as an interim stage in the process of achieving these aims, rather than the envisaged result itself; in other words, it was designed to become overblown and fail, thus giving the controlled media whores and programmed drones the opportunity to wax lyrical about how the only solution is one that involves yet more globalisation and further centralisation of power, rather than permanent doses of their antidote and nemesis: the localisation of trade, which places control of production and supply of goods and services, as well as natural resources, back in the hands of the people of each nation, where it belongs; and the restoration of land and resources to the indigenous peoles of the Earth.

Interim Conclusion

My own research leads me to contend that rather than abdicating her sovereignty, the Queen has actually consolidated it by making her governance even less accountable than it already was, by obscuring it, along with the rest of the crown heads of Europe, with an army or self-interested civil servants and political mercenaries, who are more than happy to fool others and themselves into believing they wield real power, when virtually nothing could be further from the truth.

So what of the consequences, in the event that Elizabeth II has not abdicated her sovereignty?

The EU acts and bills become prima facie evidence that Her Majesty’s Government has forfeited any former legitimacy by misrepresenting the authority to divest the powers of government to a foreign power, which is tantamount to common, statutory and constitutional fraud, as well as treason.

The penalty for Elizabeth’s complicity in these crimes is clearly prescribed under Magna Carta 1215, which cannot be revoked or amended by Parliamentary statute, since the Great Charter brought into being the royal council that evolved into the Houses of Parliament; plural, rather than singular, by constitutional mandate.

Article 61 of the Magna Carta:

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon…

From which a question naturally arises: what the feck are we going to do about it?

Share: Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
Posted in Huxwellian and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .