In British politics, this is one of the most important books ever to be written. It sets out some fundamental facts about the British Constitution that are frequently denied, or deliberately distorted, by British politicians. On one hand, the facts are there, have always been there, and were once used in formal oaths and taught to students and lawyers. There should have been no reason for this book to have been published, but it is necessary to set aside a series of falsehoods that are being used to deceive the British about one of the greatest democratic elements in their proud heritage.
NAME: Inglorious Revolution
CLASSIFICATION: Book Reviews
AUTHOR: Gerard Batten MEP, Pavel Stroilov
PUBLISHER: Bretwalda Book, Orca
BINDING: soft back
GENRE: Non Fiction
SUBJECT: Treason, EUSSR, EU, EC, EEC, Constitution, Magna Carta, Common Law, Subversion, Bill of Rights, Eurocrats, EUSSR
DESCRIPTION: In British politics, this is one of the most important books ever to be written. It sets out some fundamental facts about the British Constitution that are frequently denied, or deliberately distorted, by British politicians. On one hand, the facts are there, have always been there, and were once used in formal oaths and taught to students and lawyers. There should have been no reason for this book to have been published, but it is necessary to set aside a series of falsehoods that are being used to deceive the British about one of the greatest democratic elements in their proud heritage.
The cardinal falsehood is the claim that Britain has no Constitution, or that Britain has no written Constitution. That is patently untrue. Britain has thousands of written pages that make up the oldest Constitution in the World, a Constitution that has been copied in part, or in whole, by friends and foes alike.
Before Magna Carta, England had a Constitution that was partly written, based on the Saxon and Scandinavian societies that had developed Britain after the Romans left, and on the laws of the Roman Church. The basic principles were that all were equal under the law and had rights to life and justice and liberty. As the law was administered through local councils, anyone charged of a crime stood before his peers. The situation changed after 1066 because an alien feudal system was imported from France by the Norman invaders. It effectively placed the King above the law but it did not repeal the Constitution, rather, as today Eurocrats and national politicians do, the Constitution was ignored. Royal excesses reached the point where the Barons banded together and gave King John the choice of signing Magna Carta, or suffering the consequences. The Magna Carta set out a series of constraints on the effective power of the King, requiring him to be subject to the code and to ensure that Englishmen were free and equal, with rights of justice and freedom, but within the framework of the classes in society.
English Law recognises Canon Law, which is the remnant of the Christian Church’s legal system that applied to its people and extended into secular society in the form of Church taxes, frequently contending with secular law and rights, leading to the assassination of an Archbishop and contributing to the establishment of the Church of England, free from control by a Pope outside English territory.
English Law also recognises Common Law, which has its basis in the pre-Norman period, some arguing that it extends back before the time of the Romans.
English Law also depends on Statutes that have been examined by Parliament and enacted under the Royal Seal.
These elements all involve written documents that, collected together, form a detailed and flexible Constitution, which fits neatly into the British form of democracy. It can therefore be argued that the British Constitution not only exists, not only exists as a written Constitution, but is also one of the most comprehensive and detailed Constitutions ever to have been produced by any country to protect its citizens from abuse of power by any ruling body.
There is one respect in which the British Constitution is different from the many copies, including those in use across Europe. The British Constitution is based on reasonableness, a very difficult to define concept and alien to many EU member states. Essentially, Britons do not need a document setting out rights granted to them by politicians, because Britons hold all rights and loan some of them to politicians for periods of up to five years. Therefore, it is the citizen who grants temporarily some rights to the State and not the other way round.
For example, three old failed political Parties dominate British politics through a series of electoral defects, such as ‘rotten boroughs’, where LibDem and Labour candidates require less than half the number of votes required in constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, if a new Party, such as the UK Independence Party, was to secure a working majority in Westminster, and withdraw from the oppression of the EUSSR, it would be possible to regain British control over the British Constitution and restore all of the civil liberties squandered during the last seventy years.
Given that all of these facts are not hidden in any way and open to anyone who wants to read the available documentation, it seems strange that so many British politicians claim to be ignorant of the existence of a British Constitution. Some of them are undoubtedly ignorant and happy in their ignorance, as in so many areas of knowledge, but most are conveniently ignorant of its existence because they seek to operate as a political ruling class above the laws that affect voters. Of course that is exactly why the Barons rose up together and forced an abusive King to sign Magna Carta, placing him under the same laws that applied to everyone else. Similarly, the Bill of Rights was enacted to ensure that no King could attempt to subvert the British Constitution as James II had attempted.
As most other countries have adopted their understanding of the British Constitution, the Eurocrats and the EUSSR should understand democracy and democratic Constitutions. Maybe they do, but, in their desire to be unaccountable rulers, it is not in their interests to admit their knowledge. Some will of course not understand the British Constitution because they come from countries that adopted their then perception of the British Constitution and included significant flaws in their copy.
The authors have conducted extensive research to produce a book that is easy to read and is removed from politics in the wider sense. By methodically working through all of the factual elements of the British Constitution, they present a platform that is not political, but one which has considerable political impact.
What is not, what it appears to be, is the description of a Constitution that is ‘written’. When some nations have considered a Constitution for a new state, or in a period after revolution, all of the principle ideas are written down to enable the constituent parties to agree and publish a Constitution. In some countries, understandable distrust of politicians has led to those Constitutional documents, including fixed control over the way in which the Constitution may be amended in the future. A minimum percentage of votes in the Parliament are set to avoid some future political despot from simply removing democracy by rewriting the Constitution. That may require two thirds or three quarters of the Parliamentary representatives to vote in favour of the proposed changes, while the Government may hold a working majority but probably has a very much smaller percentage of votes. Of course this form of written Constitution is not perfect as has been proved in the USA, where the Obama Administration has frequently and flagrantly ignored the requirements of the US Constitution and engaged in simple criminal acts, including the use of the IRS to bully citizens for blatant political reasons.
The difficulty and confusion stems from interpretations of what is the ‘constitution’ and what is the ‘law’. In effect, the Constitution and Law together provide an environment to protect all citizens from exploitation by any group of citizens, or more powerful individuals, the Constitution providing the basic framework and the Law providing further detail that can in turn be further defined by Judges offering an interpretation as precedent. If the judges attempt to stray too far, Parliament has the option to revise a law to remove ambiguities. The exception being the European Court which has been attempting to forge a position as the ultimate lawmaker, able to march over the democratic rights of citizens, setting itself above national Parliaments.
In the US, citizens may be able to quote the US Constitution as a number of clauses in a covenant between politicians and citizens. However an Amendment may clearly state, or appear to clearly state, a fundamental right but, over the years, Congress and Senate have enacted legislation that chips away at what appear to be unalienable rights set out in the Constitution of the United States.
The US Constitution grants the right to bear arms but what this really means is frequently debated, although no President has attempted to change the Constitution to improve or change the right to bear arms. Originally, the Constitution probably intended to authorize the formation and equipment of militia in defence of the citizens by the citizens. At the time of writing the Constitution, firearms were both common tools in a pioneering society and military assault weapons. Today, Presidents attempt to ban specified weapons even though the Constitution appears to make these new regulations illegal. Therefore it is not correct to claim that the US has a written Constitution that guarantees all of the rights specified in the Amendments to the Constitution, or that these rights cannot be changed without a formal Amendment to the Constitution, requiring a minimum percentage of votes in favour of the changes. It therefore follows that Britain is not lacking in any respect, because it has documents, including Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, that collectively address these issues in a flexible and pragmatic way that would not be improved by attempting to replace those ancient documents with a copy of the US Constitution that was itself a copy of what newly independent Americans considered as the basis for their Constitution in their perception of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. It can be argued that the authors of the US Constitution were in the same position as the English Barons when they drafted Magna Carta to force the King to accept the rule of law where All are subject to the law, including the King and the Barons. The principle difference was that Americans were taking the opportunity to replace the Constitutional Monarch with an elected executive President who in reality could exercise far great power than any Constitutional Monarch during the period between election and re-election.
In this book, the authors show how the British Constitution has been illegally subverted by British politicians. This raises some very interesting points because the actions of British politicians in signing European Treaties during the last five decades is treason. After the Maastrict Treaty, two Britons laid Charges against two politicians, who were signatories of the Treaty, for Treason. The Charges were blocked by the Attorney General who claimed that it was not in the public interest for his cronies to stand trial. Similar claims were later made to protect the war criminal Blair and to deny the family of Dr David Kelly their right to an inquest into his killing. At first sight, these two examples appear to demonstrate that the British Constitution has been cheerfully and illegally set aside by politicians who consider themselves above every other citizen and a justification for a series of criminal acts from war crimes, down to fiddling their expenses and delaying justice. However, in Constitutional terms and the legislation in respect of treason, there are additional considerations.
The legislation, under which Charges of Treason can be brought, clearly requires ALL citizens, who are aware of any act that may be considered an act of treason, to honour a duty to bring this to public attention and trial. There is nothing that says a politician can set justice aside because it is personally or politically inconvenient. This raises some interesting questions because every Prime Minister since Edward Heath, with the possible exception of Margaret Thatcher, should have been charged for treason, together with many of their Ministers. Even before the traitor Heath, Wilson, a Labour Prime Minister, had attempted to negotiate, without authority, the addition of Britain as a new State of the United States of America, considered by those politicians who believed in the managed decline of Britain as the only alternative to submission as a client state of Europe.
The authors have set out the basic facts in a logical format that traces the British Constitution from its roots. They have set out the points in history where the people have brought a would-be abuser of their rights to a halt by an amendment to the British Constitution. They have also set out how the British Constitution can be restored. In the process their book is apolitical, even though it requires specific political actions.
However, the thought that the British Constitution should be restored goes against the reality of the Constitution. As it is being ignored unlawfully, it has never been removed, because it is unlawful not to observe it. Perhaps, the real required action is to cancel the politicians who are guilty of treason. That can be done at a General Election by voters selecting a new political Party and refusing to vote for the three old failed Parties who have, and continue, to conspire against the British people.
A thought-provoking book that should be read by every British citizen.