EU Bill Amendments rejected by 314 votes to 39

The debate in Parliament yesterday became somewhat woolly with the best contribution coming from John Redwood MP who managed to convey the importance of the issue in a proper historical context and highlight the past fluidity of Sovereignty while regrettably leaving the impression that it was somehow divisible.

I absolutely believe that Sovereignty is indivisible, belongs to the people, is loaned to Parliament between general elections and impossible to abnegate, this latter being the most important as it, quite disastrously, is nevertheless the founding principle of the EU.  Mr Redwood likened the movement of Sovereignty during the Glorious Revolution from the Crowned Monarch to the Crown in Parliament adding to my mind the concept of fluidity.

If it is fluid but indivisible, then for the time being I will liken it to a slinky toy descending a staircase. The component parts are nevertheless at odds, consisting in my mind of the Monarchy, Parliament, the EU Council, the UK Courts and the European Courts complicated by the clash of authority between those authorities and accentuated by conflicts between the source of plenipotentiary powers (used to neuter Parliament within the EU), the Privy Council and the Executive, particularly if acting as authorised under the Civil Contingencies Act.

One certainty is that the British people had 314 elected traitors in the House of Commons last evening.

Misuse of Plenipotentiaries' Powers

A representative of the Queen, states on her behalf, as illustrated below:

"Policy on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and the strengthening of relations between member states is entirely a matter for The Queen's Ministers and not one in which it would be constitutionally appropriate for Her Majesty to intervene."


Nevertheless, as we can now all quite freely read in the Official Journal of the European Journal, as linked in my post of earlier today, the Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the European Union (linked here) was signed by Plenipotentiaries appointed by and acting in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. (NOT let it be noted in the name of Parliament).

Among the items resolved in the Preamble (on page 4 of the PDF document linked above) is this:

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

another among a long list of horrors, is this:

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 and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a single and stable currency,

NOW I am aware that these are items in a Preamble, and am familiar to the point of exhaustation with the claims that they therefore are of no legal effect, so we were repeatedly told on the onward march of the "ever closer union" pledge which also re-appears here. I am also aware that the commitment to a single currency is supposedly hedged by being conditional on the terms of the Treaty - BUT a single and stable currency cannot exist in anything but a SINGLE form, any other currency in use within the EU necessarily negates the claim that either is single!!

How can the Queen given the Coronation Oath and the 1689 Bill of Rights give authority to plenipotentiaries on HER authority to sign a Treaty setting aside her powers?

How could one of those Plenipotentiaries, very recently in the House of Commons insist at PMQs that he still remained committed to a referendum on the Euro Currency, but not the promised vote on this Constitutional Treaty, while using Royal plenipotentiary powers to sign this Treaty deliberately by-passing both parliament and the people to commit the nation to the Euro?

How can the Queen or her Peers in the House of Lords allow such broken pledges to be made in the Commons when the cause is by her own granting of explicit Royal Perogatives to those individuals thereby put clearly in breech of their own promises and commitments?

Something is completely haywire in the present constitutional situation and if it is not yet a crisis it damn well soon should be!