I must have had a shot or two too many to drink. Whatever it was, my dream—or was it a daydream—appears insubstantial in retrospect. Drifting into reverie, I imagined…
Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, rose to his feet at the despatch box, amid anticipation on all sides of the House. Now we had left the EU on the “No Deal”, rumours were flying around that we might repudiate the Withdrawal Agreement and go it alone. Surely not? Surely the Conservatives didn’t have it in them?
After extensive discussions in the Palace, we have reached an understanding of English Common Law and the underpinnings of our constitution. Upholding our law remains at the centre of everything this government will do.
Firstly, our fundamental law is the Common Law. Let me expand on this. The Queen reigns and, indeed, is part of the Crown in Parliament and thus at the apex of the legislative as well as executive and judicial branches of government. But what document specifies the Queen’s right to reign? Was there some dusty, long-forgotten constitution passed by the Witan under Alfred the Great? What provides for the Queen’s right to reign? Was it a decree she herself issued? Or a statute signed by her? In truth, any such thing would be circular—it would amount to the Queen declaring herself Queen. In fact, the monarchy’s existence is given in the Common Law. The Queen’s right to reign reflects the fact that there has been a monarch since time immemorial. There is no written constitution that provides for this.
Parliament meets. But what document specifies that there will be a Parliament? Show me the written constitution. The origins of Parliament can be traced historically to the 13th century, but are based on a recognition of an older right for lords and commons to be consulted, extending back to the Witan of pre-Conquest times. In any case, seven and a half centuries may be regarded as amounting to time immemorial. There is no document that lays this out. Parliament’s right to sit is a Common Law right. Even if Parliament passed a law stating its right to sit, who could show a prior right to assemble in such a manner and pass such a law?
The Royal Courts of Justice also have no written constitution to specify their powers and even their existence. Show me, Mr. Speaker, the written constitution. True, some laws on the structure of the courts have been passed by the Crown in Parliament, but the origin of the Royal courts is not in statute law, but in the Common Law. In the early Middle Ages, the Royal courts won a tussle with the Ecclesiastical courts and the baronial courts for jurisdiction. The fact that they won that tussle was ultimately based on the legitimacy of the monarch, whose courts they were.
Looked at like this, there is no prior, fundamental document laying out the powers and responsibilities of these branches of our constitution. We can ask questions such as “do the courts have the right to grant themselves new powers without precedent?” and “does Parliament have the right to transfer legislative power over the UK abroad?”, and find no constitution that specifies this. Most comment on what is “the rule of law” is empty without a better understanding of the origins of our constitution.
It is for this reason that a series of oaths have been employed for many centuries to ensure that the respective branches of our constitution remain within bounds. The Queen’s Coronation Oath requires here to “govern us according to our laws and customs”—not laws handed to us by international organisations based abroad. The Coronation Oath is not just a suggestion. Charles I was beheaded—you could argue that the king was exercising his duty to uphold the Coronation Oath, including his commitment to the Church of England, by opposing Parliament. James II lost his crown because his adherence to the Roman Church seemed at the time, in an age where religion was highly political, to amount to an attempt to foist foreign control on England. As one of Henry VIII’s laws (the Statute in Restraint of Appeals, 1532) stated, “this realm of England is an Empire”, and consequently no appeals to the Papacy or Papal courts could be lodged. What the Queen did in 1972 in purporting to grant assent to a law transferring legislative authority to the European Economic Community was a flat-out violation of the Coronation Oath.
It is, of course, not lawful for the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers to advise the Queen to breach the Coronation Oath. Neither is it lawful for any of the Queen’s advisers to breach their Privy Counsellor oaths. The wording, unchanged since 1570, includes: “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates”. The Queen’s jurisdictions, pre-eminences and authorities include her role as the third part of the Crown in Parliament and her role as Fount of Justice in the Royal Courts. The EU is, of course, a Foreign Potentate. After 1972, the government repeatedly rebuffed calls to publish the wording of this oath until it was eventually published in Hansard, no doubt because Mr. Heath and his successors were aware that membership of the EEC and the EU was unlawful.
The Royal courts could at any time have pointed out that membership of the EU was unlawful. The judges have all taken an oath of allegiance and a judicial oath that include the following: “I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” and “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm”. In English Common Law, bearing allegiance to the Queen requires judges to recognise the jurisdictions, pre-eminences and authorities of the Crown. Allegiance is meaningless if judges claim to support the Queen in some vague sense, and then apply laws drawn up abroad. The latter would amount to allegiance to an international organisation based abroad.
Mr. Speaker, these oaths are the most fundamental element of our constitution. The Monarchy, Parliament and the courts have no legitimacy without them. The entire set-up, when functioning as it should, requires all of our ministers and public servants to support the Common Law, and in particular the right of the Crown in Parliament to rule this country. If Lord Justice Lawes held that the 1985 Weight and Measures Act could be disapplied because it didn’t explicitly repeal the 1972 act joining the European Economic Community (EEC), then by the same logic, the 1972 Act could not be lawful unless it abolished the Monarchy first. The entire basis on which the Queen reigns and Parliament sits was removed by the 1972 accession to the EEC. Put another way, if support for foreign rule of this country is not treason, then nothing is. Show me the pre-existing document that showed that Parliament had the right to transfer control of our country abroad, or that the Queen had any right to grant Assent to it. The EU’s claim to exert “direct legal effect” in the UK is particularly objectionable, as the Common Law envisages no such thing, and the Queen, Parliament and the courts have no right to implement any such thing.
We had a disgraceful display in 2019, when the courts intervened to overturn the Queen’s proroguing of Parliament. The advice to the Queen to prorogue was lawful, in that the Queen has a duty to ensure we are governed by our laws, and a clean exit from the EU would help to restore the constitution. The Supreme Court overturned it, but claimed it was not overruling the Queen, but arguing that the advice given to the Queen by the Prime Minister was unlawful. Curiously, Lady Hale et al did not consider that the advice given to the Queen in 1972 to sign the European Communities Bill was unlawful. In doing so, Lady Hale substituted her own treasonous political views for the law.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Crown in Parliament that is sovereign and not the Royal Courts of Justice. This is not America, and the courts are not a co-equal branch of government. I now disclose to this House my advice to the Queen at the time to issue an Order in Council overturning the Supreme Court decision, with the Queen specifically ordering the Supreme Court not to get involved in the use of the Royal Prerogative. Where could this lead? If the UK declared war on a country, could the Supreme Court overturn it? I have to tell you that the Queen’s Private Secretary, Edward Young, openly suborned the Queen to submit to the Supreme Court in this matter, thus overthrowing the jurisdiction of the Monarchy in a way likely to ensure continued control by the European Union. I advised the Queen that the Monarchy has to abide by the Coronation Oath, or, if the Queen wishes to avoid confrontation with Parliament and subscribes to the mealymouthed “convention” (just an agreement among politicians that cannot be held to overthrow the entire constitution) that the safest course is to follow the Prime Minister’s advice, and that she may exercise the right to issue a warning over the wisdom of a course of action, then in that case I would accept the warning, but still advise her to overturn the Supreme Court ruling using the Crown’s Reserve Powers. Are we to believe that Queen Elizabeth was prepared to violate her Oath to give Assent to the bill taking us into the EEC, but then played coy when asked in such a way as to defend her Oath?
It seems Mr. Young has installed himself as the real Prime Minister. He argued at the time that the Prime Minister’s advice should not be accepted as the Conservatives had lost their majority in Parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, Parliament had not passed a vote of no confidence in me, lest I called an election. Given that I was still Prime Minister, I should have had the powers of a Prime Minister. After difficult discussions, the Queen has now accepted that her Private Secretary has no role to play in the exercise of the Reserve Powers. Neither does the Cabinet Secretary, who is just an employee of the government. The Queen’s refusal to overturn the Supreme Court ruling destroyed the UK’s negotiating position with the EU, and arguably marks the end of her reign. Lest things become too chaotic, let’s just say she remains in place on a de facto basis.
It is unlawful—a quite specific violation of the 1689 Bill of Rights—for the Supreme Court to look into proceedings in Parliament. As the Queen is part of the Crown in Parliament, it is not for the court to rule that royal decisions relating to Parliament (prorogations and the Royal Assent) are not proceedings in Parliament. Yet it seems treason charges, while well-deserved, cannot be brought against Lady Hale and her fellow conspirators against the Crown. This doesn’t mean that no punishment can be brought; only that Parliament is the only body that can act to provide for a punishment. The Commons could vote articles of impeachment, and the House of Lords could vote to convict and punish the judges. Alternatively, a Bill of Attainder could be introduced declaring the judges to be traitors. This shows that the Supreme Court is correctly subordinate to the Crown in Parliament.
A similar issue pertains to the behaviour of the previous Speaker, John Bercow. His rulings designed to frustrate Brexit cannot be looked into by the courts, as they are proceedings in Parliament. His meeting with the speaker of the EU parliament is probably not actionable—although it is likely he was discussing ways to frustrate Britain’s exit from the EU. It could be argued that a speaker of parliament meeting the speaker of another parliament, even a fake parliament like the European Parliament, is part of their job (although scarcely necessary). Had Mr. Bercow negotiated directly with Junker, Barnier, Merkel or Macron, then that would be a clear case of High Treason. Although his known behaviour was not actionable in the courts, Parliament itself, once again, could have impeached him and could still pass a Bill of Attainder declaring him to be a traitor, imposing whatever punishment it saw fit. So far, the only punishment has been his non-elevation to the Lords.
So, we have left the EU, but were forced by the antics of the Queen, her Private Secretary, the Supreme Court and the Speaker to sign the Withdrawal Agreement, which provides for EU rule of Northern Ireland (de facto), including in the areas of state aid and VAT law; large payments to the EU that we did not really owe; a large ongoing liability in case of collapse of the EU project; continued ECJ rulings for many years on EU migration to the UK. And that is all in place despite the fact that on January 1st 2021 we were forced to leave without a trade deal.
I remind the house that the Withdrawal Agreement was contrary to the Coronation Oath and that the courts may not uphold it without violating their judicial oaths of office. It openly violated the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland, which specifies “That it be the sixth article of union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain”. The Weights and Measures judgement determined the Act of Union to be a constitutional act that can only be repealed using express language. A later statute that impliedly repeals part of it cannot be held to be in force. The Withdrawal Agreement is thus a dead letter.
We may also note that, whereas there is a Geneva Convention on the Law of Treaties between States, which is in force, and prevents unilateral repeal of the Belfast Agreement with Ireland, the parallel “Geneva Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations” is not in force. This is because the number of ratifications required to bring the latter convention into force has not been reached. The Belfast Agreement cannot be unilaterally repudiated without imperilling all other treaties with sovereign states and entailing a repudiation of the Geneva Convention itself. The Withdrawal Agreement is signed with an international organisation, the EU, and as there is no Geneva Convention governing it yet in force, it may be repudiated at will.
Some may ask, even if there is no Geneva Convention governing treaties with the EU, maybe customary international law applies. Customary international law does not recognise neo-colonial arrangements, including permanent rule of part of a country’s territory from abroad. Such arrangements violate the UN Charter. The fact that the Withdrawal Agreement was imposed on the UK as the only way to leave the pernicious Union via the EU’s negotiations with a known traitor—Theresa May, the Lady Haw-haw of Brexit—as well as with the speaker shows the treaty was negotiated in bad faith. We would have retained the treaty had the EU acted on its commitments to negotiate a trade deal in good faith. In the end, they did not do so, and the Withdrawal Agreement was signed based on an explicit commitment to do so.
I have reminded the Queen—who should not require any reminders—that she must fulfil the Coronation Oath. A series of Orders in Council were issued today. The first employs the Crown’s Reserve Powers to repudiate in full the Withdrawal Agreement. The agreement is now dead and will not be revived. It makes no difference whether this angers the EU. We are independent and assert our right to govern ourselves. Short of warfare and the occupation of London, they will not be able to change our minds on this. A discussion was held with the Palace on whether the Supreme Court would accept the repudiation of the Agreement. We reached a common understand that the Supreme Court has no role to play in ruling on the validity of Orders in Council or the Crown’s Reserve Powers. If the Prime Minister can advise the Queen to declare war on Germany, then he certainly can advise her to repudiate an Agreement providing for permanent foreign rule of our country. The second Order in Council therefore orders the courts to remove themselves from any discussion of the Crown’s Reserve Powers. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case on this, the court itself will be suspended pending legislative action to create a new final court of appeal. The Queen has given a wet-ink promise in writing to use the Reserve Powers to the full to defend this decision. She did use her constitutional right to warn. I rejected the warning as one unworthy of the daughter of the late Queen Mother, and the Queen has now agreed not to stand in the way of our independence.
The third Order in Council sets up a Royal Commission to look into treason and sedition among senior officers of the Crown. If the Commission finds that there has been treason and/or sedition, we intend to introduce a Bill of Attainder to imprison the guilty for a period of 10 years without the possibility of parole. A total of 15 individuals are under suspicion: Theresa May; Geoffrey Cox (the former attorney-general who openly called in cabinet for a breach of the privy counsellor oath); Mark Sedwill (the former cabinet secretary); John Bercow (the former speaker); and the 11 members of the Supreme Court who purported to overturn the Queen’s prorogation of Parliament. I believe all 15 are traitors, and am anxious to see them all imprisoned.
We do not intend to set up border infrastructure between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and will adhere scrupulously to the Belfast Agreement. Ireland can either monitor the few companies engaged in trade with Northern Ireland and levy tariffs on that basis, or leave the EU customs union itself. We are willing to set up a British Imperial Customs Zone to embrace Ireland, if they so choose. Nevertheless, that country has behaved with unbridled malevolence towards us, and we do not intend to give them any further assistance in the matter, beyond offering them membership of a customs zone with us. If they reject that, the problem becomes their problem.
We will not accept the presence of EU boats in Britain’s fishing waters. We will fire on and sink such boats. Under no circumstances will we rescue the fishermen from the waters. If their boats are sunk, let them swim home themselves. The presence of EU fisheries protection vessels or naval vessels in our waters would be a casus belli and reacted to as such.
Finally, as the Centre for Brexit Policy recently showed, the City of London’s regulations make up for deficiencies in EU financial regulation. The EU openly flouts international banking regulations in a way that requires the UK to impose higher capital requirements on its banks to mitigate the risks from the EU’s undercapitalised banking system. This will now change. Capital, collateral and liquidity requirements under global agreements will be imposed to the full on exposure to EU banks. This may force EU firms to buy financial services directly from the UK, and will add to EU costs in accessing global financial markets. All we asked for was free trade in goods and services—trade overwhelmingly in the EU’s favour. They have refused to negotiate fairly and it seems we do have a card or two to play”.
I suddenly awoke with a jolt, and realised this was a speech that Boris Johnson did not deliver. He is agreeing a so-called trade deal that incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights and that also hardwires into it the Paris Accord on Climate Change. We could not bring back the death penalty or return to gas-fired power generation without scuppering the whole deal. Further unpleasant details are sure to be revealed. The problem with Brexit was always that the Conservative Party—in the main, committed traitors—was always the wrong political organisation to deliver it. The handling of the coronavirus has now completely destroyed Britain’s negotiating hand, so why shouldn’t the EU ask for a huge series of new concessions?