This doesn't make much sense as an argument. The Serious Organised Crime Agency was created by an elected government. So The Queen is acting in good faith with said 'laws and traditions'. Also we already acquiesce to many international police and security organisations, disregarding rights and ferrying off British citizens off at others' request, most notably for the Americans in Guantanamo.

Alvin -

The Queen allowed her ministers to create a law enforcement agency in this country which doesn't isn't required to swear the Oath of Allegiance. It is the first such agency or force not required to do so. For obvious reasons, the police and judiciary are loyal to the Crown and not to politicians. If you don't think this is a sinister agency, even given the way it has just treated Joe Mendy, you are very credulous.

Yes, we are party to various international treaties regarding law enforcement, but EU Law is now supreme in the UK. Therefore, Joe Mendy never had a chance of reprieve against the order to apprehend from a foreign magistrate. If we wish to depart from treaties we can do so, but while we are a part of the EU we must obey our masters in Brussels.

Either the Crown is sovereign in the UK or EU law is. If it's EU law then clearly the Queen was deposed or abdicated sometime around 1972.

Pete: Does that mean she has to go back to Germany?

Mahons -

Ho ho. As someone once said, it's odd how those people who quip about the Royal Family being German (even though the Queen can trace her lineage back to the 7th Century Kings of Wessex) are those who regard an illegal immigrant as worthy of a British pasport the moment he jumps from the back of a lorry in Kent.

Well, in view of international crime in which we include terrorism, there is a need for swifter extradition between EU member states. Thats only sensible. Whoever designed and then presented the proposals should be scrutinised. How the proposals are adopted is down to each of the EU states. But we would seem to get a greater say in this than elsewhere. We cannot simply walk away from such international treaties either and never have to date. Are you sure the EU havent accidentally taken on our head of State? The EU does not overwrite the British Constitution. Besides Gordon Brown is busily doing that himself with his latest proposals on individual rights.

Pete: I am glad to have restored your passion for the woman you describe as having betrayed you, and as being useless. In any event the German House of Wettin and House of Oldesburg may be more reputable than the back of a lorry in Kent, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it.

In any event, I've never suggested that illegal aliens be given British passports. But I do agree with Gibbon that a hereditary monarchy provides the best opportunity for humor.

Your President might trouble himself with a note out of her Majestys book. He might find his way out of a press meeting with more dignity.

".. a hereditary monarchy provides the best opportunity for humor"

I doubt that given the monarchy put us (and you ) on the map.

Alison: It was throwing off the yoke of the monarchy that put us on the map. But no hard feelings.

In those long ago days, every country, at least in the West was a monarchy of one sort or another. It's just that we have hung onto, rather than just hung, ours!

You could say we didn't lose our head, when all around us others were losing theirs...

Mahons,

I accept - with a wry grin - your faux antipathy to any monarchy. The thing is - is it spawned of jealousy, envy, or what?

As you have never had the experience, and as I am sure that a preference for Head of State is not in the genetic code, - just what is your problem?....:-)

Mahons: it was a monarchy that crafted our status and yours by default. That you exchanged our monarchy for a similar elitist system to tax you bothers me very little.

Meanwhile "..a hereditary monarchy provides the best opportunity for humor" - presidential hopefuls that discuss UFOs at what one would assume to be an important discussion? Presumably this was Dennis' madness of King George moment. Good to see you moved in the right direction

Ernest: I agree with Paul McCartney that Her Majesty is a pretty nice girl, etc. Enjoyed your word-play hung onto instead of hung, although Charles I might beg to differ about the losing of the head part.

I don't believe in a monarchy, and I certainly don't believe they are immune from satire, ridicule and farting in their general direction. However, I have no issue with people who want to hang on to theirs.

Alison: Monarchies didn't effect us be default, many of us left Europe to get away from them.

I've always thought all forms of government, my own included, are ripe for funny comments.

In any event Alison, I prefer your throne with its lovely view of St. Paul's Cathedral, to the Windsor's.

(Count to ten, blame our differing viewpoints on that typical damn Yank and move on).

Constitutional monarchy has been an unqualified success story wherever it has thrived. The success alone of this form of government should be a sufficient argument in its favour. Look at how countries with constitutional monarchies have fared, and ask by what criteria their opponents have established that without these monarchies those countries would be better off. As for elitism, republics are just as prone to elitism, and just as awkward to remove. This country benefited from the stabilising effect of monarchy when throughout history that was the norm - and the democratising effect of constitutional rule. There is nothing to sneer at. There is plenty within the current crop of republics that deserve as much, in some cases more ridicule.

Alsion: You've got a chip on your shoulder the size of the Rock of Gibralter when it comes to the monarchy.

I enjoy your retreating from defending the idea of a monarchy to promoting constitutional ones, but really where they unqualified success stories in Japan, Italy, Spain of Thailand? I think the obvious answer is clearly not. Indeed, unqualified success may be a tad strong from some peoples viewpoints of even British monarchs, depending upon how far back one goes.

I respect the British respect for their Monarchy, once again everyone is entitled to their opinion (although everyone is not entitled to a title). And the Royal family itself seems to have been a nice enough bunch in recent vintage, whatever their troubles. But I simply wouldn't want one myself (the Kennedys are bad enough).

In the words of another King "Can't we all just get along" (and I don't mean just the royal we).

How many English realise Milton's 'Paradise lost' is an allegory for how, after having got rid of the bloody monarchy, we allowed them back in? A terrible shame.

Well all this talk of the desirability of our constitutional monarchy detracts form Pete's original post which , if it is an accurate portrayal of events is shocking and shameful. Our politicians should be held to account for such a cavalier attitute to our legal protections.

Mahons,

Average Brits love the Queen, more for reasons of tradition than much else.

I had great respect for George VI and his Queen, I saw them on several occasions during the blitz, when they came to visit the bombed bits of the capital, and on one occasion, - which I didn't see, - they helped clear debris themselves. Not for them the 'grand tour' 3 days on, they got down and dirty only hours after a raid. A great source of inspiration for all, at that time.

Our present Queen and her sister did do their 'bit' as land girls, or something similar, they may actually have served in the women's military - not too sure about that though...

As a totem they have been superb, as for providing any sort of leadership, well, forget it, - in that respect they have been a disaster, being no more than a rubber stamp for whoever was the ruling party, all the while failing to protect the Britons sovereign rights when challenged by any pipsqueak politician. Altogether somewhat less than inspirational..

Ernest

The Queen did serve in the womens Army auxiliary service briefly just after the war. She was an auto mechanic.

Ernest: I recall the WW2 stories, quite inspiring agreed. Can't take that away from them.

The Queen was a mechanic? How cool is that?!

There's been quite a lot of controversy in NI over the last few days about a Zimbabwean who was treated quite disgracefully by our local custodians of the UK's border. Their main problem with him seems to have been his colour.

No problem whatsoever with the publicity afforded in that case, but in comparison, this episode seems to have been kept very low key by the MSM.
Why?
British racism is more newsworthy than its Spanish counterpart?

O'Neill,

Maybe you are jumping to conclusions there, could be he was an illegal. The point of the post was the EU's racism, nothing to do with the Brits, other than them condoning the use of the Euro arrest warrant, by a third rate country, with a third rate police force, that has no respect for the individual.

So, what is the point of the queen?

Daithio -

Good question. Not many do now know what the point of her is, our customs and Constitution being somewhere below ramadan and Bengali on the curriculum. Let me enlighten you.

She is the Governor of the Nation, the political as well as titular Head of State. The British people are sovereign and the Queen is the physical embodiment of that sovereignty. That is why ministers, MPs, the Armed Forces, the police, Privy Councillors and all other public officials swear an allegiance to the Crown and not Parliament. It's also becasue she is soveeign (or was, until 1972) that she opens and disbands Parliament, signs Bills into Law and can block any legislation which she believes does not serve the interests of her Subjects.

In this latter regard she swore an oath at her Coronation to govern her Subjects "in accordance with their laws and customs".

Being a sovereign, independent and self-governing people certainly falls within that remit. The Bill of Rights says straight that any attempt to usurp the sovereignty of the Crown (i.e. our sovereignty) is an act of treason.

But this useless Monarch clearly didn't really believe the oath she swore. She clearly doesn't believe that we ought to be a self-governing people. The Magna Carta guarantees the right of the people to physically drag the Monarch from the Throne and install another. It's about time we started exercising some of these ancient rights.

Mahons

In keeping with your suggestion that everyone is entitled to poke fun at an administration I look forward to Adrian popping up sometime soon and making his opinion known about Bush and America so we can see your own chip emerge. Or in keeping with your style perhaps i should suggest whopping great packet of Freedom Fries.

I never 'went from' defending monarchy to promoting constitutional monarchy.

Quiet right Pete

However this useless monarch went along with a public vote and referendum in 1975. She did precisely what she was supposed to do in respect of that oath because she believed it was serving the desired interests of her Subjects.

Im in favour of a referendum btw. But what do you think would happen if we held a referendum and Scotland Wales and NI voted yes and England votes no? Or if the overall combined vote is no and eventually Scotland and Wales and NI realise that they still want in? Do you forsee the end of the Union and does it matter?

I ask because i think it does. It would also put more emphasis than ever on Englands ability to compete globally.

Also what do you think of Gordon Browns bill of rights or whatever it is. Which he is regally making up as he goes along by the sounds of it.

All hail King Gordon.

Id be very grateful if you would answer me on the above point.

I know you have a penchant for drive-by-posts and then disappearing.......... but i was genuinely interested in an answer to my last question (on Treaties and on America and the trade agreements in place with its potentially soon to be new Southern Spanish speaking States all of which looks suspiciously like the EU) .....but didnt hear back from you.

And im very very interested in an answer to my above question about the Union and the EU - from you and/or RC.

Alison,

You make a good point. And I would foresee it as being very likely that a Referendum on either the revamped Constitution or actual EU Membership would result in Scotland and probably Wales voting Yes with England and Ulster saying No. In which case good luck, goodbye and thanks to the Welsh for all the sheep and the Scots for absolutely bloody nothing except decades of leeching money and power off us like a very large, economically dysfunctional vampire.

And the Queen is indeed utterly useless. She has repeatedly broken the oaths which guarantee her the enormous privileges she enjoys without a murmur.

The story about the arrested chappy is only news because, as Ali G would say it, he is Black. There is a UKIP man called Chris Lees who was held in a Spanish jail for nearly a year and lost his business and pretty much everything he owned and in the end was never ever charged with a single crime.

Some of is having been trying to tell you how iniquitous the Arrest Warrant is and how it is naff all to do with Terrorism for quite some time. Can I just point out that it was actually already at the Committee stage in Brussels *before* Sept 11th and was rushed through with gleeful haste afterwards?

DSD

The Queens importance has been eroded by us - the electorate.

LOL about Scotland and Wales. Yes we would be Conservative again and pretty much forever and ever so there are some benefits to that. We would also presumably say goodbye to all sorts of natural resources too.

Ulster saying no would eventually lead to Ulster saying yes with the decline of the Union - and by virtue of the fact that Ireland is a part of the EU (which was always a bit ironic i thought). So good bye NI.

In the end I think the Union is important.

Alison: I miss Adrian, ATW's Indian seminarian, who limited his approval of Western military to the Swiss Guard defending the Pope. However, I think you have forgotten my greatest hits which include lambasting of George Bush and his Administration. I refer you to the ATW vault, as the instances are too numerous to mention and I can't just choose one of my bon mots (they are my children - it would be my personal Sophie's Choice).
In any event, Bush, The Queen, the Clintons, Prince Charles, The Spice Girls, Rudy Giuliani, Bono, tax collectors and my next door neighbor's incontinent bulldog are all fair game for fun.

"Gordon Browns bill of rights or whatever it is"

I don't think Gordon is capable of grasping what a bill of rights is for, namely to limit the power of the state. Hence his talk of a "bill of rights and responsibilities", where "rights" will mean what we can expect from our loving state, and "responsibilities" is what the state wants in return.

As for referenda and the break-up of the UK, the crystal ball is too cloudy for me. I don't see much likelihood of such things in the near future.

As for England/Britain competing with the world, I don't think membership of a large political block has any inherent benefits with regard to this. British companies trade with companies around the world the same as with EU-based companies. Leaving the EU would save a fortune. Even if we were still bound by rules, as we would be, it would still be cheaper. Companies that trade with the US, for instance, are bound by the rules that apply there.

Alison -

this useless monarch went along with a public vote and referendum in 1975. She did precisely what she was supposed to do in respect of that oath because she believed it was serving the desired interests of her Subjects.

She shouldn't have allowed the referendum. She shouldn't have signed the ECA 1972 in the first place. That Act stripped her of her sovereignty, which is clearly an act of treason under the Treason Felony Act (which itself is designed preciely to protect the Constitution).

In then holding a referendum, what we are in effect being asked to do is aquiese in the destruction of our own sovereignty. Again, this is illegal and immoral and just one reason why I don't think a referendum ought to be held on the EU constitution.

But what do you think would happen if we held a referendum and Scotland Wales and NI voted yes and England votes no?

Either the Celts give way or the Union breaks apart. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the signatory to all the EU treaties to which we're a party. It is the UK parliament which passed the ECA 1972 which made us a member in the first place. Therefore only the UK can be a member of, or leave, the EU, not any constituent part of it.

As England has vastly more votes than Wales and Scotland combined, England gets its way; i.e. the UK leaves the EU. If England's will is denied, there would be such outrage that the Union would break apart. In that scenario, the English would be free to govern themselves again, the Scots and Welsh could apply to become again a province of the EUSSR.

Also what do you think of Gordon Browns bill of rights or whatever it is. Which he is regally making up as he goes along by the sounds of it.

We already have a Bill of Rights and all of the constitutional guarantees we need. That they have been right royally abused, ignored and attacked increasingly for a century doesn't mean we need to tear them up.

We need to assert again what is ours. Remember, our freedoms and rights are ours, untouchable by Parliament or any politician. The Bill of Rights merely codifies the Declaration of Rights, which itself is a contract between Monarch and Subjects. Ditto Magna Carta.

Gordon Brown can publish what he likes, Parliament may agree what it likes, none of them may detract, alter or take away from what are already ours.

I'll post in this soon.

Pete,

Seriously, don't call it the EUSSR. It has, as I've pointed out before, far more in common with Nazi Germany than the USSR - especially economically.

DSD,

lol! Be fair - surely Mussolini's Italy is more appropriate?

It has everything to do with Corporatism and bugger all to do with ...actually thats not bad 'Mussolini's Italy' ...I rather admired Mussolini :P

Alison,

well, if those darn Frenchies had kept up the fight a little longer, he'd have most probably been on our side!

Pete

In your view do the British people have the right to breach the bill of rights and if not why not ?

Pete/RC and all:

FreeBornJohn has written about monarhcy constitution and republicanism: part 1 Magna Carta

http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2007/10/monarchy-constitutions-and_30.html#links

Alison,

yeah, I saw that the other day, interesting stuff.

Colm -

We do have the right to breach the BoR. Sovereignty lies within the British people. The Monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. Parliament is merely a part of the Monarch's Realm and derives its legitimacy from the Crown. This mere subservient body codified the Declaration of Rights, which itself is a compact between Sovereign and Subjects and states our liberties and rights which are unchangeable by all but ourselves.

Alison -

Interesting, but he makes a hell of a leap from the mid-15th Century to modern libertarianism. Half a century after those events was the Glorious Revolution which radically altered the nature of Monarchy and its relationship with the British people and which the piece doesn't take into account. Also, some of those idea of liberty which parliamentarians developed, had long been conceded by the Monarchy in Magna Carta (i.e. due process and fair trial, fair taxation etc). In fact it was the Glorious Revolution (IMO) which put us inevitably on the road to a parliamentary tyranny and explicitly made the Monarch the guarantor of our liberties.