The Bernician

Parliament Appears To Have Deposed QEII of Sovereignty

Parliament Appears To Have Deposed QEII of Sovereignty

When Parliament recognised itself as ‘sovereign’ in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, it did so after Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Gove spoke gushingly,  in the run up to the December 2019 election, about how parliamentary sovereignty is borrowed from the People, via a democratic mandate.

I wrote this blog post on that very subject at the time, but I didn’t mention this obvious anomaly, since the in-coming government had already publicly and repeatedly declared that such sovereignty was dependent upon the democratic consent of the People that Parliament should exercise it.

Nevertheless, from this observation a question naturally arose:

If Parliament has only previously acted with the sovereign authority of the monarch, was the real intention of section 38 to depose QEII?

Since I knew that more facts would have to come to light before I could even broach the subject of a treasonous Parliament, I decided to carry on researching the matter, until the events of COVID-1984 revealed that Parliament was acting with what the constitution deems to be prohibited royal powers.

From which juncture is has become increasingly obvious that the UK government has ever since purported to exercise national sovereignty in the interests of Bill Gates, GAVI and the WHO, as per the sustainable development agendas 21 and 30.

This was enough to convince me that I’d seen enough to reasonably conclude that Parliament had created unaccountable government, upon its assumption that such an act could be deemed lawful, on the ground that it has declared itself sovereign in a statute.

Parliament Is Merely The Supreme Legislature

However, Parliament is merely the supreme legislative authority of the United Kingdom, consisting of three separate but equally integral elements – the monarch, the commons and the lords.

It has no lawful authority to receognise its own sovereignty, which has always been vested by the People in the monarch, who is bound to uphold the Coronation Oath:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

By those solemn words, QEII was lawfully bound to uphold the Common Law, which guarantees the unalienable rights, freedoms and protections of the People, as per Constitutional Law and Convention.

In the event she has been deposed of sovereignty, whether treasonously or not, there is no longer a constitutional contract between the monarch and the People and no judge has the jurisdiction or authority to act in her name.

Parliament Cannot Be Sovereign

Nevertheless, Parliament has never previously been legally endowed with sovereignty, notwithstanding William Blackstone’s erroneous claims to the contrary, which resulted in the complete misconception that Parliament is sovereign, within the legal professions and the judiciary.

In reality, the People are sovereign and they only divest responsibility to the monarch, for the purposes of exercising that sovereignty, in return for the rights, freedoms and protections guaranteed by the constitution the monarch is sworn to uphold, as per the Common Law

However, in recognizing itself as sovereign, Parliament appears to have implicitly deposed QEII of the sovereignty vested in the monarch by the People, for the purposes of suspending those unalienable rights, freedoms and protections, as well as the Common Law.

This necessarily includes the monarch’s power to dissolve Parliament, in the event it is found to have become tyrannical, which compelling evidence shows has emphatically been the case since the start of COVID-1984.

It naturally follows that, in declaring itself sovereign, Parliament purports to have removed the prerogative powers of the monarch, as well as disabled the constitutional means by which the People can remove the government from office by voting them out, until they say COVID-1984 is over.

A Constitutional Monarchy

Despite this, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is undeniably still a constitutional monarchy at law, in which the sovereign monarch is bound by the following key constitutional documents:

Magna Carta

Declaration and Bill of Rights

Coronation Oath

Act of Settlement

Petition of Right

Acts of Union

Human Rights Act

Without the monarch, there is no sovereign power for Parliament to wield in the UK legal system and the government is operating outside of the parameters it is bound to stay within.

Furthermore, without a monarch recognised as being sovereign, the judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to rule over any matter, whether civil or criminal, since all judges purport to rule in the name of the monarch, under the sovereign seal of the crown.

Crucially, in the grave circumstances we currently face, the absence of a sovereign monarch automatically vitiates every oath taken by the armed forces to serve ‘queen and country’, along with all other oaths of office to the queen.

The Apparent Deposing of QEII

All the prima facie evidence suggests that, given the totalitarian power grab which the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled, Brexit was used as a smokescreen for a Big Pharma Bolshevik Coup, which I alluded to in my previous blog post.

As described in the foregoing passages, in recognizing itself as sovereign in the final Brexit bill, it appears Parliament has implicitly deposed the monarch of sovereignty at law, thereby automatically forfeiting its legitimacy and electoral mandate.

It has also conspired to allow the government to rule the People by decree, since the imposition of the lockdown regulations, in abject and fatal breaches of articles 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1688, which prohibit the exercise of such royal powers explicitly:

Dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

A Face Like A Smacked Arse

All of which might just explain why last October’s and December’s state openings of Parliament were unique for two superficial reasons:

1. QEII was not wearing the imperial crown for the first time in history on such an occasion last October.

2. Last December, she had a facial expression throughout which betrayed a woman who was smoldering with an anger that was only just below the surface.

In the vernacular of Gen-X, she had a face like a smacked arse.

This naturally transpired after she had agreed to sign off on the final Brexit bill, section 38 of which implicitly stripped her of sovereignty and purported to vest it in Parliament:

Section 38(1)

It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.

Section 38(3) reaffirms this, then goes one legal step further:

Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

However, sovereignty has never been vested in Parliament, since it can only act with delegated authority from the monarch, under the constitutional concept of the Queen [or Crown]-in-Parliament.

The Queen-in-Parliament

According to the undisputed Queen-in-Parliament Wikipedia Page:

The Queen-in-Parliament (or, during the reign of a male monarch, King-in-Parliament), sometimes referred to as the Crown-in-Parliament, is a technical term of constitutional law in the Commonwealth realms that refers to the Crown in its legislative role, acting with the advice and consent of the parliament (including, if the parliament is bicameral, both the lower house and upper house). Bills passed by the houses are sent to the sovereign, or governor-generallieutenant-governor, or governor as her representative, for Royal Assent, which, once granted, makes the bill into law; these primary acts of legislation are known as acts of parliament. An act may also provide for secondary legislation, which can be made by the Crown, subject to the simple approval, or the lack of disapproval, of parliament.

The concept of the Crown as a part of parliament is related to the idea of the fusion of powers, meaning that the executive branch and legislative branch of government are fused together. This is a key concept of the Westminster system of government, developed in England and used across the Commonwealth and beyond. It is in contradistinction to the idea of the separation of powers. The specific language of “the Crown”, “the King”, or “the Queen” in parliament used in the Commonwealth realms also alludes to the constitutional theory that ultimate authority or sovereignty rests with the monarch, but is delegated to elected and/or appointed officials. 

If we accept these as established legal facts, is clear that Parliament has no lawful authority to act, except with the royal assent of the monarch.

Moreover, as was affirmed in the supreme court, when it considered allegations that the government unlawfully prorogued Parliament – the government does not possess the powers of royal prerogative, the monarch does, even if sovereign powers are delegated to ministers under the Common Law.

Whilst Brexit proved that major constitutional changes can only be made with the consent of the People in a democratic plebiscite.

It is therefore simply not arguable that changing the nation state of Britain from a Parliamentary democracy, with a monarch bound to uphold the Common Law, to a totalitarian, unaccountable dictatorship, does not comprise the most serious constitutional changes imaginable.

Treasonous & Fraudulent Acts

Nevertheless, even if section 38 of the final Brexit bill was intended it to depose QEII, the Common Law adjudges that Parliament has enacted a statute that is definitively treasonous in nature and void ab initio on the most treacherous of grounds.

These charges arise under the Treason Felony Act 1848, which prescribes that it is treason felony to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend:

It is difficult to dispute that to pass an act which purported to recognise Parliament as sovereign is to definitively deprive the sovereign of the Crown, within the meaning of the 1848 Act.

Or that the government has stirred foreign invaders in the form of the WHO, the Bill Gates appointed dictators of UK health policy and the purveyors of a mandatory vaccination agenda.

This means that the constitutional contract between the monarch and the People, which guarantees our unalienable birthrights under the Common Law, has clearly fallen into a fatal breach.

And that’s before we even mention the government’s multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, for falsifying the data relied upon to justify the lockdown measures, failing to disclose facts they were bound to disclose about the UK mortality rates and gross abuse of position in waging psychological warfare against the People, with intense propaganda campaigns founded on lies, which everybody living here can testify to.

Unaccountable Dictatorship

The result is a government that Parliament purports to have made unaccountable to the People, by suspending the right to remove it from office until Demonic Cummings says so, under the draconian Coronavirus Act 2020.

Regardless of one’s own position on the legitimacy of monarchy, it is urgently worthy of our attention that Parliament has granted itself the supreme authoritarian power of a dictator, which the People fought to overcome in the devastating English Civil Wars of the 17th century.

In other words, Parliament has claimed and used the dictatorial royal powers which were and remain forbidden by articles 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1688, thereby automatically forfeiting its legitimacy.

No wonder Bojo, Demonic and Wancock are starting to look like murderous governors of an increasingly brutal open prison, who can’t remember if they put their trousers on this morning.

Furthermore, at this precise moment, most of the People don’t know about any of this and if it turns out to be substantiated by the facts which unfold from here on in, they are going to be more than a little pissed off when they find out what’s been done to their significant detriment, under the pretense of the keeping them safe.

Reasons For Optimism In Dystopia

Nevertheless, all of the available the evidence suggests that Britain has no reigning monarch, no legitimate parliament or government and the People are rapidly waking up to the government crimes which have been committed during COVID-1984.

Sooner or later, the shit is really going to hit the fan and when it does, expect nothing except the unexpected and be prepared to defend everything we all hold dear with everything you are, or prepare to lose it all at the hands of murderous despotism.

Having said that, take heart because we are never more capable of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, than when our collective backs are against the wall, as they are right here, right now.

I therefore spit righteous indignation and recalcitrant optimism into the face of the dystopian puppet masters, which my instinct decrees is the result of knowing that good fortune arises from the marriage of preparation and opportunity.

#MagnaCarta2020 #KeepBritainFree

Related Posts

Read

Read More in Critical Thinking