The British Gazette

One of the persistent questions surrounding the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union is this:

How did the Heath government managed to persuade the judiciary, the government law officers, and the civil servants in the country to accept the provisions of the Treaty of Rome when they so clearly are at variance with our country’s constitution?

Could they all have been bought off? Or is the Eurorealist argument that UK membership of the EU breaches our constitution invalid and plain wrong? Could it be that there is no constitutional or legal problem surrounding the U.K.’s membership of the E.U.?

Let us remind ourselves on one aspect of out constitution. Every member of the Queen’s Privy Council takes this oath: “……..You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal 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………” What part of this do the Europhiles NOT understand?

IF there has been a conspiracy it must be an all embracing conspiracy – that ALL the participants in the conspiracy will suffer should the conspiracy ever be exposed. Let us suppose for a moment that you Dear Reader have just started a new job with a new employer. You are introduced by you superior to a particular “fiddle” that all are involved with. At that point you have a decision to make. Do you refuse to go along with the “fiddle” or do you go along with it as it is clear that ALL the employees including all the company directors are involved? The only people who do NOT know about the “fiddle” are the shareholders – the owners of the company. This is your Rubicon moment. Once you participate in the “fiddle” you are a guilty person. What would YOU do?

Let us remind ourselves of an aspect of foreign policy. It has been the opinion of successive Secretaries of State of the United States of America that Turkey’s application to join the European Union should be accepted. The USA has consistently been supportive of the E.U. accepting new members. Why? Because they believe this to be in the best interests of the United States of America. Why? Because an ever widening E.U. will cause the E.U. to become ever more diverse. The more nations that join there more differences of opinion there will be. It will be more difficult to form of coherent policy on a controversial issue.

Consider for a moment what Europe would have looked like if the UK, Ireland and Denmark had NOT joined the European Community in 1972? Suppose the European Union in 2010 consisted of the original six member states? What would it look like? This is quite an easy prediction: the EC would have coalesced into a firmer stronger union. The process of European integration would have proceeded much further and much faster. The Holy Roman Empire would have been recreated – albeit in democratic form.

A large supra-national federal state “at the heart of Europe” with a coherent set of Foreign and Security policies and a GDP equal to the USA would have been a direct challenge to the USA’s pre-eminence. This is something the professional foreign policy experts in the State Department foresaw and they did not want it to happen. They could hardly go to the Europeans and tell them to desist as they did not want to be knocked of their perch now could they? Therefore they hatched, “……a cunning plan……” If the European Community could be expanded to include the UK and as many others as possible it would slow down the creation of a superstate.

Obviously British politicians wanted to be part of this. But then there was the immovable object of the British Constitution. The Queen is the defender of the constitution. Why did not her advisers warn her. Maybe they did. Now let us consider what the Queen SHOULD have done.

It is said the Queen should not become involved in part politics. Well, she would not have had to! All she had to do was to point out to Heath the constitutional impedimenta to his policy of joining what he called “the Common Market.” This would have meant that Heath would have had to change the entire British Constitution BEFORE signing the Treaty of Rome. There was no way that Heath would have been able to persuade parliament or his party to do this. He therefore ignored the British Constitution – as has every one of his successors including the present.

Could it be that the Queen is being blackmailed?

This of course is an extraordinary question to pose.

There have been anti-monarchists and republicans who have made allegations (which the British Gazette does NOT endorse) that have questioned whether Prince Andrew is the son of the Duke of Edinburgh or is the lovechild of the Queen and Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnarvon, who as Lord Porchester, became the Queen’s racing manager (for her racehorses). There have been anti-monarchists and republicans who have made allegations (which the British Gazette does NOT endorse) that have questioned whether Prince Philip was carrying on a secret affair with the Queen’s cousin Princess Alexandra of Kent. There have been anti-monarchists and republicans who have made allegations (which the British Gazette does NOT endorse) that have questioned whether the Queen became romantically involved with her racing manager after her discovery of the alleged affair. These allegations (which the British Gazette does NOT endorse) that have been made by – amongst others – http://www.throneout.com/ – an anti-monarchist and republican website.

It has been said by some that the Andrew, Duke of York bears a resemblance to George, 8th Earl of Carnarvon, and that similarity goes beyond the facial. They suggest that unlike the other males in the royal family who are slender like Prince Philip, Prince Andrew is of a heavier build like the Earl and the two sons born to his marriage.

British Gazette comment: The British Gazette IS NOT MAKING THESE ALLEGATIONS but is reporting to its readers that these allegations have been made. Clearly, those behind the ThroneOut website clearly have an agenda. An agenda they make no attempt to conceal. That agenda is to discredit as much as possible any and all members of the Royal family with the objective of promoting their cause; the establishment of a republic in this country. The British Gazette is in no doubt whatsoever that many of its readers will be incensed that this organ gives webspace to even the reporting of such allegations. However we would point out that the ThroneOut website has thrown out (excuse the pun) a challenge to the Royal family. That is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that these allegations are what most British people (including ourselves) will think they are, false, malicious and totally preposterous by the simple expedient of DNA testing.