Wednesday, March 09, 2011

LibDem MEP Andrew Duff plots treason

There is no other word for it. When Her Majesty's Government proposes to enact legislation in order (ostensibly) to restore (a degree of) sovereignty to Parliament on matters relating the European Union, it beggars belief that an elected, British politician (Andrew Duff MEP) would seek to collude, scheme and plot with a foreign prince or potentate (President Jerzy Buzek) in order to circumvent the will of the people as expressed through their Parliament, and usurp the Royal Assent as granted by the Queen. La Reine le veult, but Andrew Duff le veux de plus.

With thanks to the incomparable Daniel Hannan MEP for bringing this treachery to light, it is as blatant as it gets that some of our own elected politicians in Brussels are actively conspiring to sell what's left of our sovereignty for less than a mess of pottage. Mr Duff (another illiberal undemocrat) has proposed an amendment to the Treaty on European Union to replace the present need for unanimity of member states with an 80 per cent ratification. It is audacious and outrageous.

A charge of treason has been tried before, when Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter attempted to commence proceedings against the signatories of the Maastricht Treaty. While that case may have been judged vexatious (not least because Messrs Hurd and Maude were democratically-elected representatives of HM Government), it is inconceivable that a charge of treason against Andrew Duff might be thrown out on the same basis: his letter is evidence of blatant subterfuge:

During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I stated: ‘To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to that of Christ the King of Kings.’ Section Three of the Treason Felony Act 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

Andrew Duff is seeking to negate the democratic process and nullify the Royal Assent. It is a very great pity that His Grace is in no position to commence proceedings to bring a charge of treason.


Anonymous not a machine said...

If only the lib dems could now be the useual guilty party. may I thank Mrs Bone for prompting her husband to get the question we had wanted a clarifcation upon.
When as conservative you go round telling eurosceptic voters that Mr Cameron is an honest decent fellow who will ensure you get an in or out vote on the EU , and for a number of years you tramp streets , talk to people , promote the conservative party of honesty with its electorate , go into difficult and hostile situations to fight for his election to become PM , you do not expect for a throwaway line rubishing the people/eurosceptics who have fought so hard and believed that we would get the vote we should be entitled to.
Con home have already pointed it out , so I assume that constituancies have now heard .
I quite understand there is a position for change at the next european elections . the left have finally managed to poison there own pool by destroying national identity , but that is some time away .There is no stop on EU immigration and he has said he approves of Turkeys accension .

I have little choice , I do not believe this holds the correct path let alone a secure one . I have no fight to pick , he has said what he now thinks , it is clear .Wether he realises what he now thinks of his members , it matters not the signal has now sent to many loyal members we shall wait to see . For now I am thinking Oh no not again but todays response is a gross V sign to those who trusted him on this matter "democracy is wonderful thing" only if you allow the vote of course .

9 March 2011 at 17:29  
Blogger WitteringsfromWitney said...

YG, and the difference betwen the Treason Felony Act 1848 and the Privy Councillor Oath is......?

If Cameron et all have managed to negate the PC oaths, Duff is untouchable, surely?

9 March 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr WitteringsfromWitney,

No, this is different. The Coalition has an agreement, part of which is the 'Sovereignty Bill', which binds the parties of government. Duff is not only ignoring that agreed manifesto (in contravention of the express will of his leader); he is seeking to collude with foreign princes in order to circumvent the provisions of the very statutory instrument by which the powers of those foreign princes may be limited, or held more accountable.

9 March 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Naughty Tiddles said...

Your Grace

The title of Mr Eastwood's movie springs to mind for those who commit treason;

Hang Em High.

Definition of The Coalition in this case - Oil and Water!

E S Blofeld

9 March 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Sounds like a job for the British Constitution Group.

9 March 2011 at 18:10  
Anonymous Monty Cristo said...

As MEP's appear to have immunity to criminal prosecution any charge of Treason, no matter how justified, would appear to be outside our Courts juisdiction.
See the decision about Elmar Brok:

9 March 2011 at 18:12  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

You seem to overlook the fact that the queen herself is a traitor and oathbreaker. At least five times she has committed treachery by counter-signing the treaties that give more and more power over us to Brussels.
You also seem to overlook the fact that all the main parties are also guilty of treason going all the way back to Heath. so why whinge about Duff now? He is just the latest in a long line of traitors.

9 March 2011 at 18:19  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Malvoisin,

His Grace refers you to the answer he gave some moments ago.

9 March 2011 at 18:22  
Anonymous non mouse said...

So he's duff by name and duff by nature, then.

At least Mr. Hannan justifies the business of sending anyone to that vile assembly: we get to know what's going on. So we see, as he suggests in his headline -- they fear our negativity.

Should we ever vote for removal the b*s, we may even have a chance of securing the ballot. Meanwhile, we really need to practice ways of withholding the readies.

Another valuable and excellent post, Your Grace. Thank you.

9 March 2011 at 19:29  
OpenID superioranalyst said...

If I'm not mistaken, he's obviously an ignorant a**e because the plural of 'referendum' is surely 'referenda', isn't it? So a traitor and an ignoramous. Says it all about LibDems.

9 March 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Why the mock outrage?

He is only doing what Conservatives (Heath, Thatcher, Major and now Cameron) have done for decades.

Why do you ask people to vote for these crooks?

9 March 2011 at 22:27  
Anonymous Francis said...

"If I'm not mistaken …" You are. He may well be an ignorant a**e, but not for that reason. The OED is clear on the point, deprecating the use of "referenda".

Oh, and the word you're looking for is "ignoramus" – and before you ask, the plural is not "ignorami"!

9 March 2011 at 22:28  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Chambers does allow 'referenda.' And is the OED what it used to be? Oh yes, it still has strengths beyond others, but it has occasionally let me down. Should we not be wary that foreigners may work there now - people whose natural languages are mucked up Latin? They have no sympathy with English or its speakers.

And isn't 'referendum' a concept from their side of the water, anyway? So why shouldn't we regularise the word if we want to? Same with "ignoramus." Why bind ourselves in pseudo-Latin? In any case, ignoramus rightly means "we ignore; we take no notice;" and we wouldn't do that to the most dangerous man in England.

The English word you deplore, however, describes him nicely: by comparison with that which is nether. We say that he is both ignorant and nether (or, niðer). So you are wrong to denigrate thoughtful dialogue in the language of our heritage - just because the enemy over the water discourage it.

In another sense, we might have referred to DC as a donkey, as in: "Hemphasise yo' haitches, yo' hignorant hass." That expression lacks force, however; it also returns me to earlier points ... I do so refuse to insult the dear animals. They're far, far, better than the slime under consideration.

10 March 2011 at 00:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i.e. 'discourages.' Sigh.


10 March 2011 at 00:18  
Anonymous Lord Lavendon said...

I was going to write a long post, but on reflection I say ( and I don't always agree with him) whot English Viking said. This MEP is in the long line of Euro-philes or politians who whilst in office gave power after power to the EU.

"nough" said as the Butler would say...

10 March 2011 at 00:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10 March 2011 at 00:58  
Anonymous Swivil eyed lunatic said...

I do ask myself, what is the guy who writes this blog on? And then I realise that he is a Conservative party spokesman and appreciate that he must spin his own version of politics and history.

Good luck, for the future (in holding your loyalty to the party and what your heart is saying together)!

10 March 2011 at 01:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was Duff yesterday in Strasbourg:

10 March 2011 at 01:07  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Think of the increased tourist interest, were severed heads still lodged on pikes at Traitors' Gate!

Such traitorous 'nithings' as Duff should be recycled as raven bait.

10 March 2011 at 02:05  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"Our Achilles heel, though, has been our social attitude. Censorious judgmentalism from the moralising wing, which treats half our own countrymen as enemies, must be rooted out."

10 March 2011 at 05:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

All it would take is one little referendum to halt bastards like Duff in their tracks. Shame that iDave is every bit a traitor who thinks he knows better than eveyone else what is good for the UK.

The Bill is a joke. Get us out of the EU. NOW!!!!!

10 March 2011 at 07:18  
Anonymous MrJ said...

This alert from Cranmer has prompted an increase in online sales of "Treason at Maastricht: Destruction of the Nation State" by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter.

Letters (or telegrams) have often been the means or evidence of betrayal, in plots of fact and fiction. By the publication of this one its signatory is found in flagrante, and if it amounts, as alleged, to treason there is surely sufficient evidence of things said and done of late to implicate the Prime Minister and his appointed deputy as accomplices. If the law of this country is such that a person (say, the mayor of a city or a peer not sitting in Parliament) would be liable to prosecution in such a case, that should suffice for proceedings to be commenced, letting the accused use a defence of immunity if that is available to him, subject to the ruling of Her Majesty's judge's sitting as the Supreme Court in Westminster.

"Mr Cameron’s spiel may or may not be as fake as a Barbie doll’s permanent wave but it somehow enables him to avoid the clutches of his critics." Quentin Letts,

Perhaps the plural of a Latinate word in current English usage is a side-issue, and concerned citizens should be wary of such enticing distractions.

10 March 2011 at 07:22  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If all of this talk was worth anything,we would be free by now in a democracy of our own choosing,but the longer we waffle,the more difficult action becomes,which is probably why the traitors have not suppressed the web.

10 March 2011 at 07:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Perhaps the world’s greatest playwright foresaw that his country would never be conquered – unless betrayed by her sons:

This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them: nought shall makes us rue
If England to itself do rest but true.

William Shakespeare, King John, Act v 5 Sc 7

10 March 2011 at 08:20  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Could this be evidence of incitement to disaffection among Her Majesty's subjects, to wit the electors of Watford?

"The new EU Bill contains a 'sovereignty clause' and would entrench the holding of referenda on EU treaty changes as well as the use of the passerelle clauses of the Treaty of Lisbon. DUFF, who represented the European Parliament at the Lisbon treaty negotiations, said:..'We will be keen to reassure ourselves that this Bill does not substantively change the terms of the UK's membership of the EU and that, for example, the UK supreme court will not have powers dumped on it which properly reside with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. "The move to referenda seems to be calculated to appeal to a populist and nationalist constituency which undoubtedly exists in the UK. ...The coalition government must respect the constitutional order of the European Union and should not impede the steady democratic evolution of the Treaty-based rules which bind all EU states together in a deep and lasting interdependence....' "
(source: November 11, 2010 3:00 PM, Originally published by Andrew Duff MEP)

10 March 2011 at 08:47  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

@not a machine

I'm currently reading a collection of Enoch Powell's speeches from the 1970s ("Nation or No Nation", ed. Richard Ritchie) and very depressing it is too. Everything he predicted about our loss of sovereignty has come true.

I had forgotten that Edward Heath had said that the UK would only join the European Community with "the whole-hearted support" of the nation.

In the event the second reading of the necessary legislation was guillotined through parliament with a majority of eight, and within a year there were moves to establish monetary and political union.

10 March 2011 at 09:41  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Will look for a copy of Enoch Powell's speeches! I remember walking home from school arguing the merits of his 'rivers of blood' speech!

Ah well. Happy day to all.

10 March 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger bwims said...

Surely the answer is for Cameron to promise a referendum on ratifying this particular proposal?

10 March 2011 at 12:32  
Anonymous wannabeanglican said...

I am not a cruel man. So I oppose hanging, drawing, and quartering.

But Mr. Duff is making me rethink that.

And, yes, Oswin, think of the tourism!

Cranmer will be glad to hear I am still dead set against burning archbishops . . . well, most of them anyway.

10 March 2011 at 14:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Oswin (02:05)—With any luck, the malodorous remains of the traitor Heath will one day be exhumed, decapitated, and the head jammed on the railings outside Parliament as a reminder to all politicians not to muck around with our liberties.

10 March 2011 at 14:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Johnny : yours is damn near my unwritten, but considered, third paragraph!

These days the reasonable man rightly frowns upon exhumations and bone-scatterings, but Heath is the exception that proves the rule. We are, as you suggest, in sore need of a few choice, gristly reminders of the fate of those who would ''muck around with our liberties''.

10 March 2011 at 16:57  
Anonymous Robin said...

I bet at the next elections Duff will be saying that Britain needs to be in EUrope to "keep our influence "

10 March 2011 at 19:05  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oswin said..."Think of the increased tourist interest, were severed heads still lodged on pikes at Traitors' Gate!

Such traitorous 'nithings' as Duff should be recycled as raven bait."

Aye and let it become a part of the National Curriculum for all schools to visit the exhibition of corpses hanging from lamposts.

10 March 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Bred in the bone:

I favour cage-framed gibbets myself. I love the clanging of chains in the morning! :o)

11 March 2011 at 00:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Throw him in the Tower along with all the other Lib/Lab/Con traitors and let them rot.

Democracy has become an illusion in this country. We are ruled by one pro-EU, pro-immigration puppet party with three names. Conveniently two of them appeared to have merged. How long before the pretence ends and we get to ‘vote’ for just party, Soviet style?

11 March 2011 at 09:30  
Anonymous len said...

A group of politicians have led us into the European Union much as the'Judas Goat 'led the sheep into the slaughter house.
With the same degree of scruples and integrity.

11 March 2011 at 23:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older