Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

[Guest]

The Telegraph reports that Gordon Brown is facing a court case over his refusal to allow a referendum on the revised Constitution. Stuart Bower, a former Labour activist, has persuaded Brighton county court to hear his claim that the PM is in breach of a contract with voters to hold a vote in its 2005 manifesto.

The Prime Minister has decided to fight a court case brought by a UK Independence Party member in which he is accused of breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution.

The case, to be heard at Brighton County Court, claims that the government promised a referendum on the European Constitution in its election manifesto of 2005. The court will be asked to decide whether the government's refusal to hold one is a breach of contract with all those who voted Labour in the 2005 General Election.

The government has told the court it will defend the charge and has asked that the case be adjourned from February 7 because it says the hearing will take longer than the 15 minutes originally allocated.

The case has been brought by Stuart Bower, a former police officer who was later a constituency secretary for the Labour Party in Hove in 1997.

Mr Bower, who left Labour and joined the UK Independence Party, said: "I am delighted that this case will be heard in an open court."

"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.

"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people.

"I also gather that the Prime Minister says his government is acting with the authority of the Crown. I wait with interest to see what their justification is for such an extraordinary claim."

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

Regarding the above statement attributed to the Prime Minister by Stuart Bower, that he is "acting with the authority of the Crown" I should add that it is my belief that what none of our politicians, even many 'eurosceptics', and of course the whole of the EU/UK establishment comprising many shades of treacherous MPs, the political elite with their sycophants and the plainly ignorant do not appreciate, is that we are still a Constitutional Monarchy.

In addition, that the highest power known to our Constitution is the rule of law, not the rule of Parliament, least of all the rule of a Prime Minister.

The rule of law is an integral process of the Constitution and ensures the constitutional separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, of parliamentary debate (exclusively of course UK Parliament, not the E.U. variety), and of the prerogative of the Sovereign's Royal Assent - contracted to the Constitution.

Our Queen bears equal obligation to the terms of our Constitution as much as Parliament or any subject of the Crown.

The Coronation Oath is the entrenchment securing the Constitution during her reign to be bound only by the rule of law, both statute and Common law and the custom and is a contract between the Sovereign and the people - sworn before God and the people.

The Oath therefore constitutionally limits the Sovereign to "govern (only) according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on" - i.e. all the principles of governance set out in the Bill of Rights (1689) and still in force today, as confirmed by a recent Speaker of the Commons.

"The Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts". - (Boothroyd 1993)
In essence this is what we mean by the oft repeated but little understood phrase 'the rule of law' - which our politicians ignore and which they must be compelled to observe.

It is often said that we have no written constitution. We do. It is contained in dozens of statutes but has never been codified into a single document. Our Constitution is made up of a lot of documents that are within Common Law and Statute Law. Documents such as;

1. Magna Carta 1215/25 (meaning Great Charter, is not just one document. It is a number of them, from different dates, all referred to under the same collective name)

2. Treason Act 1351

3. Act of Supremacy 1534

4. Declaration of Rights 1689

5. Bill of Rights 1689

6. Treason and Felony Act 1848

All the above documents that contribute to our great constitution cannot under any circumstances be repealed. Our Constitution is not made up of just one written document; but that does not mean it does not exist. The absence of any such break in continuity in British history, from 1066 to the present day, more than any other factor, explains the very nature of the UK’s Constitution. It has been built over hundreds of years to give us, the people, the best possible set of statutes alive and well in the world today. Just because the courts and the Government repeatedly refuse to acknowledge them, does not mean in any way they do not exist.

Parliament does not have Sovereignty, as Sovereignty is ours and only the Monarch is Sovereign. Their over exaggerated claims, are just the recourse of people who fear the truth as they know what they are doing is, not only illegal, but most certainly invalid.

Take for argument sake the Treason Act 1351 which quite clearly states ‘it is unlawful to encompass the death of the Sovereign and or to encompass the removal of the Sovereigns power’ so to say they have absolute power, when they use the term Parliamentary Sovereignty is in fact an act of Treason. Both Parliament and the Sovereign have to act within the constraints of the Constitution, and they must at all times remember we the people have Sovereignty and no one else.

[thephoenix]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

forgive me for being a simpleton.

So if our constitutional rights are being contradicted by more recent statutes, by that I mean any so called law that has been introduced since the earlest constitution........ would it then make those recent statutes void????

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

That is the six million dollar question.

One of the most recent examples of this and probably the most well known is the case against the late Steven Thoburn and others. In February 2002 Steven Thoburn was convicted of a crime for selling bananas by the pound.

There is a significant inconsistency that has since appeared over that conviction due to the fact that a member of the public who received a parking fine through the post refused to pay the fine by quoting the Bill of Rights Act 1689, which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

"Before conviction" means that no fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law.

Of course, under constitutional law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 gives way to the Road Traffic Act 1991 and Road Traffic Act 1994. This is because Road Traffic Acts provide for penalties outside of a court and, under British law, it is the later Act that takes precedence. Thus, the Road Traffic Acts of 1991 and 1994 repeal the Bill of Rights Act to the extent that they differ.

However, the Divisional Court ruling in the case of the Steven Thoburn (sections 62 and 63) said:

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

Thus, the Divisional Court ruled, the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing pounds and ounces), because the former was a "constitutional act" and the latter "ordinary". This is the point on which Sunderland greengrocer Steven Thoburn and his co-defendants were convicted as criminals for selling in pounds and ounces.

But, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a "constitutional Act". The Road Traffic Acts 1991 and 1994 others like it are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts. Unless the road traffic acts expressly refer to the fundamental rights laid down by the Bill of Rights Act (which they do not), they must fall by the wayside since, according to the Divisional Court, the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed. It is a constitutional Act that protects our "constitutional rights."

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

The Government are not calling it a EU constitution anymore, apparently that was scrapped after Holland etc voted no.
Due to the rebranding a EU treaty (lol) Mr Milliband also stated on the BBC today, there was no way there would be a referendum on a treaty.
Is a Treaty between Governments (which they are perfectly intitled to sign without consent of the Voter or the Monarchy) a get out of Jail card.
I hope not because I hate Labour, and their firgure juggling and rebranding.

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

The EU Lisbon Treaty is the EU Constitution in all but name and every politician on the Continent, bar the deceitful British ministers admit it. The original constitution and the current treaty differ only trivially: an analysis from Open Europe, a London think-tank, found that the two documents are 96% similar; the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which has a Labour majority and chairman, has concluded that the new treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005; every other major European leader (bar Mr Brown) concurs.

The few differences are almost entirely symbolic: the proposed European foreign minister, for example, will now be known by the snappy title of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; but his or her powers are the same as in the old treaty (as Elmar Brok, a federalist Member of the European Parliament, puts it, he will be “a foreign minister who cannot be called a foreign minister”). The same is true of almost every other significant centralising proposal contained in the original constitution.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was refreshingly honest in her deceit when she said in June that “the fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part. We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state, like the flag and the national anthem.” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, was equally candid: “The good thing is... that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.” Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the previous Constitutional Treaty, said that "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

They even tell you that the Treaty is shorter than the Constitution, but this is not true either.

President Sarkozy of France promised the people a "Mini-Treaty" and upon first inspection, it appears to be so as it's only 287 pages, against the Constitution's 349.

But if one checks the word-count one sees that the Treaty has 76,250 words, whereas the Constitution has only 67,850. So the Treaty is actually 8,400 words longer than the Constitution! How did they get the page-count down? Easy. Closer line spacing. The closer you look at the Treaty, the more you discover cynicism, and deceit, and contempt for democracy and for the people.

Support for the Treaty appears to be based on the mirage of "rights" available from the EU. I would suggest those who believe this to be true read Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which allows the EU to withdraw any and all rights as it sees fit, in its own interests.

I do not recall reading that King John added the words "unless I change my mind" to Magna Carta.

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

Gordon Brown applied to the Court at Brighton for a deferment - an obvious delaying tactic - and the Judge granted a deferment - from 10am to 10.30am on the same day!

The case will be heard at 10.30, Thursday, 7th February at Brighton County Court.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

I Wonder how he will squirm his way out of this one?
I mean he was only voted in by just over 1/4 of the population, he has got a right F***ing cheek, telling (suse spelling) robert Mgarbe, and Musharaff, that they need to bring democracy to their countries or face presure from the International comunity, when all the while, he has denied his own countrymen (& Women), any chance of a say on the EU.
I wonder if he has ultiria motives?:shovel::shovel::shovel:

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

As Prime Minister, he was not elected by his own party, by parliament or by the British people.

[thephoenix]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

Prime minster by default

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

Lord Hailsham, a two-time Conservative Lord Chancellor, described the system we have in Britain as as an "elective dictatorship."

Under Brown it's not even elective.

[tomterm8]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

The bill of rights 1689 defence:


And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

[cut]

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;


The "contract" is an agreement not to ratify the european treaty into english law without a referendum. as such, entertaining such a case is contrary to constitutional law. Even if the ontract was broken, no british court may impeach or question proceedings in parliament.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

I call for a change in the opressive regime, that rules the U.K lol, bring back Maggie, even with senile demensure she could do a better Job than Mr Brown's lot.:lawnmover:

[Guest]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

An update from this case, dismissed yesterday.

Activist loses battle with Gordon Brown

By Damien Pearse

A former Labour Party activist was today defeated in his "David v Goliath" legal challenge with the Government over its refusal to grant a referendum on the European Union Lisbon Treaty.

A judge struck out a case brought by UK Independence Party (Ukip) parliamentary hopeful Stuart Bower in which he accused Prime Minister Gordon Brown of a breach of contract.

Ahead of the hearing, Mr Bower argued that the Lisbon Treaty, signed by 27 member states of the EU in December, is effectively the same as the European Constitution on which the Government promised a referendum at the last General Election.

James Fenton, representing Mr Bower at Brighton County Court, said a Labour manifesto pledge in 2005 created a "legitimate expectation" that a referendum would be held.

In arguing that Mr Bower's case should proceed, Mr Fenton also said the Government had usurped the Crown's authority by signing the Lisbon Treaty, raising what he called fundamental constitutional questions.

He said: "It is quite clear that the Government cannot do more than what the Crown can do, so whatever the limitations apply to the Crown apply also to Parliament.

"The effect of the Lisbon Treaty is to transfer governance of this country to a body that does not owe allegiance to the Monarch and is not accountable to the people of this country."

However, the Government quoted authority which said that an alleged failure to fulfil a manifesto promise fell outside the laws under which the claim was being brought.

Cecilia Ivimy, for the Government, said: "A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don't want to labour it."

Responding to claims that the Government usurped the Crown, she added that it was not a judicial issue and that the Government was exercising the Crown's powers.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Unusual Breach of Contract Claim

So what happened to a contract comprising of a promise from 1 party, for a promise from a 2nd party?
vote for us and we WILL....????
O.k GB was elected as new leader by the Labour party, However, by choosing not to have an early election, surley he was adhereing to the old manifesto, otherwise he would have bought about change, by issuing a new manifesto with his refusal of a referendem for the EU constitution.
Is it not a breach of human rights, by not offering a democratic soceity, a democratic soloution, to a country changing treaty??