Succession to the Crown Bill and the EU?s (and UK?s) Equality Act.

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Succession to the Crown Bill and the EU?s (and UK?s) Equality Act.  5.4.2013

We have fought two World Wars to ensure our way of life remains the same governed by and through our long standing Common Law Constitution. That we are governed by elected Politicians that govern this Country according to that same Common law Constitution also. That our Monarchy remains as it has been for Hundreds of Years. All set down in 600 years old or more Constitutional Documents from Magna Carta 1215 and our Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688 and 1689. The Act of Settlement, Act of Union, plus many others.  Many brave and wonderful people gave their young lives for all of us in two World Wars. Yet here, we are allowing foreigners to dictate what even our Monarch has to comply with-foreign laws.  We betray all those that gave their lives for our  freedom.  No, that is not exactly right. Those Members of Parliament that we in innocence and trust, elected and pay, betray all those that lost their lives not only fighting in that last war that I remember well and one in which our Queen played Her part in that war too,  we betray innocent children and babies also that lost their lives in the bombing of this Country, for they never had a chance to live. 

The  proposed Succession to the Crown Bill requires nine (9) changes to nine different parts of our long standing Common law Constitution.  Countries on the Continent can easily change their Constitutions because after that war, they had NEW written Constitutions that are easily changed where as ours goes back for hundreds of years and why the people of this Country, that may have lost relatives in that last war, may have to ?fight? all be-it in a different way- to keep our long standing Common Law Constitution that so many gave their lives for.  Not to be governed by foreigners but to continue with our way of life and according to the Constitution so many gave their lives for.  We cannot afford to let them down now.   

15th Feb 2013. Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat,) began the debate, saying: ?This is a bill with a clear purpose; to bring gender equality to the rules of succession and to remove explicit pieces of religious discrimination from our statute book.?

He continued: ?The bill does three things. First, it ends the system of male preference primogeniture in the line of succession. Secondly, it removes the bar on a person who marries a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the Throne - a legal barrier that applies to Catholics and only Catholics and no other faith. Thirdly, it replaces the Royal Marriages Act 1772 - an Act that requires any descendent of King George II to seek the reigning monarch's consent before marrying, without which their marriage is void... With King George II's descendants now numbering in their hundreds, this law is clearly unworkable and so it is replaced with a provision that the monarch need only consent to the marriages of the first six individuals in the line of succession, without which they would lose their place.?   

Lord Dubbs,  (Labour) expressed his support for the Bill, saying: ?The clear point, which has been stated by many members of this House, is that as a country we are totally opposed to discrimination on grounds of gender or religion. It is wrong that there should be discrimination at the highest level in our country... I would like there to be a position in which the monarch herself or himself could in future be a Catholic, or of no faith, if he or she wished. That would be a better outcome than the present one.?

Lord Lexden (Conservative), then spoke about the impact of the bill across the Commonwealth: ?The coalition ministry is to be congratulated on securing for them the full support of the 15 other Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state. However, little has been heard of the progress that the 15 are making in implementing these fundamental changes... The government's most laudable aim is that the new era in the world's greatest monarchy, which is now foreshadowed, should begin simultaneously in all 16 realms. It would be useful to hear from my noble and learned friend today when the point of common action envisaged by the government is likely to be reached.?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat) responded on behalf of the government, and concluded by saying: ?...we look forward to the birth later this year of the child of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge... The change that we are putting forward will mean that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter, then a son, the daughter will precede the son in the line of succession. As we look forward to the birth, we can also celebrate that whether a boy or a girl, the child will have equal claim to the Throne. I think it is the mood of the House to wish the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge every happiness as they face up to the challenge of parenthood.?

Committee stage, line by line examination of the bill, begins on 28 February.

Succession to the Crown Bill summary.  The bill makes three key changes to laws governing who can be next in line to the throne by: 

removing the first born son preference and allowing an older daughter over a younger brother to become a monarch allowing anyone who marries a Roman Catholic to remain in line limiting the requirement that all descendants of George II must obtain the monarch?s permission to marry to the six people nearest in line to the crown. If the monarch's approval is not given then the married couple and their descendants lose their place in the line of succession.

UK Equality Act 2010

EU Equality

Equality Generally

The (UK) Equality Act 2010 will affect most areas of current law.  By Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC 

 The main provisions of the Equality Act 2010 came into force on 1st October 2010. The Act is important for public and private law practitioners alike, and affects most areas of current law. 

The Act provides for equal treatment without direct or indirect discrimination in employment, housing, education and the provision of public services. It gives new protection to the fundamental right to equal treatment without discrimination anchored in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU equality legislation. 

The Act also clarifies and extends the concepts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation and applies them across nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It will in due course extend positive equality duties to public authorities which must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different groups. It broadens the circumstances in which positive action may be taken voluntarily to further these aims, replacing nine major earlier pieces of legislation covering gender, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, and implements the EU equality directives.

The main Directives affecting domestic legislation are: Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access and supply of goods and services; and European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Also relevant in this context is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.   

European law will continue to influence the interpretation of the new Act, and there will be cases falling outside the scope of the Act which may be covered by the European principles of equality. The European Court of Human Rights has recently recognized that Article 14 of the Convention applies not only in areas covered by other Convention rights, but also where the State has voluntarily decided to provide additional rights: see JM v United Kingdom Application no 37060/06, 28 September 2010, para 45 ,

The Explanatory Notes published with the new Act provide lucid guidance on the structure and content of the new Act, and are available on the government?s legislation web-pages.

Practitioners will also find The Equality Act 2010 (Commencement No. 4, Savings, Consequential, Transitional, Transitory and Incidental Provisions and Revocation) Order 2010 (SI 2010/2317), a detailed guide to which elements of the pre-October 2010 statutory framework remain in force. END  The whole on

The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom.


Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 Brussels, 21.9.2010 COM(2010) 491 final

All these proposals are contrary to the Oaths made by the Queen at Her Coronation.

Her Majesty is aware of that, and so are all those in the House of Lords and without doubt, all those in the House of Commons.  Without doubt a Queen can be our Monarch because we have had two Elizabeth?s and one Victoria.

This Government or any UK Government is seemingly prepared to alter our Constitutional Documents because foreigners wish it to be so and to comply with new EU Legislation. Yet this is a Constitution that so many have given their lives for.  So many-yet you know already the vast majority of people want out of the oppressive European Union, a Union upon which none we elect dare allow the people a true and fair Referendum-and neither the Government, nor the people can afford-not only financially but Constitutionally, cannot afford to remain in.   

There is no point in having, paying or electing anyone for a British Government or Political Party to sit in the House of Commons that cannot Govern this Country according to its present Constitution or one that will allow strangers or foreigners to decide or determine that we cannot Govern our own Country according to its present long standing Common Law Constitution.  Had we have lost that last war, we would have had to have had a new Constitution, but many of those in that wonderful building now, would not have been born, for one Adolph Hitler would have made sure of that. As it is at present, just how much longer will the European Union allow that Houses of Parliament to have two separate Houses now that this Government has set up already the EU Regions ready for the EU?s Committee of the Regions to set their Regions, tasks?  How do you know another ?Hitler? figure will not come on the scene?  Anne Palmer.

See above JM v United Kingdom Application no. 37060/06, 28 September 2010, para.45.   

Note 10. Lord Justice Neuberger (Just a snippet-to make you think) As for the applicant's argument that her relationship came within the concept of family life, he took the view that, the European Court having considered this issue to be within States' margin

of appreciation, it was open to the domestic courts to decide the point for the United Kingdom. His conclusion was that, having regard to the relevant House of Lords case-law, same-sex relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual relationships for the purpose of Article 8. He further concluded that the relevant provision of the MASC regulations had been enacted out of respect for family life ? in this case the relationship between the absent parent and his/her new partner. Accordingly, the applicant's situation came within the ambit of Article 8. He concurred with Lord Justice Sedley that the Government had not provided an adequate justification, and agreed with the proposed remedy. (Question?  Does this also apply to our Monarchy? Same Sex Marriage?  Was I right after all in my previous paper on this matter?

I will ask you another question.  Is it right that having gone through the last war to keep our Constitution and way of life in tact, to allow foreigners now, to insist we change nine (9) parts of our long standing Common law Constitution that so many of the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and members of the Commonwealth fought so hard and gave their lives for-to keep forever untouched especially at the whim and guile of Foreigners on the Continent of Europe dictating what this British Government and Nation must do?

Anne Palmer 6.4.2013.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk