by John
Everyone knows that Thatcher fell in 1990. Some know that this fall was pre-ordained at Bilderberg. But how many know that a constitutional coup took place?
When Thatcher fell she was replaced by Major. But the mechanism was not a popular vote. Rather a poll of Conservative Party MPs gave the leadership of the Party to Major, along with a working majority. That makes Major the Prime Minister, right? Wrong!
The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign. While it makes sense to appoint one with a guaranteed majority in the Commons, it need not happen that way, and several premiers have carried out their duties from the Lords. (I know of one man who hoped to do just that in the 1990s.)
But the point is that from a LEGAL standpoint, the person who speaks for Britain and can contractually bind the UK is the person who has been given the seal of office by the Sovereign.
And that NEVER HAPPENED in the case of John Major. When he lost the 1997 election he left Parliament completely. He was the first ever “Prime Minister” who did not take up his place in the Lords. place in the Lords that should be his by right. And the reason is that he was acting ultra vires (beyond his powers) throughout his time in Downing Street.
Why?
The great controversy of the time was the Treaty of Maastricht. We did not know this at the time, but the reason for all the infighting in the UK was the way the treaty would impact on the status of the Sovereign. It would be completely incompatible with the Treason Felony
Act.
The British royal family did not want to repeat all the backbiting that had taken place over the Single European Act. Then the Foreign Secretary (Howe) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) resigned, and Thatcher was mortally wounded. Some bright spark came up with the idea of an impostor as prime minister and the rest, as they say, is history.
What does this mean? It means that the Treaty of Maastricht is not binding on the British. It means that no treaty signed between 1990 and June 2000 is binding on the British. It means that the Treaty of
Maastricht is defective in law, and hence invalid.
It is at this point that the European elite betrayed their people. Instead of putting the problems right, they would cover them up. Thus was born the European “constitution”.
Anybody that reads the document knows it is not a constitution. For some unknown reason it included large chunks of treaties already ratified, including Maastricht. Peter Hain even went so far as to
describe the document as a “tidying up exercise”.
None of it makes any sense. Unless you understand what the British were up to in the 1990s.