The rise and fall of English Democracy

Monday, November 17 2008 @ 10:28 PM GMT

Contributed by: Admin

1. The ability to self -correct.

With the election of a black president in Anglo-Saxon America has proved that it can self-correct while, at the same time, it poses many questions regarding the state of Anglo-Saxon English democracy.

Writing in ‘The Sunday Times’ of 28th September 2008, Andrew Sullivan observes:- Dictator Bush’s great illusion exposed - The President thinks he is above the law”; and explains: “There is a core principle behind Anglo-American democracy as it has evolved in the past few centuries. Which is that you cannot rely on the judgement of one man or woman, unchecked by the law, or by parliament or Congress or the press to govern a country. The reason is that human beings - all of us – are fallible. We get things wrong; our egos get the better of us; our self-interest blinds us; power corrupts us. So America’s founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that deliberation and debate would precede action. They believed that deliberation was essential to sound governance”.

2.Who voted for Tax-havens

Although English people comprise the largest sub-division of British, they have never expected to decide, or been asked to vote, on whether or not they want tax havens on British territory. The continuation of tax havens will excuse the few from the discipline to which everyone else will be subjected in order to overcome the personal, national and global problems of the ongoing credit crisis.

The representatives of the English majority claim many pre-England British monuments as English Heritage, presumably to attract support from the English majority. This is an outward sign of the retention of the perceived psychological advantages associated with the rights of feudal conquest retained to keep the original indigenous Celts of Britain under uniform central control. It has been top down control claiming the support of superior numbers passed off as democracy. Various popular methods have been employed ranging from transfers of population to the Celtic areas of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall to the unchallengeable Crown immunity claims to the property of the individual.

Recognition of the facts, open debate and modernisation is long overdue.

3. The defender of the faith

For President read Monarch and for Vice President read Duke of Cornwall. The “president king”, (The Sunday Times, 16th November 2008), the present Duke of Cornwall, is not impeachable. However, as ‘defender of the faith’ we must assume that any faith demands faith in the principle of honesty. Currently, honesty is not a publicly declared or expected duty of a British monarch.

4. Institutionalised racism

On this side of the Atlantic, the claim to absolute power is a retained feudal assumption of English racial supremacy. It is not deliberation and debate. It is not equality. It is not democracy. It is euphemised by the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission as “institutionalised racism”. (The Times, 8th November 2008). “We get things wrong; our egos get the better of us; our self-interest blinds us; power corrupts us”. (The Sunday Times, 28th September 2008).

True democracy requires, where there is an overwhelming numerical majority of one race in a multi-racial society, a clear written statement of distinct and specific rights for minorities, in particular for indigenous national minorities whose very existence has historically evoked cultural and political envy among the Anglo-Saxon majority race of Britain.

Democracy should mean that a basic statement of rights for all named minorities is a subject that should be taught in the education system of the majority people in particular. This is not the case in England. There is no one-stop written Constitution to get the ball rolling.

5. Expensive and risky judicial review

Independent experts have observed that in the UK: “Enforcement is largely confined to the CRE (E&HRC) and a failure to take substantive outcome orientated steps can only be challenged by the expensive and risky approach of judicial review”. (RAXEN 4 EU Analytical Report on Legislation, Vienna, 2004).

With regard to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, RAXEN experts observe that; “the principle of equality central to both has not yet been used to frame and shape UK legislation in a comprehensive manner and there is no individual recourse for UK individuals”.

This is the shame of Anglo-Saxon England at the beginning of the third millennium.

6. Exempt from enforcement

An accurate and truthful written one-stop British Constitution would reveal the rights of the Duke of Cornwall, heir to the throne. These would include:- The right to exercise the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments in Cornwall only, the right to control the legislative and judicial processes that might affect his interests and to claim any property historically “reputed” to be Duchy of Cornwall property. Duchy of Cornwall property is classified as ‘Crown property’ by The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 293 (1) and the Duke has exemption from the enforcement of Acts of Parliament. “No act or omission done or suffered by or on behalf of the Crown constitutes an offence under this Act”. (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 84).

7. A private estate with the motto “Ich dien” (I serve, in German)

Unofficially, Duchy land is claimed as a private estate although the Crown Estate, which operates for public benefit outside Cornwall, is not a private estate. If the Duchy of Cornwall really is a private estate, then, “Ich dien” must mean, “I serve myself”. With regard to the extent of Duchy land, the Duchy has refused to disclose a list to a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, February 2005, and by the Land Registration Act 2002 section 85 the Duchy is exempt from registering its land while the Monarch claims to own all land at section 4 of the introduction to the Act.

Was there ever such a thing as English democracy in terms of public control of the executive? Yes. The only occasion that this occurred was when the Cornish national minority won the right, in 1508, to veto Acts and proclamations prejudicial to their interests. This is currently being ignored.

8. The victim of his own successes

The influence inherent in: The standard English double tax for foreigners imposed on the tin production of the indigenous Cornish speaking minority who were, before 1838, recognised as ‘foreigners’ for royal financial gain; (‘The Stannaries’, G.R. Lewis, Harvard, 1908); and, “They began with the county of Cornwall” – (‘The Royal Demesne in English History’, B.P. Wolffe, Allen & Unwin, Exeter University, 1971); along with, ‘The Crown is the only absolute owner of land’, in the Land Registration Act 2002; the Constitutional Commission’s “special relationship between Crown and Cornwall and recognition of English overlordship” of 1973. There is also the influence of “territorial possessions” of the Cornwall Sub-Marine Mines Act 1858; and the, “shall have forever the King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments” of the 1337 second Duchy Charter. All this background information appears to have been accepted as reliable evidence when researchers observed: “The Prince (who became Charles the First, 1625-1649) may have become the victim of his own successes, believing he could govern the realm as he had the Duchy of Cornwall”. (‘The Estates of the English Crown’, 1558-1640, R.W.Hoyle & G. Haslem, Cambridge University, 1992).

The Concept of an apprenticeship lasting over a period of decades has not been entirely abandoned. ‘The Independent’ of 8th April 2002, reports “Royal reforms to develop Charles as ‘shadow king’.”. Also, “the job for which he has been trained”.
(‘The Sunday Times’, 8th November 2008).

Such training presumably entails a commitment to telling the truth in order to justify the claim of ‘defender of the faith’. Will King Charles III be ‘the victim of his own successes’ in Cornwall?

9. The King’s apprentice

The powers exercised in Cornwall by the King’s apprentice as an aspect of historical research has not been considered in standard versions of the development of constitutional power. As a suspected cause of the English civil war and the resultant execution of Charles the First in 1649 it should be a lesson to prevent a repetition.

10. The great illusion

Has there been a President Bush type ‘great illusion’ of being ‘above the law’ on the part of UK Heads of State since the seventeenth century?

It is contended that there has been a failure to investigate any possible signs of a relationship between past experiences and the possible future impact on Crown policies of currently hidden powers and prerogatives of a Duke of Cornwall as the future King. The ‘institutionalised silence’ itself exposes an inculcated national fear of raising constitutional questions. The ‘success’ in Cornwall of a royal apprenticeship over the centuries, may have already caused serious adverse social consequences and even unresolved internal and international conflicts for Britain as a whole and for minorities in particular to the detriment of the principles of Anglo-Saxon democracy.

11. Have crown immunity – forget human rights

English political resistance to international human rights may stem from the indirect influence exercised by adverse comments on human rights made by the heir to the throne. (‘The Times’, 2nd March 2006).

Such royal outbursts may be the reason behind the exclusion from domestic law of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Protocol 12 (discrimination by persons in power) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the guarantee of equality before the law in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Refer RAXEN above). Clearly, those having Crown immunity have no need of human rights.

The Crown/Cornish “special relationship” is exposed as a case of proven absolute Crown government of Cornwall by the Duke of Cornwall. Today, the details mostly remain unpublished through exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

12. Charles I - the dictatorial monarchy

Throughout the three centuries before Charles the First lost his head, the English Monarchy was virtually a dictatorship which considered the indigenous British Celts to be foreigners and consequently disloyal and suspect. Abolished feudal rights were reinstated by Charles II. English political support for Crown immunity, with its implied right to treat racial questions as disrespectful royal opposition, has been a dictatorial tool providing authority to ‘prove’ dispossession of the property of the individual with an expectation of obedient fatalistic acceptance on the part of the subject despite Magna Charta and the subsequent Nullum Tempus Acts.

Consequently, it is contended that the Duchy of Cornwall estate was created in 1337 with dictatorial powers for the Duke with the intention of securing a royal fortune and, to eliminate problems, eliminate the culture, language and economic welfare of the Cornish speaking Celtic national minority with unchallengeable royal authority.

13. Hereditary responsibilities

“King Charles should be free to speak out”. (Editorial, ‘The Sunday Times’, 16th November 2008). There have been warnings. “You cannot rely on the judgement of one man or woman”. (‘The Sunday Times’, 28th September 2008). If freedom of speech is to be a right for hereditary leaders protected by Crown immunity, then, when will the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duke of Cornwall cease to claim Crown immunity, tax exemptions, planning exemptions, control over the legislative and judicial processes and all their other prerogatives? When will the future King Charles III and incumbent Duke of Cornwall support the hereditary right of the Cornish to exist as a national minority and reveal the truth about Cornish history? When will British tax havens be abolished? Will King Charles support human rights, transparency and a peoples democracy including the prescriptive and hereditary right of the Cornish minority to veto prejudicial legislation made by the permanent English national majority at Westminster?

14. Defender of the Constitution

“Barrack Obama would never have been elected prime minister in this country because of institutionalised racism” . ( Trevor Phillips, Head of Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘The Times’, 8th November 2008).

But, Barack Obama is not the Prime Minister of America. He is the President, the Head of State. A President is required to defend a one stop written constitution which includes the right to equality before the law for everyone and provides publicly visible checks balances to prevent the abuse of power.

15. What next?

Now, where does that leave Anglo-Saxon English democracy? Self-correct, perhaps?