|
What Does The World Know About British People
Michael A Clark ‘This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth. It has been an honour to serve it.’ TONY BLAIR, MP, in his resignation speech to his constituency on 10th May, 2007, 67 years to the day from Winston Churchill becoming Britain’s wartime Prime Minister on 10th May, 1940. Leadership and governing is not the same thing, as Charles Moore wrote in The Daily Telegraph, London, for 12th May, 2007. When we reflect on the decade of Tony Blair’s presidential-style premiership, a style that Britain thought it liked for a while, we may be caused to wonder about his real understanding of the final words expressed in his resignation speech to his Sedgefi eld Labour Party supporters.
Were they words of a deeply held belief or just a frivolous play at patriotism as a final upbeat remark? Did he realize that he was speaking on the anniversary of Winston Churchill becoming Britain’s leader in war, who we know truly believed that the British people have a great Cause and role in world affairs?
It was surprising to hear these words coming from a man who after ten years in offi ce did not convey the impression that he had any real sense of history about Britain, of the role of its monarchy, the importance of Parliament and its constitutional sovereignty in respect of the European Union.
His parting act of constitutional illegality, or “EU treachery” as one press headline put it, was to sign the revised EU constitution in Brussels just 5 days before handing his resignation to the Queen. “An arrogant stitch-up… handing Gordon Brown a poisoned chalice,” as the Daily Mail, London, put it on 11th June, 2007.
The suggestion also that he may now declare himself a Roman Catholic, having left office, confuses the picture even further as to his understanding of what constitutional Protestant Britain represents in respect of ancient freedoms and faith. For a Covenant Nation such as Great Britain, with a history approaching 800 years since Magna Carta 1215, which predates Parliament and which was addressed to “the freemen of the Realm,” and 320 years in 2008 from the Declaration of Rights 1688, when Parliament was suspended, it was a very serious constitutional act of betrayal for Tony Blair to end his premiership.
In dramatic symbolism, after signing Britain up to the alien EU constitution on 22nd-23rd June, Blair went immediately to see the Pope, his last State visit as Prime Minister. It seemed just like the act of King John placing the British Crown at the feet of the papal legate. His Oath of Allegiance to the Queen and the Realm seemed to matter not. He was on his way out. Nevertheless, he was still receiving his salary and still representing the Covenant Nation of Great Britain. Historically papal blessings have proven to be curses. Was the extensive flooding that occurred just 2 days later in England on 25th June a warning of events to come, plus the new Foot and Mouth disease outbreak that followed on 3rd August?
The Blair style of spin and presentation undoubtedly produced much cynicism as to the depth of his real beliefs. He became a politician and a Prime Minister by the accidents of life and death – as in the case of John Smith’s untimely passing, who was his predecessor as Labour leader. He was not, by his own admission, a House of Commons man. He was not brought up in a party tribe and only came into politics because of an ambition to do some good. He said, especially in the case of the Iraq War, he did what he thought was right.
It is very strange, however, that in the one field in which Tony Blair never expressed much interest, that of the constitution, many fundamental changes have taken place. The relationship between the judges, government and Parliament is now in a dangerous state of flux. The pressures coming from above in Europe and from below with devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now pulling at the threads in the great tapestry of the United Kingdom.
While we may never discover the answer as to why Tony Blair uttered the words that he did about the special character of the British, what we can say with all confidence is that, knowingly or not, he actually gave witness to the identity and fulfilled prophetic reality of the British people and the Covenant Nations at large.
It will now be for Gordon Brown, as a true socialist intellectual and a son of the Manse, to face the challenge of events – as happened in his fi rst days in office as Prime Minister – and lead this British people. The very fi rst item on his agenda was the constitution, yet a statement to Parliament, his first as Prime Minister, about this, scheduled for Monday 2nd July, had to be delayed one day due to the terrorist attacks. The significance of that one day delay is set out below.
Gordon Brown, although he has an iron will, does not possess the gifts of presentational leadership possessed by Tony Blair as premier, which were very effective. Yet, as one observer put it, “Tony Blair was the first pop star Prime Minister” and he had seen enough of it. What he wanted now was quite effective and “pleasantly dull” government. Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, London (he stood down as editor in 2003 to spend more time writing Margaret Thatcher’s authorized biography,to be published after her death), in that paper on 12th May, 2007, wrote an article headed “Blair never knew how to govern – will Brown do any better?”
Moore made the point that “Government requires leadership, of course, but governing is not the same as leadership. To lead without governing is a bit like being a surgeon without the support of hospital administration …You may have long sensitive fingers and a superb bedside manner, but you will still kill the patient.”
The same is true in parliamentary government, Moore wrote: “It requires the assistance of professionals, the efficient functioning of institutions, and a feeling for history. Under Mr Blair, all [these] have been disrespected. In June 2003, for example, he took it into his head to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellorship is an office far older and more complicated than that of the Prime Minister. It includes roles that are outside politics and outside the normal run of government. It has to do with the monarchy, the Church, the House of Lords and, of course, the judiciary.
“On a Thursday evening [12th June, 2003, amid a Cabinet re-shuffl e], Mr Blair let it be known that the Lord Chancellorship was no more. Among those not consulted were the head of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Archbishops, the Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Queen.
“Fine, you might say – give all these panjandrums a smack in the eye. But in fact the decision violated Mr Blair’s own ‘What matters is what works’ soundbite. One of the consequences was that he found he couldn’t abolish the Lord Chancellorship after all.”
The Foundations of a great Covenant Nation are not easily destroyed by a Prime Minister ignorant of history
What followed was most revealing and is worth quoting at length. At a meeting of the Select Committee on Lord Chancellor’s Department, on 30th June, 2003, the following rather dramatic exchange is recorded in Minutes of Evidence:
Q2 Chairman:[to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, Lord Falconer]
Was there a moment on 12th June, somewhere between six o’clock and ten o’clock, when the Government thought they had actually abolished the office of Lord Chancellor?
Lord Falconer: [in over-confi dent manner seeking to recover from the debacle] No, I think they always knew that what was required was a phase whereby legislation would have to be passed before the Lord Chancellor’s office was abolished, so it was always known and I was appointed on the basis that I would be Lord Chancellor until the office was abolished.
Q3 Chairman: When questions have arisen both in press conferences and in the House of Lords about the full duties of the Lord Chancellor and therefore the complex processes that will have to be gone through to reassign those duties, I seem to remember seeing the words, “a lot of work is being done on this.” Does that mean that when the Prime Minister made a decision on the rapid abolition nobody had reminded him about how complicated a task it was? Lord Falconer: No, I think he was fully aware of the fact that The Lord Chancellor covered a huge range of things that he did. You will have seen the reference in the press to the fact there are something like 5,000 references in primary and secondary legislation to what the Lord Chancellor does. I cannot tell you that every single one of them has been properly identifi ed at this particular moment, but the overall range of what he does is known, the basic functions that he performs are known, and it is knowing that that led to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to transfer as many functions as possible to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or to an independent Appointments Commission, and then at the end of that process to abolish the office. Charles Moore reinforces his evidence that Tony Blair did not know how to govern by bringing us up to 2007 stating:
“Much the same thing is happening right now. In January, it was suddenly announced that the Home Office would split. We are about to have a [EU] continental style Ministry of Justice. The judges were not consulted…
“To govern, you have to understand that something existed before you came on the scene, and that something will continue after you have left it. That is why we have a Civil Service…
“There are rumours that Mr Brown will astonish us with a series of constitutional reforms. If so, I hope he will not think that the need for better governing is answered by having yet more government. This is
simply a mistake, like thinking that the rule of law is the same thing as the rule of lawyers.
“Never before in our history have we been so awash with people paid salaries to pass laws over us. But never have we had so few people who know how to run the country.”
The Day when Divine Time Measures witnessed at the inception of the Brown Premiership
Unlike 1997, when people were cheering in Downing Street for Tony Blair, the arrival of the new Prime Minister it is said could presage changes more radical than anything that has come before in respect of constitutional change.
When Gordon Brown delivered his Constitutional Reform statement to the House of Commons on 3rd July, one day after he intended, it was eleven years exactly from the announcement to the House of Commons on 3rd July, 1996, that the Stone of Destiny, the Coronation Stone, was to be returned to Scotland after 700 years. The number eleven is significant of disorder, disorganization, imperfection and disintegration.
It is also very expressive of coming constitutional debate that from the birth of Gordon Brown on 20th February, 1951, 4 x 13 x 390 plus 2 x 153 days expired on 3rd July, 2007, when he made his statement to the House of Commons for the first time as Prime Minister. The factors lined up here indicate world trouble for Ephraim - Britain connected to a double period for the Elect. The point of significance is increased when we focus on the fact that he was forced by terrorist action to delay his statement by one day so that the Divine Time Measures lined up so precisely.
A great smokescreen of deception on a grand scale was actually set out by Gordon Brown, in saying that he wants to give powers back to Parliament. What he is actually saying is that he wants to do away with the Royal Prerogative, i.e. The Queen’s Powers, which legally he cannot do as the Queen’s First Minister, by making it possible for Parliament in her name to give the Power away to Europe instead – under the smokescreen of democracy.
What is being said is that we are going back before 1688 and 1689 and the Divine Right of Kings and completing the democratic process of doing away with the Royal Prerogative. Actually this Reform process will take away the sovereign powers of the People under Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights and hand them on an increasing scale to the EU under the Treaty of Rome – a betrayal which the Barons in 1215 prevented from becoming a conquest. Who will act for the people now?
On 3rd July, 2007, we may have witnessed the beginning of the final assault on the constitutional authority of the Throne of the Lord upon Earth. The great elephant, or factor, in the room – Europe – was not mentioned, yet on the same day, Britain’s new young Foreign Minister announced that a Referendum on the new EU constitutional treaty will not be granted. The Queen has not many Powers left now to be given back to the People by the executive.
If the new EU constitutional treaty is ratifi ed, members of Her Majesty’s Government will violate their present solemn Oaths of Allegiance to the Crown and their Country. The EU will have been given the constitutional form of a state for the fi rst time and make Britons real and not just honorary citizens of an EU state. The powers of prophetic Babylon in Europe are saying that Britain is different when it comes to the transfers of sovereignty.
Britain, they are saying, must be kept in the dark over what is happening.
Where is the Leadership that knows how to Govern this great Covenant Nation?
What would Winston Churchill say now after leading the fight to keep Britain free from Nazi oppression? He would never have envisioned the surrender of the Queen’s Powers to a German-dominated EU. He spoke of the Guardian that Britain has because of the great Cause it follows and that this nation will have that Guardian as long as it serves that Cause faithfully.
Providence will not allow the present situation to stand for much longer. There will appear a factor that will prove our Cause to be undeniable.
The world does know that there is something special about the British People, but it is very puzzled as to why they seek to merge themselves with the conglomerate of European political and economic corruption.
Where is the leadership that knows how to govern this great Covenant Nation in the British Isles? Jonah, as a type of Israel, was regurgitated from the belly of hell in the whale. We must pray that the EU will become sick of Britain’s presence in its midst and vomit this called-out and separated people back upon the shores of their global responsibility – that of leading the nations in peace.
There is further evidence to these events and importantly for our own organizations in the Covenant Nations. Prime Minister Brown’s statement on the constitution on 3rd July, 2007, came exactly 88 years from the founding of The British-Israel-World Federation on 3rd July, 1919. Eight is the number of regeneration, renewal and the beginning of a new order. An important period lies ahead for our witness to the Covenant Nations.
|
Click Here for a Printer Friendly version of this article Browse our latest online articles or click here to browse our archives.
Click Here for details |
