gimlet,
What do you define as a treasonous act? Where in law is it treasonous to sign a treaty negotiated by your own government with your allies in accordance with their declared intention at the last GE? None of the EU member states is an 'enemy'. I don't want the treaty to be ratified, but we have to act, if it is, as it were lawful. There have been one or 2 noble attempts in the courts to slow the process, although only Wheeler caught the mood of the moment and paid full whack for top lawyers. Unsurprisingly, and fortuitously should UKIP ever get elected, it is not possible to enforce a manifesto commitment at law.
Treason has, in modern times, a specific definition in law yet to be 'declared' as there have been no recent cases. We can all play with words, as there are people who call every unlawful killing murder when the law will say manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, but it will get us nowhere. Treason is against the monarch and family, not the people. Even where the monarch is the kingdom in terms of the actions countenanced against her she herself cannot commit treason.
The Coronation Oath is defined by an archaic law (
Coronation Oath Act 1688 (c.6) - Statute Law Database )that has itself been slightly amended:
Quote:
|
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
|
The key words are the 'Statutes in Parlyament agreed on'. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was agreed on by Parliament. It went through all 3 readings and was debated and voted on in both houses. We lost. To pretend, and that is all this denial is, that the monarch commits treason or breaks her oath by signing a statute that has been debated and passed is a clear misunderstanding of simple English. The monarch could hardly reject a law passed by both houses of Parliament in accordance with the Government's manifesto-ish. If the monarch refused to sign the statute she would, IMHO, be in breach of her coronation oath (remember Victoria refused to sign an act relating to the Welsh church, which was in conflict with her oath in her opinion).