Written by Bob Lomas
[See Part I here and Part II here]
To a great extent the destruction of the nation state was not only due to the treachery of political opportunists but because over the centuries our political system had gradually eroded due to changing circumstances, beliefs and social aspirations. Even if our laws could be forcibly upheld and our Constitution re-introduced it could hardly be maintained without the former glue, namely the accepted supremacy of the Protestant Religion binding the accountability of those entrusted to maintain its supremacy. There would also be the problem of the monarchy that willingly participated in its own treasonous destruction.
As the Western World had politically progressed and moved on during the 20th century our ancient Constitution provided the foundation for those developments at the expense of our own political and social evolution, thus creating the confusion and dilemma in which we now find ourselves. There is therefore little or nothing to be gained in attempting to recapture that which had run its essential course. Accordingly we are now obliged to seek an appropriate means of moving on.
Despite our common law Constitution which developed over some fifteen hundred years and all our laws and political structuring, the ancient Celtic principle of rule and governance by the people has remained throughout. In fact our common law Constitution has protected and upheld it despite it being an anathema to those who would rule our lives. It was however reasserted by the Magna Carta 1215 and again by the Bill of Rights 1689 and it has a name going back to Roman times. The name of that principle is ‘republicanism’.
So what is republicanism? Republicanism is a social political system in which the people hold the absolute power in the land. We the British people are still those Celts and our ancient social and political system as expressed and upheld in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights has never left us. It is to be found in our common law to which all statute is subordinate. It is to be found in the fact that the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit of the law, and it is to be found in the Saxon word ‘fair’ which expresses the fundamental principle of democracy itself and is the bedrock of western civilisation.
If the British people wish to return their country to lawful governance by the people for the people they must first assert their ancient principle of republicanism.
This will not entail ending the monarchy as the office of the monarch ceased to exist in 1972. Parliament must be exposed as the unlawful assembly it has become and the three leading political parties exposed and denounced for their treason and treachery. To pursue the challenge, a Republican party or movement, it does not matter which, must be formed. In this America was 200 years ahead of us. The Founding Fathers took with them our common law constitution and democratic republican principle which they were not ashamed to recognise and acclaim, in this they took with them the sum of their social and political history. Let us now consider the difficulties and obstacles likely to be encountered when structuring and establishing The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the biggest difficulty would be in overcoming the incredulity of the British people who have been denied the truth of the unlawful dictatorship under which they now live and persuaded by lies and duplicity that the monarchy and Parliament still have lawful legitimacy. The people must be encouraged to understand that prior to the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1972 Parliament drew its legitimacy from the Crown. Under the conditions, principle and demands of that Treaty the supremacy of the Crown was surrendered to a foreign power and the Crown is supreme or it is but nothing. It follows that from that time on Parliament has had no legitimacy whatsoever and has therefore been an unlawful assembly.
The three leading political parties must be exposed as fraudulent. The Conservative and Unionist Party is neither. It has conserved nothing, not even our national sovereignty, it openly denounces the principle of nationhood and ignored the Act of Union 1707 by encouraging devolution at the behest of its chosen foreign masters. The Labour Party is now led and controlled by money seeking millionaires who also do not believe in nationhood. The Liberal Democrat Party which is neither liberal nor democratic, as demonstrated by its insistence that the British people should have no say in their political future, believe the British people should be ruled by an unelected unaccountable foreign dictatorship.
It will not be easy to convince the British electorate, which is by and large conservative by national disposition, that the ballot box is now a sham. All three leading political parties have made clear their intention to keep the British people under the dictate of an unelected and unaccountable foreign power. To add to this difficulty the media is by and large under the influence of the anti British establishment.
We also have a politicized judiciary that would not hesitate to dishonestly denounce the truth of Parliament’s unlawful position and the abdication of the monarchy. In brief the nation is faced with a corrupt, dishonest and decadent political establishment administrating the dictates of a foreign power to an incredulous and apathetic population, which has over the past forty years been gradually disillusioned and worn down by skilful political suppression introduced by foreign laws and dictates duplicitously purported to be British law.
To the people’s advantage there is the availability of the internet to spread the truth. There is also an emerging national dissatisfaction with the status quo and a growing indignation of the political establishment. The majority of the British people want their country back. This can be achieved once the will of the majority of the people has been galvanised into taking steps to recover that which is lawfully, spiritually and rightfully theirs and this they must essentially do for it is the birth right of generations yet to come just as it was and is theirs.
When thinking of the possibility of a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, one is mindful of Queen Boudica, King Alfred the Great, Winston Churchill, Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory and all our history of which we the British people are the sum.
Let not the traitors speak for us, for we dwell amongst our own people, or we used to and will do so again.
The End
Photo by ttwff 
History as I was taught does not agree with Bob Lomas’ history. However the Celts ruled themselves, they were more or less ignored by the Romans, unless they made a nuisance of themselves in which case they were enslaved and made use of. Roman armies were withdrawn to defend the dwindling empire. The remnants were assimilated.
We were then invaded by wave after wave of tribes from the east – Europe and Scandinavia. First they plundered then they settled. Meanwhile there were Christian missionaries setting up centres in Ireland and England. At one point England was divided between Christianised ‘natives’ and Pagan Danelaw. I don’t remember all the details but by the time of the Norman invasion, England was more or less unified, nominally Christian and mainly Anglo Saxon genetically.
The whole idea of the tribe meeting and electing the leader was an Anglo Saxon custom. Ie. it had come with the invading tribes from mainland Europe. It was nothing to do with the Romans nor was it inherited from the Celts as the article implies. Nor is it a valid argument for Republicanism.
The Normans were also Christian but they were in a minority so built Castles and Cathedrals to underline their ‘superior status’. They created ‘Nobles’ to administer the Kings Rule throughout the land. But in fact they often had to accommodate the existing village moot, merely levying taxes. The feudal system was imposed, many lost their freedom. Over time, of course, barons rebelled. Some Kings were ‘good’ some were ‘bad’ and in fact Magna Carta was forced onto the Bad King by the rebellious barons.
We do have Case Law, Common Law, built up over Centuries. One fundamental article of our law is ‘no taxation without representation’. That was a main argument fueling the American War of Independence. Also it was an excuse for the British to seize Kruger’s gold fields.
I don’t know what is behind Bob Lomas’ argument that George 5th gave up the Monarch’s legitimacy. I do know that Napoleon imposed his Law Code on mainland Europe and it is quite different from the way Britain’s Legal System has evolved.
Basically in Britain everything is legal UNLESS THERE IS A LAW AGAINST IT. The EU view is that UNLESS there is a DIRECTIVE telling you TO DO IT, you must NOT do it !!
I too had always believed that statute was subordinate to common law and that the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit of the law.
On that basis, I believe that current ´hate crime´legislation can be challenged. Yet it isn´t – although it should be.
Why not? Do I, and Bob, misunderstand the relationship between common law and statute?
I was going to add that in my opinion 75 per cent of the population hadn’t deduced from history the reason for our leaving the EU and in the period since the referendum I’m pretty sure that figure will be nearer 90 per cent of the public have already forgotten or cannot instantly bring a narrative to mind.
There was a gardening pundit who used to say “the answer lies in the soil.
In the case of this three part article I think the answer lies in the heading
First for instance I read all three parts, but over three days I had forgotten the plot even though I was interested and all I recalled was Bob was inferring that our constitution had already been irretrievably compromised and that the monarchy, parliament and the lords had engineered some form of stitch up.
I agree with one of the other commenters who pointed out that he disliked the word republic or the very concept of republicanism and so do I. And even if it meant cutting off my nose to spite my face I won’t have it under any circumstances – just as I won’t have renationalisation.
But what I really meant it is in the title , it’s the bit about learning from history and change.
There is no way the necessary critical mass of the British population is going to learn anything from history, certainly not after Blair abolished it and there is certainly no way a critical mass of people is going to be TAUGHT sufficient history to want to form a dynamic movement for the form of Republicanism Bob seems to envisage in this excellent article.
To be quite honest I believe we should forget theorising and listen to uncle Harold – that’s Macmillan ” it’s events dear boy” and oh boy is there an event going on at the moment in Covid 19, the very platelets are moving and a new era will dawn and our people won’t even notice the present day is already history that should be “learned from”
On a historical point, the gardening pundit referred to was a character in the BBC Radio show, ‘Round the Horn’, circa 1962-63.
With us out of the EU, God and politics willing by the end of the year, the date of 1972 will recede into insignificance and the authority of the Crown can and will be restored. We have never been a ‘republic’ in our history except for the aberration of the Commonwealth and even that was half hearted and failed its course. We need to regain an authoritative and robust Crown untrammelled by external constraints. The monarchy works and when it’s working as it should do it is an unbeatable system of governance as it defends the people, ensures freedom under the law etc. I agree that having a more Swiss style referenda-based polity coupled with the Sovereignty of monarchy might even give us the best possible of all worlds.
In any case I would never, ever countenance a republic as a way forward. That is the road to division, curtailment and the loss of anything the Magna Carta might have had in mind.
A republic is a nation in which the people hold the supreme power in the land. This means this nation has always been a republic going back to our ancient Celtic ancestors. They chose their leaders and sacked them if things went wrong.
This principle was upheld with the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689 when the monarch was made official Governor of the nation and Head of the Executive, a political office and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 in which the monarch became the people and the people became the monarch in a marriage ceremony as a part of the coronation. From this it can be said that up to quite recently republicanism has served us rather well. The only real fly in the ointment has been the political and territorial aspirations of religious entities.
Surely by the time the Romans reached England they were an Empire with a Caesar (Emperor), no longer a Republic. In no sense did the People rule. Factions fought for power at the centre and it expanded by military might until it was destroyed by surrounding tribes learning to fight just as well.
The French revolution set up a Republic but it became a dictatorship under Napoleon.
Switzerland may well be an example of a successful republic with democratic rule by the people but look at the vast majority of so called Republics which have in fact been dictatorships or oligarchies or reverted to inherited ‘right to rule’.
Bob, you may have made some valid points but your insistence on wanting to impose Republicanism on Britain spoils your argument. Also, why have you suddenly become anti religious? So far as Christianity is concerned Elizabeth 1st insisted there should be no persecution. That is QUEEN Elizabeth 1st. The MONARCH.
As far as I’m concerned Britain has done pretty well as a constitutional monarchy right up to 1972/3 when Heath took us in to the EEC. Successive governments since then have taken us further in and fallen for all sorts of clap trap about immigration being good.
Finally 2016 we woke up. Hopefully we are in the process of getting what we want. WHY THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER ?
Please point out where I insisted we should become a republic. I pointed out where our system of constitutional monarchy has failed and that in reality we have always been a republic apart from the time of the Roman occupation.and our enforced membership of the EU. There is no point in hanging on to a system that has proved to be a complete failure. A republic is a country in which the people hold the supreme power in the land upheld by law.
I have not suddenly become anti religious, I have never been religious..
I am truly astonished by one statement ” The ability of the internet to spread the truth. “. It certainly spreads stuff, but ” the truth “, Naah..
Errr . . . Isn’t Independence Daily on ‘The Internet’ ? And there are other excellent sites.
Bob thank you for saying so well what I and I imagine many others, have been thinking.
I was especially intrigued by your comments on the word ‘fair’ which immediately brought to mind the old saying “all’s fair in love and war.” It made me realise that in the uncivilised world, which some would argue, perhaps unfairly, begins at Calais, not only is ‘fair’ a foreign concept but then so too is peace, (in the sense that it is the opposite of war). It also brings new meaning to the biblical ‘no rest for the wicked’ in the sense that it is saying they will be coming at us without ever stopping rather than that they won’t be getting enough sleep.
Those that worship at the feet of Karl Marx, Lennin and the rest of the motley crew of scoundrels, thieves and vagabonds, Satanists, child molesters and others of their ilk that hide their evil deeds under the cloak of good marketing and PR are indeed wicked and won’t ever rest. Neither must we.
However, whether this means changing the way we do things or continue doing what we’re doing but do it better I’m not so sure. But keep on we must.
Spectacularly thoughtfull, I would like to look at some of the items exercising my mind as a result.
1″ The LETTER of the law is SUBORDINATE to the SPIRIT of the law”…. I believe that the UKIP constitution and its NEC needs examination in this light.
2 ” The accepted supremacy of the protestant religion” Of which the MONARCH is head and Another reason for more light to be shone on ISLAM by our people in the absence of craven lawmakers.
3.” Republic ” I object to using the word. We are a type of republic but spectacularly different from most. Which uses the constitutional position of Monarch to control the other ambitions, and by practical alternatives to access to power. You will find that the British constitution is held together by the glue of grannies rules ( or practicality ). which have universal operation and effects.
It is the hopefully unassailable position of the Monarch that lefties all over the world attempt to undermine or mess with all the time ( Why else do you think she rules as she does ( a very clever person. An idiot could make a rights dogs breakfast )( Luckily her family are equally bright except maybe for Harry who has a lot of Diana etc to be other than well meaning )
And a written constitution is also just building up trouble for the future.
4 I had hoped before, and a few years after Nigel left. That UKIP might provide a Protest party to make some useful contributions and grow to rectify the corruption done by our Existibg party system.Hopeless. Unfortunately the entire system is corrupted by party faithful and deliberate blindness, and general ejoyment of the actuality
First of all Bob, Thank you for this three part item. – It has been easy to read, to understand and agree with. – However, unless you advocate a Civil War, how would this change and correction be implemented, as Crown and Parliament hold all the power ? ….. I remember back in my teens, I started a business which quickly grew, and produced real financial problems due to its own success. – I sought advice from a ‘Wise One’, and well remember him saying, ”Well, I wouldn’t start from here in the first place” ! ….. Really Bob, there’s the rub. – We are where we are !
Upon the return by invitation of Charles ll, Cromwell’s body was dug up, and the corpse was hung in public. – Perhaps this grewsome spectacle is required upon the corpse of Edward Heath, purely as a public act of anger at the notion of us being ruled by Europe, and the status change that was ignominiously cast upon this Nation. – Although we changed by a referendum vote, the vote was fueled by his lies, and even now there are those who would apparently prefer to stay under the EU systems of government. – There has never been a shortage of ignorance here !
Many thanks for this excellent read.
The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves just as those who drew up the Magna Carta would too if they could see how their legacies had been abused. Looking around the world perhaps Switzerland comes as close as possible to a constitution that respects the views and wishes of its people against those who seek to wrest power for their own ends
Unlike the Swiss, British people of the centre right, unlike the liberal left, are loth to get involved in politics but I do believe they would engage in referenda on important issues in the manner the Swiss do under direct democracy. Possibly direct democracy could afford the centre right, through referenda, the opportunity to halt the remarkable political advances made by the liberal left.
Excellent article thank you.
Whoop, whoop, whoop! I repeat my earlier comment – erudite and concise. Question to whoever holds the copyright (Bob or Vivian?): May I please reproduce these three parts as one article on paper as a free, fully attributed, give-away?