|
Dear
Len,
Been giving a bit of
thought to your email regarding the conflict between the two most crucial
elements in the Republic -v- Monarchy question, ie: the method of
how the people express their will to Parliament ---- that being via (a) a
Petition to the Queen/Head of State or
(b) a Mandate to the Head of State.
Because therein lies the
determination of how we are governed. The first is a begging letter and
the second is a direct command.
At this stage, both avenues must
be pursued because the people have no concept of either and only after loud and
public debate will they come to terms with where the power lies. If there
is no public brawling then power will remain in those "unseen hands"
of the elite.
The Monarchical argument must take
initial precedence because "under the Crown" guarantees our recognised
rights and heritage, which must be preserved and continued. In a
sense we are in a similar position to the Americans when they cut
themselves off from Great Britain in 1776 because, then, they were
desperate to keep those Common Law entitlements and frantically drew up their
own Bill of Rights for that purpose to supplement their Decalaration of
Independence and Constitution. Joe's "Alternative 3" is,
in fact, our way of doing the same thing.
By flogging the "Petition"
line, the truth of the "Mandate" line will become self-evident
because, as you describe, the Queen has been, and considers herself
to be, alienated from what is (and has been for some time) an "independent
and self-governing nation", as per the League of Nations 1920 and the
United Nations 1945.
The worst thing would be to keep it all
quiet. Therefore, I encourage the two combatants, Joe Bryant
in the "Petition" corner and Len Clampett in the "Mandate"
corner, to use the GST as the incentive to fight it out. There will
be only winners.
Yours sincerely,
John
Wilson.
|
