Queen refuses to sign in person Brexit delay ‘Laws’

Handout photo from the Twitter page of Yvette Cooper of the Royal Assent for her cross party bill. Photograph: Yvette Cooper/Twitter/PA Wire .

Handout photo from the Twitter page of Yvette Cooper of the Royal Assent for her cross party bill. Photograph: Yvette Cooper/Twitter/PA Wire .

Interesting that the Queen is not putting her own Signature to these supposed ‘Acts Of Parliament’.  You would imagine that Acts Of Parliament affecting the British Constitution would be of primary interest to the Sovereign.

As Britain has already left the EU on the 29th March, all the subsequent Acts Of Parliament are null and void as they are based on a wrong assumption as to the law.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/mps-and-peers-pass-new-law-on-blocking-no-deal-brexit-1-5985437

Tap Blog exclusive – details of Robin Tilbrook’s claim that Brexit delay is null and void.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “Queen refuses to sign in person Brexit delay ‘Laws’”

  1. Sussexman says:

    I just wonder whether that the fact the queen has not put her name to the Brexit delaying Bill is due to the reason that she was forced to abdicate, but left with the trappings of queen – she was not wearing the crown at the opening of this parliament. Was she forced out by the Money Power, ready for the Lisbon Treaty which kicks in, in 2020, when nation states will cease to exist in Europe? Nevertheless, they are being caught out with the own deceits, so well done in publishing the fact that the delaying bill was not personally signed by the Queen!

    • Protestant says:

      But it’s strange that she did sign all six EU treaties giving away her kingdom to a foreign power, thereby disinheriting her own children. And in giving her royal assent to the Traitor Cooper’s bill, she is supporting the whole charade, by ignoring the fact that Britain already left the EU on 29th March. As I understand it, HM is not “required” to sign anything at all against her will. What exactly would happen to her if she refused? Nothing.

  2. Tapestry says:

    It’s ironic that the attempted throwing away of Britain’s sovereignty is done in the hand of one ‘Ceri King’. The British people are sold into slavery by the hand of a complete unknown, while the Sovereign prefers not to be seen. Prince Charles on his 70th birthday was styled Our Future King. Who are the ‘us’ he hopes to be Future King of? The judiciary should reply to Tilbrook’s Writ and preserve the continued existence of Charles’ people.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.