OPINION: we don’t need 14th century treason laws to make Brexit happen, we just need concerted will

win_20190127_120025 The Western world’s élite media set are not obsessed with Brexit: they are hell-bent on the destruction of everything Brexit is about. Cast adrift by the very politicians who claim to represent them, the People of Britain have one remaining weapon – electoral blackmail to threaten the political class with extinction.


I confess to feeling a little sorry at the moment for all those hungry cats chased up trees in which they are now stuck. All over Britain, the trees are full of felines starving to death because there’s no room on news bulletins or in tabloids for those little snippets that make us go “Aaaah!”

Although such items are always referred to as “human interest” stories, it is amazing how often they feature animals.

But for now, I see no octopus about to predict the result of the Grand National, no kittens whose best friend is a python. There is a dearth of stories about Pandas addicted to Coca-Cola, Seagulls that turned orange after falling into a vat of curry, and cheetahs with their heads stuck in the railings.

There is only Theresa May seeing green lights where there aren’t any, and no red lines where there are several.

Talking of animals, what are the media going to talk about once Brexit is settled one way or another? Granted, that could take anything from two years to a millennium to happen – by which time, no doubt, abdications, alien invasions, new black holes and a fair amount of continental drift will have gone unreported.

Yet despite the quantity of Brexitation in the media, it long ago became the triumph of impenetrable events and pointless speculation over insightful analysis and investigation by the media. It would be good, for example, if at least one major title or news channel took a long, hard look at the following.

  • Several Brexit Ministry MPs have given evidence of a damning nature to the European Scrutiny Committee, primarily on the subject of Whitehall behaviour in ignoring political orders, and then dropping the authors of said commands from internal e-memos. The following clip involves Bill Cash questioning Steve Baker. If you don’t believe my coup d’état claims, you will after watching this:


Lurching briefly into serious mode, I think this is worth turning into a major media cause. I wonder what Sloggers feel about such an idea.

  • Commons MPs took a full winter recess this year, during which the PM got nowhere with Stonehenge aka Brussels, and absolutely nothing happened for eighteen days until Parliament returned again on 8th January. Prior to that, she had postponed the Withdrawal vote for a whole month, purely because she looked likely to lose it. If that isn’t putting fun, your career and your Party before country, then I’m at a loss to know what would be.
  • Checking the coming sessions two nights ago, I was alarmed to discover that our poor dears the MPs we elect to work so tirelessly on our behalf have a half term recess beginning on February 8th for 12 days. However, House Leader Leadsome then cancelled it (citing the Brexit crisis) so the updated recess calendar today shows there’ll be no break until 4th April. This is in fact incorrect, because an MP backlash immediately forced a Government U-turn: backbenchers will now be able to skive off until the 20th if they have ‘family commitments’ aka holidays booked. Labour MP Ian Murray (a Remain activist) was especially scathing on the issue: how dare Angela Leadsome ask him – a Best for Britain pro-EU and Soros admirer – to use those days to actually do something that oor Ian dizznee wornt ti dooo? This means that after May’s key speech scheduled for February 6th, nothing – meaningful or otherwise – will happen for 14 days. 
  • Several MPs have told various media off-the-record that they have been offered funds (to help solve burning issues in their constituencies) in return for supporting the withdrawal Bill at the next attempt. I loved Tom Watson’s reaction to this today on the BBC – “I don’t think any MPs would accept such a thing” – but it only lowers him further in my estimation: he is protecting a privileged class which (as he calls himself a Socialist) really is the height of hypocrisy. The debate about this later excused MP behaviour on the basis of “it was a bribe to help their constituents, not them” – which is absolute tosh: it was a bribe to ensure their reelection to a privileged class.


Having read the points above, no doubt many among you are thinking and muttering along the lines of “treasonous bastards”. Sadly, I am here to tell you that going for treason charges in relation to any of this would be a big mistake, representing as it would a classic case of tilting at windmills. These are the realities of prosecution for Offences Against the State, and they stem from one simple, undeniable fact: apart from the thoughts of Walter Bagehot towards the end of the 19th century, the UK doesn’t have a written constitution.

  1. Almost all treason-related offences introduced since the Treason Act 1351 was passed have been abolished or relegated to lesser offences.
  2. In Autumn 2001, the British government threatened British citizens who fought for the Taliban with prosecution for treason. Nobody was tried or even accused.
  3. On 8 August 2005, it was reported that the UK Government was considering bringing prosecutions for treason against a number of British Islamic clerics who had publicly spoken positively about acts of terrorism against civilians in Britain, or attacks on British soldiers abroad. Nobody was tried or even accused.
  4. The Government considered charging hate-preacher Abu Hamzza al-Masri with treason in 2005. But in the end they went for, and got, a conviction in February 2006 for incitement to murder.

The overall drift of all this is that going for a treason charge brings in every Human Rights lawyer on the planet. I’m told by a senior chum in the Law Society that “most of us now feel the charge of treason has been shoved into a siding, with the sincere hope that no Thomas the Tank engine will ever pull it out again”.

The problem with treason as a charge is that it is rarely brought against anyone that isn’t either personally very powerful, or has powerful people behind him….for example, the Saudis in the case of Islamic atrocities.

Although the original Treason Act of 1351 has not been significantly amended, it doesn’t help us much. It was last used in 1946 to convict the radio propaganda traitor William Joyce (‘Lord Haw-Haw’) who delivered regular broadcasts from Nazi Berlin in an attempt to weaken British resistance to Hitler. The UK is not, however at war with anyone at the minute, and so this leaves (largely) archaic crimes to go for: plotting to kill the Queen, raping Prince Philip, or killing Philip Hammond. I would judge these respectively to be highly unlikely, probably impossible, and not terribly helpful, albeit likely to please many law abiding citizens across the spectrum of British opinion.

Nor is there much to be gained from going for the lower crime of petty rather than high treason, as this regulates little beyond the prescribed punishment: the Act tells us that ‘for a high treason, the penalty shall be death by being hanged, drawn and quartered [whereas] in the case of a petty treason, the penalty shall be drawing and hanging without quartering’. Why anyone in the 14th century thought not being quartered after death to be of any importance is a tricky one to divine.

There is but one treasonable offence offering hope to those in search of realistic justice: the phrase ‘adhering to the Sovereign’s enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere’.

The good news here is that Olly Robbins and his merry band have very obviously been doing that if one can establish that the European Union is an enemy. The bad news is that, on that basis, Jeremy Corbyn would be climbing the scaffold before the year is out on the grounds of his IRA connections.

Trust me people, no move to charge on that basis would succeed. Forget should: in the real world, what we’re after is will. 


As so often in contemporary Britain, only a focused attempt employing the media, concerned citizens at all levels and electoral blackmail stands even the remotest chance of success. And do bear in mind when considering that  option, pretty much every bit of inclusive reform since 1215 has been achieved by threats later codified as usage and precedent. The Clean Air Act of 1957 is the only exception I can think of in my lifetime.

So what do we all think? All I can do as usual is offer my two pennorth and gauge the reaction. If it is an enthusiastic one on a viable scale, then I think it is something worth trying. Here’s my suggestion…

It is crystal clear that a conspiracy of elected representatives, influential media gargoyles, unelected bureaucrats & various globalist slush funds are being both separately and severally employed to disobey an order given by the Sovereign power in charge of the United Kingdom.

That Sovereign power is the legislature whose majority allowed and approved the political Executive running Britain up until June 2016. The Prime Minister of that Executive David Cameron said this on calling the Referendum on EU Membership:

“My responsibility is to speak directly to the British People about staying in a reformed European Union….I think that leaving the European Union represents a leap in the dark at a time of great uncertainty….but you must decide”

Cameron could not have made more clear how much he wanted us to stay in the EU, and what a risk leaving would be.

But despite that obvious bias, a majority voted to leave.

Anyone and everyone thereafter involved in carrying through what the electorate wanted has an inherent – in some ways fiduciary – duty to honour that majority decision.

Anyone in public office deliberately opposing, blocking, slowing down or diluting that duty is guilty of dereliction.

Either our sovereign body has the right to dismiss such people from public office, or it is nothing but an onanistic talking shop.

The People were given a Right by the Sovereign power. Their will must now be obeyed.

I propose that a Movement be created with the following objectives:

  1. To demand SOVEREIGN exit from the European Union reducing EU control over British policy to 0%
  2. To fire all those who attempt while in public to dilute that
  3. To demand that a written Constitution be enacted and binding on all UK citizens in full within twelve months via a cross-Party committee subject to final approval by Referendum
  4. To use targeted and disciplined electoral tactics to scare the political class into action on our behalf
  5. To crowd-fund all and any funds dedicated to that outcome.