While signing away our ability to rule ourselves the Queen has not violated the constitution because Great Britain, unlike America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, does not have a written constitution, thus the problem of passing governance of Great Britain to a foreign country does not require her to face constitutional lawyers to decide whether or not there has been any violation.
What we do have is an unwritten constitution. For people that are not aware, on becoming a full member of the EU that anomaly will be righted because sometime in the near future we will be governed by the proposed European constitution.
Incidentally according to a senior EU Commission official, that there are five countries where he and his colleagues are determined to avoid a referendum on the EU Constitution, they are Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Poland. Of course all five could and some most certainly vote against the Constitution, this would obviously create even further obstacles as they attempt to find a way round the democratic votes in France and Holland.
Returning to the constitution, this constitution we have without having actually having a constitution is drawn from a number of sources, i.e. being found in the statutes such as the Magna Carter of 1215 and the Act of Settlement 1701; Laws and Customs of Parliament, Political Conventions, Case Law or constitutional matters decided in a court of law and from constitutional experts who have written on the subject.
I emphasize there is no written British constitution but there is an unwritten one based on the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament.
But let’s discuss the Queen’s treason. Treason is an entirely different kettle of fish. Treason is an offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender, in this case the Queen, owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family. Violating our unwritten constitution does not constitute Treason, but violating her oath of office does.
She has by signing one EU treaty after another knowingly or unknowingly aided or abetted the overthrow of the government of the state to which she signed an oath of allegiance at the signing of her Coronation Oath, the oath of office being. "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand"?
By signing treaties that pass that governance to a foreign power to me constitutes a crime of Treason. So the question one must ask is why she has not been tried for treason? I am glad you asked, it’s a valid question indeed.
The most blatant act of treason was to give her Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty which is the original draft constitution for the European Union.
This was so important a document that is was put to a referendum to people of France, Holland and Eire. It was a democratic choice whether to relinquish their own constitution for a European one. It was rejected overwhelmingly.
Even members of the European Commission admitted it was the same document with cosmetic changes. She has signed an illegal document to abolish our unwritten constitution in favour of a European constitution. How is that NOT treason?
Treason does not fail because many colluded together to commit the crime, The Queen, members of The House of Lords and the members of the Commons all took an oath of allegiance to Britain, the fact that we have effectually ended up with a revolutionary system that ignores the previous unwritten constitution of Britain does not mean that according to that Constitution there was no crime of treason to answer.
So in conclusion what are the chances of getting Queen Elizabeth The Last and her co-conspirators to face court on a charge of treason? Buckley’s! But for anyone who wants to achieve fame and notoriety overnight might I suggest a method of achieving this. You personally take the Queen to court on a citizens arrest to answer a charge of treason, a charge which you personally will represent yourself using legal aid.
Failing that might I suggest a class action. For a charge of treason to be heard in a court of law might make the peasants realise all is not well in this rotten Western EU province.
Now this will achieve two things, firstly notoriety is assured and secondly the public will be made aware that the Queen by her actions IS answerable to explain why she should not be charged with treason, and to explain why her actions and the actions of her politicians of taking the United Kingdom apart and handing it piecemeal to a foreign power against the wishes of an estimated 68% of her people is not a treasonous act.