- (1994 -Official Website - AUGUST-PT 2-2018 )-- 

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018   

       AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018       AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 5-2018         

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 6-2018        AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

*
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-    FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE

 

 

(LIBERTY-FREEDOM)

 

'By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.'

Lord Acton

1844-1902

 

 
WHY I LOATHE  BRUSSELLS
 

 

They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt. For decades Labour's Grimsby

 MP Austin Mitchell passionately campaigned against the

E U.

On the second anniversary of the referendum, his cri de coeur will cheer the

HEART OF EVERY BREXITEER.

 

 

Why I loathe Brussels: They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt, writes AUSTIN MITCHELL

By Austin Mitchell For The Daily Mail

 June 23, 2018

 

513

View
comments

 

Austin Mitchell was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015. 

A self-confessed maverick who refused to toe the party line, he has always been fiercely opposed to Britain remaining in the EU. 

Here, on the second anniversary of the EU referendum, he delivers a powerful and timely reminder of why Brexit must be seen through.

 
 

My long-held and passionate attitude to the European Union is summed up in four words — three of which are ‘the European Union’, preceded by a commonly used four- letter verb of exhortation that the Oxford English Dictionary describes as ‘vulgar’.

I’ve always been a Eurosceptic, ever since I first stumbled across the Common Market, as the EU then called itself, in 1962. I was 28, Yorkshire born and bred, and, with my doctorate from Oxford, was teaching history at a university in New Zealand. A colleague gave a lecture on the Common Market — and, to my horror, he endorsed it as ‘a good thing’.

Incredible. Almost blasphemy. Britain led the Commonwealth. New Zealand, rich in dairy products, was its antipodean farm. Europe was there for us to defeat in war. How could an Englishman be so daft?

 

Austin Mitchell campaigning for fishermen in 1978. He was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015

Fortunately General De Gaulle, the French president, agreed with me and dismissed British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s efforts to join a club he should never have applied for in the first place.

I was further comforted when a succession of British politicians came out to New Zealand to assure us that if Britain did join this alien institution then, scout’s honour, New Zealand’s access to the British market would be protected. The old relationship would carry on.

They lied. Albion can be perfidious and was particularly so when it betrayed New Zealand by joining in 1973 — egged on by Tory prime minister Ted Heath, who was so eager to get us into Europe that he did so on less than favourable terms. We were asking to be clobbered and duly were.

I was back in Britain and had switched jobs to become a journalist and a presenter on regional television when two years later Harold Wilson, the new Labour PM, called for a referendum to endorse or reject that decision. 

I voted ‘No’. But two-thirds of the country said ‘Yes’. We were staying in.

I was far from convinced this was the right decision, and my hostility increased when in 1977 I was elected Labour MP for Grimsby.

The town’s fishing industry had been ruined when the Europeans cunningly declared the seas around Britain common waters and gave other members, even landlocked Luxembourg, equal access. 

As a result, we got only a small proportion of our own fish.

I formed a Save Britain’s Fish campaign, which attracted support from all over the country.

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them.’ Which was true, but far better for us to eat them than have them gobbled by undeserving Europeans who took our jobs and the processing industry with them.

 

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them’

There was more to my scepticism about Europe than a lingering desire to catch our own fish, however. 

I believed then, and still do now, that the nation state is not only the best but the only way of advancing the cause of the people while maintaining their democratic control of the process.

There is nothing the EU can do for us that we can’t do better for ourselves. Europe is too big, amorphous, divided and powerless. 

It’s not a democracy but a plutocracy with a rootless bureaucracy, always pursuing an ever-closer union the people don’t want, yet never able to reach it.

As a concept it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense, a mirage.

The trouble was that the EU couldn’t break away from its original purpose of protecting French agriculture and boosting German industry. 

With these two states dominating, Europe embarked on a journey where few wanted to go, to an ever-closer union only the Brussels bureaucrats sought, imposing policies without democratic consent and ever prepared to overrule the people for their own good.

My basic reason for opposing membership was economic. The European Union drained Britain of jobs, money, demand and growth. 

It became a brake on our economy, not an accelerator. 

Being a deal between the interests of Germany, which needed a bigger market for its manufacturing, and France, which wanted agricultural protection for its food, the EU didn’t suit Britain, a net agricultural importer with a less modern and less well-invested industry.

The basis of British trade had been buying cheap food, particularly from Commonwealth countries, and sending them our manufactured goods in return.

That stopped after we joined. The Common Agricultural Policy required us to buy France’s more expensive food. Costs went up and every family of four lost £20 a week.

Meanwhile, Labour’s policy to boost jobs in the regions had to be scrapped because it was against the rules. What had been a surplus in our trade with Europe before we went in became a steadily growing deficit.

Our membership contributions — in effect, our payments for being damaged — went up year by year, siphoning off money to Europe, particularly to the powerful German economy, which generated ever-bigger surpluses at the expense of everyone else and particularly us.

To cap all this, Europe’s fast growth, which enthusiasts had claimed Britain would hitch up to, slowed substantially.

That’s why in my successful campaign in the 1979 General Election, I stood on a soapbox outside the Bird’s Eye frozen fish factory in Grimsby to denounce Brussels. And I’ve been doing so as vigorously as I can ever since.

But I’ve increasingly found myself out on a limb in a political class inexorably drawn to Brussels.

Europe is very attractive for those who don’t like Britain. 

For the liberal intellectuals and many of our elite, who saw themselves as cosmopolitan rather than nationalist, Europe was nicer than their brutal, xenophobic compatriots. 

Those suffering in Britain — the unions, local government and the Labour Party — came to love the beguiling hopes Europe held out for them.

They didn’t see that it had no ability to help lame dogs over stiles and that its handouts were really the nation’s own money coming back, but with the EU’s heavy costs deducted.

My views remained unchanged as the Common Market marched on, grandiosing into the European Community, then the European Union.

Major Labour figures from Roy Jenkins to Peter Mandelson went off to Brussels and found a bigger and better stage to strut on.

 

Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies. Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster

There, people actually listened to them rather than dismissing them out of hand. They came back to proclaim Europe’s benefits. 

Then Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies.

Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster. The whole system collapsed and Britain was humiliatingly forced out.

We sceptics heaved a sigh of relief, forgetting the propensity of dogs to return to their own vomit.

Instead of backing off, the EU went for an even stronger monetary union by creating the common currency, the euro.

Unable to get electoral support for ever-closer union, the EU bureaucracy tried to smuggle it in through the back door. 

A common currency, they hoped, would lead to convergence and develop the central institutions necessary to manage it.

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering.

Daft as a Liberal when it came to anything that would demonstrate his Euro-enthusiasm, he was passionately in favour of a single European currency.

Not understanding economics, he didn’t realise that Britain would be shackled by a fixed, and inevitably overvalued, exchange rate, with consequences ruinous for our weaker economy.

Fortunately, Gordon Brown, his Chancellor, saw the dangers and managed to think up five tests, failure in any of which would deny entry until the time was ripe. Which in my view it never would be.

Britain stayed out of the euro, thank heaven, leaving us peripheral to the Eurozone, the EU’s great adventure into the clouds. 

The Eurocrats persisted with monetary union, even though it forces deflation on weaker and less competitive partners. 

Britain would have been one of these if we had been foolish enough to join in.

Brussels showered money on the weaker European economies, then crippled them with unsustainable and unrepayable debt, as the Germans refused to underwrite it. Any grudging help went to save the banks, not the individual nation.

Increasingly the EU was losing its shine. Unemployment was high, with a quarter of its young people out of work.

Germany built up huge economic surpluses, which it didn’t spend or recycle to the less successful economies. 

To manage the euro, the EU needed the economic institutions of the nation state, but the Germans couldn’t accept that.

The EU could only move forward by greater federalism to create ‘ever-closer union’ but the members didn’t want this straitjacket. It was hit by the refugee crisis and couldn’t agree on what to do about it.

 

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering

It could possibly have conciliated British public opinion by delivering benefits to Britain, whose EU membership costs were spiralling all the time. 

But it wouldn’t and didn’t. It was deadlocked: rudderless and dominated by Mrs Merkel, the most cautious politician in Europe.

Yet still Britain clung to the edge of this rickety raft.

The public were told to be happy with this developing disaster, and a Euro-enthusiastic Tory-led coalition government did nothing about it.

That is, until an overconfident David Cameron buckled to pressure in his own party and announced that he would solve his party problems by renegotiating improved terms for our membership, to be endorsed by a referendum.

 

He asked Brussels for changes to make the EU more acceptable in Britain. He got nothing worth having but still embarked on what he confidently assumed would be an easy victory.

The battle of Brexit was a thrill for me. I had stood down from Parliament by the time of the referendum. I was into my 70s and had been an MP for nigh on 40 years.

Suddenly I was in demand again. 

As one of the few survivors of that rare breed, the Labour Eurosceptic, I was hauled into debates to provide a balance to overconfident Euro-enthusiasts who couldn’t believe anyone would be insane enough to want to leave the Franco-German condominium.

It was the best fun I’d had for years. It was marvellous to harangue large audiences who were with me, for a change, rather than sitting there in stony-faced silence as Labour audiences had.

Even more wonderfully, the campaign ended in triumph. To the amazement of Cameron and the rest of Britain’s elite, he lost. The British electorate, two-thirds of whom had voted to stay in 1975, had changed its mind.

Victory was a strange new phenomenon. It had never happened to me before. I was as euphoric as any politician is ever allowed to be.

What happened, though, was in fact a peasants’ revolt rather than a triumph for my arguments.

 

The people, angered by cuts, stagnant living standards, de-industrialisation and austerity, used this unaccustomed power to express their unhappiness not just at Europe but at three decades of neo-liberal politics and globalisation which had done little or nothing for them.

The educated and the liberal middle classes had come to identify with Europe as part of their privileged way of life, and supported a union that they saw as the symbol of enlightened internationalism and civilised (ie their own) values. 

The less well-off, the less educated and the people who’d been left behind felt differently.

Britain’s elite were shocked by the nation’s rejection of their wisdom and advice. George Orwell once remarked that ‘England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality’. 

That remained true of the liberal intellectuals, who’d given up on Britain and saw Europe as the future.

For the people to reject the EU just showed how irredeemable the British were.

It was, as they saw it, a surrender to racism, xenophobia, insularity and everything liberal intellectuals dislike in their own people.

On the other hand, Eurosceptics like me saw the vote as the result of a 40-year learning experience.

For me, the referendum result was the turning point I’d hoped for since 1979. The people had achieved what the politicians had failed to do. 

It’s a shame it took so long and that so much damage was done before it came. Winning is rare in the political game. But it’s nice.

It has not, though, led to any belated acclaim coming my way. After the referendum, invitations to speak dried up as if I’d been a personal friend of Jimmy Savile. 

The Guardian lost every article I sent them (as it had before, but now without explanation or reply).

The BBC, which had used me as a tame Brexiteer throughout the campaign, once it was over immediately replaced me with a Muslim to keep up their other diversity targets.

As for what lies ahead of us, the EU’s intransigence and the weakness of an insecure Government in negotiating are making withdrawal messy and difficult. 

The Remainers don’t help. 

They denounce the vote as the result of fear, ignorance, even Russian deceit, and have unleashed another, even bigger tide of fear about the consequences.

They do everything they can to discredit the British case for withdrawal, to shackle, soften and weaken the Government’s negotiating position and to collude with the EU to resist it, in the hope that eventually the people will give up their foolishness and stay, unhappily or not, in the promised land.

The Brexiteers, in contrast, can only wait and see, hoping for a good outcome which can’t emerge until negotiations end.

The British Government has been weakened by its second election and Remain’s long rearguard action.

The EU Commission, struggling to keep its rickety show on the road and facing unmanageable difficulties in Eastern Europe and Italy, wants to punish Britain pour décourager les autres.

These are the symptoms of an impossible negotiation. I fear that the account by the former Greek minister of finance, Yanis Varoufakis, of the way the EU crushed his country’s aspirations may well be an omen of what’s to come.

Intransigence, delay and simple bloody-mindedness were their weapons — and clearly still are.

Those who believe they have a divine right to rule don’t give up easily. Nor must we.

  • Extracted from Confessions Of A Political Maverick by Austin Mitchell, to be published by Biteback on July 3 at £20. © Austin Mitchell 2018. To order a copy for £15 (25% discount), call 0844 571 0640 or go tomailshop.co.uk/books. P&P is free on orders over £15. Offer available until July 9, 2018.

 

*  *  *

 June 23, 2018

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

 

A Message to Members of ALL Eurosceptic Parties- WE NEED YOU NOW!

 

The People of our nation are now in a final battle to save their Ancient Constitution which can only be successful if all members of all other euro-sceptic parties of what ever its position whether to the Right or Left of the political scene to put their own full weight behind the UKIP at the General Election in May 2005.

 

Only those who are interested in ‘empire building’ will seek to contest the forthcoming General Election in 2005.  All we are asking is that on this critical time in the life of our nation we need all hands to the wheel to show all politicians that their cosy game of power politics will take second place to the People’s right to claim back their inheritance before the so-called Democratic parties have the opportunity to finally sell us –and our Country.  

 

Those eurosceptic parties who put their own ambitions first before the safety of the Constitution which has enabled them to participate in the political arena will have themselves to blame if because of their obstinacy that all is undone and their ability to contest further elections will be placed in jeopardy by Brussels.

 

We hope that there will be a spontaneous resolve by all members of other eurosceptic parties to work together to achieve what we all want-an Independent Nation-State with control of our Borders and our Defence and the return of our Fishing Fields and so much more which will be within our grasp if we for this crucial time in our long history we think of ourselves as Britons and Unite Together for the Country we all Love.

 

Let us all show the politicians who over 33 years have drip–fed our ‘Rights and Liberties’ to Brussels that we now say ‘Enough is Enough’ and we now demand back that which has been taken from us by

Deceit and Lies.

We are aware also of our DUTY to our Ancient Constitution and Country    

                         12/04

 

Don’t let your children and their children down –but protect their Inheritance- in trust from the past.

 

*

 

‘We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor for honour but for that freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.’

 

(From the Arbroath Manifesto sent by the Nobles and Commons of Scotland to the Pope in 1320)

*

TO PROTECT YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CONSTITUTION

 

VOTE

UKIP

 

THE PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO LEAVE THE EU

 

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

[ADDITIONS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1583

*  *  *
  

Britain booms as trade exports hit a record high of £616BN with ministers heralding surge in growth a good sign for the country's future post-Brexit

  • International Trade Secretary Liam Fox says Britain has defied expectations
  • Figures show that 55 per cent of exports in 2017 were to non EU countries
  • British exports to China, India and Oman have increased in recent years

By John Stevens Deputy Political Editor For The Daily Mail

August 5, 2018

 

Britain's exports around the world boomed to a record £616 billion last year, official figures have revealed.

Ministers last night heralded the growth surge, which shows the trade deficit is narrowing, as a vote of confidence in the country ahead of Brexit.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said Britain was continuing to defy expectations two years on from the referendum vote to leave the EU.

 

Figures show that 55 per cent of exports in 2017 were to countries outside of the EU and have seen growth in recent years

The figures showed that 55 per cent of exports in 2017 were to countries outside the European Union, with the US representing almost a fifth of sales.

Overall exports of goods rose by 13 per cent to £339billion, while services increased by 7 per cent to £277billion.

The total trade deficit – the difference between UK exports and imports – narrowed by £5billion to £25.8billion. 

The US remained the UK’s top export market, buying over £112billion worth of goods and services in 2017, an increase of 8 per cent on the year before.

 Other top markets included Germany, France, the Netherlands and Ireland. 

Exports to Germany totalled £56.8billion last year – the second highest figure after the US. For France the total was £40.4billion, the Netherlands £39billion and Ireland £34billion.

British exports to China jumped to £22billion, a 29 per cent rise from 2016. It is now the UK’s sixth largest export market, accounting for 3.6 per cent of sales last year compared with less than 1 per cent in 1999.

Trade with India also increased, with the UK exporting £6.7billion there in 2017, up nearly a fifth from £5.7billion in 2016.

 

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox (pictured) said Britain was continuing to defy expectations two years on from the referendum vote to leave the EU

 The fastest growing export market for the UK since 2010 was Oman, with sales in goods and services rising 354 per cent to £3billion.

This was followed by Macedonia, which grew by 318 per cent to £1billion and then Kazakhstan which was up by 210 per cent to £2billion. 

Dr Fox, who has just returned from a nine-day trip around the world to boost trade, said: ‘British goods remain in global demand as exports to non-EU countries continue to grow.

‘It shows the confidence the world has in our goods and is important as 90 per cent of [growth in] global trade will come from outside EU.

‘As an international economic department, we have a dynamic and experienced team who will negotiate free trade deals and make a success of Brexit.

‘We’re also supporting UK businesses in exporting more and talking to international businesses on why we should be the top destination for investment.’ 

The International Trade Secretary began his latest mission in Washington a fortnight ago, before flying to San Francisco and then Tokyo.

 

Liam Fox met with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and described their meeting as the 'most positive' he has had in his latest mission

He said the talks in Japan were among the ‘most positive’ he has had. While there he met Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the country’s economy minister Toshimitsu Motegi and local business leaders.

Brexit supporters last night said the latest trade statistics should be ‘another nail in the Project Fear coffin’. 

Remainers had claimed that exports would suffer if the UK backed leaving the EU.

Tory MP Anne Main said: ‘This is really encouraging news and highlights the confidence countries all across the world have in our markets and goods.

‘The overwhelming majority of future growth will come from outside the EU.

‘We should grasp the opportunity of Brexit and expand our trade with the rest of the world.

‘This is another nail in the Project Fear coffin which should have been dead and buried a long time ago.’ The International Monetary Fund has said that 90 per cent of growth in the next decade will be outside the EU. 

 

 

 

 

THE NON-EU TOP TEN

 
US                           £112.2b
CHINA                    £22.3bn
SWITZERLAND      £19.0bn
JAPAN                    £13.5bn
HONG KONG          £11.4bn
AUSTRALIA           £10.8bn
CANADA                 £10.0bn
SINGAPORE             £9.6bn
SOUTH KOREA         £8.2bn
TURKEY                    £7.8bn
Brussels 'must help UK'
  Brussels could breach its own laws if it fails to help Britain with Brexit, Whitehall sources said last night.

Pointing to the Lisbon Treaty which requires the EU to pursue a policy of 'prosperity and good neighbourliness' with bordering states, one insider told the Daily Telegraph: 'The way they are behaving is making things difficult. We left under the Lisbon Treaty, which says they have an obligation to help us.'

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis told the paper: The Lisbon Treaty requires then to come up with a workable arrangement and that's certainly not a description of their behaviour at the moment.

Meanwhile International Secretary Liam Fox has said there is a 60 per cent chance Britain will leave the EU

WITHOUT A DEAL.

He claimed Brussels is more worried about this option than the UK.

And he argued Britain's 'negotiating hand is getting stronger every day'.

[THE

BEAST of BRUSSELS

cannot be shown to be reasonable to the UK because to do so will encourage other captive once NATION STATES to decide to FOLLOW the UK in order to PROTECT their TOTTERING economies which will even affect CREDITOR economies who will have to fill the gap with the loss of the UK's major contribution to the EU.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

August 6,2018

H.F.1645/1

 

Britain booms as trade exports hit a record high of £616BN with ministers heralding surge in growth a good sign for the country's future post-Brexit

  • International Trade Secretary Liam Fox says Britain has defied expectations
  • Figures show that 55 per cent of exports in 2017 were to non EU countries
  • British exports to China, India and Oman have increased in recent years

By John Stevens Deputy Political Editor For The Daily Mail

August 5, 2018

 

H.F.1645

*  *  *

Conservative Friends of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Conservative Friends of Israel, abbreviated to CFI, is a British parliamentary group affiliated to the Conservative Party, which is dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel. CFI is an unincorporated association. It also seeks to strengthen ties between the British Conservative Party and the Israeli Likud party.

It was founded in 1974 by Conservative MP for Bury and Radcliffe, Michael Fidler. It is currently chaired by Stuart Polak. The Parliamentary Chairman is James Arbuthnot, the Parliamentary President is Baroness Shephard of Northwold. The Vice Chairmen are John Butterfill and James Clappison, the Secretary is David Amess, the Officers are Alistair Burt, Lee Scott, and Theresa Villiers, and the Chairman of CFI Europe is Timothy Kirkhope.

In 1995 Conservative politician Robert Rhodes James called it "the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel".[1]

By 2009, according to the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches – Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, around 80% of Conservative MPs were members of the CFI.[2] In 2013, Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator called CFI “by far Britain’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group”. The same is true of AIPAC in the US.”[3]

 

 

Activities[edit]

The group's 2005 strategy identified the following areas of activity: supporting Israel, promoting the British Conservative Party, fighting terrorism, combating anti-semitism, and promoting peace in the Middle East.[4] According to their website, "over two thirds" of Conservative MPs were members of Conservative Friends of Israel in 2006.[5] In 2007 the Political Director stated it had over 2000 members and registered supporters.[6] In 2009, at least half of the shadow cabinet were members of the group according to a Dispatches documentary.[7]

Their website states the opinion that it is one of the fastest growing political lobby groups in the UK.[8] According to the Dispatches documentary, between 2006 and 2009 the CFI funded more than 30 Conservative parliamentary candidates to visit Israel.[7]

In 2012 CFI reconstituted itself as a private company limited by guarantee.[9]

CFI annual business lunch[edit]

David Cameron, then newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, addressed the CFI annual business lunch on 30 January 2006, whose audience included half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party. As part of his speech, he stated "I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party. Israel is a democracy, a strong and proud democracy, in a region that is, we hope, making its first steps in that direction."[10]

Former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith[11] and Michael Howard[12] have addressed the CFI lunch.

The British Pakistani MP Sajid Javid has also made business lunch speeches which have been positively received by the CFI, the Jewish Chronicle even reporting Javid as a future Prime Minister.[13]

Donations[edit]

The Dispatches documentary claimed members of the group and their companies have donated over £10 million to the Conservative party between 2001 and 2009. The group called this figure "deeply flawed" saying that they have only donated £30,000 between 2004 and 2009 but that members of the group have undoubtedly made their own donations to the party. Dispatches described the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".[2][7]

Members of CFI[edit]

According to the CFI website 80% of Tory MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.[14]

In alphabetical order, members of Conservative Friends of Israel include:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Peter Oborne (12 December 2012). "The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  2. ^ a b Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, Channel 4, Monday 16 November 2009
  3. ^ Peter Oborne, Iran nuclear deal: ill-informed friends of Israel are refusing to face facts, Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2013, accessed 10 August 2015
  4. ^ CFI INFORMED Magazine, Second Edition (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, February 2007, p. 3, retrieved 29 May 2008 [dead link]
  5. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel – About Us
  6. ^ Robert Halfon (27 September 2007). "Introducing the CFI". ConservativeHome. Retrieved 20 August 2012. 
  7. ^ a b c Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 16 November 2009. 
  8. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel web site
  9. ^ "Companies House WebCHeck - CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL LIMITED". Companies House. Company No. 08114952. Archived from the original on 29 December 2008. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  10. ^ CFI INFORMED Weekly Briefing (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, 3 February 2006, retrieved 25 May 2006 [dead link]
  11. ^ Duncan Smith: Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists, Conservatives.com, 10 December 2001
  12. ^ "Howard Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel, at the Savoy Hotel, London". Conservatives.com. 6 December 2004. Archived from the original on 12 December 2004. 
  13. ^ http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/94117/muslim-tory-mp-after-britain-israel-best
  14. ^ a b "About CFI". Conservative Friends of Israel. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  15. ^ "Ministers "will change" war crimes arrest law". Jewish Chronicle. 8 July 2010. 
  16. ^ "Altrincham and Sale West: Election 2010". Jewish Chronicle. 29 April 2010. 
  17. ^ "UK: Evangelical Christian appointed new UK Middle East Minister". The Muslim News. 15 May 2010. Archived from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  18. ^ "British MPs furious after Israel President Shimon Peres accuses the English of being anti-semitic". Daily Mail. UK. 1 August 2010. 
  19. ^ a b "Cameron's Cabinet: Who are they?". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  20. ^ "Mike's Biography". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  21. ^ "William Hague's Schmooze With The Jewish News". Totally Jewish. 25 March 2010. 
  22. ^ a b "Ministers lose seats in the East". East Anglia Daily Times. 7 May 2010. 
  23. ^ Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. 
  24. ^ "About Conservative Friends of Israel". cfoi.co.uk. Retrieved 22 September 2011. 
  25. ^ "Eric Pickles to lead MPs’ delegation to Israel". Jewish Chronicle. July 24, 2015. 
  26. ^ "Rifkind elected as Kensington MP". Jewish Chronicle. 7 May 2010. 
  27. ^ Sloan, Alaistair. "Ed Miliband will back Israel". Middle East Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2015. 

External links[edit]

 

[GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH ALL FOREIGN POWERS BUT IT  IS NOT HEALTHY IN A DEMOCRACY THAT  THERE IS UNDUE INFLUENCE IN  RESPECT OF LOBBYING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO'S PRIME OCCUPATION IS TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT FOREIGN DOMAINS OF WHICH WE MAY HAVE REASON  TO CENSOR OR EVEN TO ENTER INTO CONFLICT.  IN A DIVISION IN THE HOUSE WHERE DOES THEIR LOYALTY LAY -TO ENGLAND OR ISRAEL- OR  TO WHOSOEVER?  IN VIEW OF THE CENTURIES ZIONIST HOLD ON THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION AND NO DOUBT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS AROUND THE WORLD IT MAY USE POWER TO FURTHER ITS OWN AGENDA AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF FREE NATION STATES. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE THERE IS NO 'FRIENDS OF ENGLAND' LOBBY GROUP IN PARLIAMENT LOOKING AFTER THE INTERESTS OF THE  ENGLISH PEOPLE.  IF THERE HAD BEEN IN THE 1970'S OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO A FOREIGN POWER -OUR ENEMY IN TWO WORLD WARS-GERMANY.

ADDED JULY 28,2018

AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE EU WITHIN 6 MONTHS. NOT STILL IN AFTER 2 YEARS WITH AN EXIT DATE OF MARCH 29,2009.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 21,2017

H.F.1355

*  *  *

H.F.730

 

*  *  *

www.eutruth.org.uk

['A MATTER OF FACT!'. 

A REMINDER TO REMAINERS WHO IN THEIR MILLIONS REFUSED TO PUT FREEDOM AND COUNTRY-CULTURE AND CONSTITUTION

FIRST!]

H.F.1585/1

*  *  *

 

[WHAT WE ARE ESCAPING FROM IN 2018]
 

Daily Mail

Friday, October 14,2016

 

EU has 'Sesame Street accounting'

 

 The European Union was accused of 'Sesame Street Accounting' yesterday as auditors

FAILED

to give a clean bill of health to £4.9 billion of Brussels spending.

Billions poured into the bloc by countries such as Britain was squandered on ineligible projects and non-existent schemes, according to the European Court of Auditors' annual report.

It means the Brussels accounts have not been given the all clear for

22 YEARS

Among the examples blasted by the report was £14,900 given to a youth club in Azerbaijan which auditors were unable to trace, suggesting the money had disappeared altogether. And in Romania , £137 million in animal welfare payments were ineligible to farmers who pledged to treat livestock better. Alarmingly, in Slovakia a company charged to the EU the cost of building materials at six times the going rate.

Ukip MEP Johnathan Arnott said: 'These examples of waste would make you think the EU is being run by Count von Count from Sesame Street.'

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, president of the European Court of Auditors, said: 'People cannot even begin to trust EU INSTITUTIONS if they do not believe we care looking after their money.

Full article

*

HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL

 

H.F.1002 BREXIT BY MARCH 2017

 

*  *  *

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

Menu

 
 

2017-10-20

Letter to the Editor – A Note on “Jewishness” and Zionism

By  White Dragon Society  6 Comments

Hello Ben,

I read the complaint of the individual objecting to your use of the term “Jewish” in your description of events last week.  There is, I think, reason to differentiate carefully between the term “Jewish mafia” and the Italian Mafia.  They are not necessarily correct analogs.

In the case of Jewish people, one awful risk they face, which apparently is largely unseen by many of them, is the Zionists.  The Zionists are the Jewish mafia, and it is apparent to me that they are hiding behind the Jewish religion as a front for their activities.

This places Jewish people in a terrible position of “shield.”  And in order for an entire people to serve as that shield, they often express strong belief in support of the Zionists, apparently not understanding that in no way does Zionism serve the Jewish religion.  I don’t think Italians have anywhere near this level of identification with their captors.

Just a thought.  As a friend to all people, I find this situation very aggravating, as any negative criticism of Zionism very often incites attacks decrying “anti-Semitism.”  (As you pointed out, a misnomer.)  Actually, most people identifying with Judaism today have nothing to do with Semites.  They’re effectively Khazarians filtered through European bloodlines.

 

2017-10-19

Possible Upcoming False Flags, Crisis Actor Recruitment

By  White Dragon Society  8 Comments
Information contributed by readers:

The pizzagate investigators at Voat found something really suspicious on Twitter:
Recruitment for crisis actors for a disaster event scheduled for 10/31-11/2 in Oklahoma City.
 http://work4hds.com/apply/

Also, a suspicious Craigslist ad related to the planned action by Antifa on 11/4.  Orangeburg area:
 https://columbia.craigslist.org/gov/d/need-people-for-role-players/6351154067.html

 

2017-10-19

Letters to the Editor

By  White Dragon Society  7 Comments
Hello Benjamin:

I am a subscriber and appreciate your contribution to current events.  However, I am disturbed that today for the second time in a short period you have seen fit to include quotes from sources that use the term “Jewish” in a way that seems inaccurate and incendiary.  I know there is indeed a Jewish mafia.  But there is also an Italian mafia, and their behavior doesn’t get tied to their religion.

I appreciate your use of the term Khazarian, for example.

Yes, I am Jewish… a truth seeker… and very unhappy with Zionism, the situation in Israel, the treatment of Palestinians, and rationalization of such treatment.  I agree the cabal and all of its engines need to be eliminated.

I am very happy to see the pedophile and sexual predator nightmare getting unveiled.

But just because so-called Jewish names are so easily identifiable, it is important to resist the superficial conclusion that having a Jewish name is part of the true problem.  Let’s resolve to find the true roots of all of this sickness and change our world to leave that sickness behind.

I appreciate your use of the term “pseudo-Jewish” as well.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Hello:

First of all, please understand that my mother’s mother was Jewish and my father’s mother is Jewish, so technically that makes me Jewish, too, although I do not like the word Jew, which was created in the 17th century.  My family was never ruled by the Torah or Talmud, but were atheists and thus forced to live within the ghettos in order to survive.

In any case, the reason “Jewish” appeared in that context in my report was because it was in a quote, and I felt it important to convey to readers the thinking of this source.

I have repeatedly explained to would-be anti-Semites (“Semite” is also a problematic term since it includes Arabs) that just because most members of the Mafia are Italian, it does not mean most Italians are Mafiosi.  In the same way, while Jewish gangsters are all Jewish, most Jews are not gangsters.

Trust me, there is no way we will allow for innocent people to be hurt because of the actions of a few high-level criminals.

Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Fulford

 

Hi Ben,

Do you still insist there is a coalition between Russia and the USA fighting against ISIS in Syria?  Every serious news talks about the war crimes the USA has been committing in Syria.  Just take the recent bombing of Rakka and murdering of many innocent civilians.  Or news claiming the Americans are saving senior ISIS leaders and taking them away from Deir es Zor at night together with their families.  Or killing Russian General Asapov by the American spetsnaz.  There has been no such thing as Russian-American coalition in the Middle East, unless you accept the fact the American army is badly split into the good guys and the bad guys, which is extremely dangerous.  What do you say?

Sincerely,
Vlad

 

Hello Vlad,

It is a sad truth that Western mercenary armies working for oil companies and the Zionists have been doing very bad things in Syria and the region.  The fact is the U.S. is bankrupt and needs to keep stealing oil in order to survive.

However, the people at the top of the U.S. military are now trying to do the right thing in my view, and at the very least they are determined not to let the Khazarians start World War 3.

The U.S. military did tell me they had a deal that Russia’s zone of influence was supposed to be to the west of the Euphrates and the American zone to the east of the Euphrates.  I guess they felt the Russians broke that deal when they crossed east of the river.  However, it is also a fact that the Americans are breaking international law by being in Syria in the first place.

I think a big meeting will be needed to determine once and for all how to divide up the oil and gas in the region.  Also, of course, the rogue state of Israel needs to be forced to give up their plans for creating a greater Israel and instead do what international society has been asking them to do since 1967, and that is to reach a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians.

Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Fulford

 

2017-10-16

Summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un Being Negotiated as Khazarian Mafia Attempts to Start War Fail

By  White Dragon Society  206 Comments
The Khazarian mafia’s rule by murder, blackmail, bribery, and propaganda is being systematically dismantled in ways that can no longer be denied.  These fanatics, who wish to force human history down a path to destruction based on ancient books, have failed yet again in recent efforts to start World War 3.  This was seen in North Korea, in Kurdistan, and in Iran as their increasingly desperate gambits are checked at every corner.

In the case of Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump was threatened and blackmailed into renouncing the nuclear deal with Iran, but facing opposition from the military as well as top allies, all that Trump could do was to appease the Khazarians with bellicose rhetoric.  Even Trump’s rhetoric was met with a statement by the leaders of top U.S. allies the UK, Germany, and France contradicting Trump’s claims that Iran was breaking the nuclear deal.

The statement read in part that the deal “was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231.  The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s compliance with the JCPoA through its long-term verification and monitoring programme.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/declaration-by-the-heads-of-state-and-government-of-france-germany-and-the-united-kingdom

In other words, they were telling Trump not to start a war based on lies.  This is something I have never seen the like of in many years of watching diplomatic statements.

In fact, the only country to support Trump’s bellicose rhetoric was the rogue Khazarian slave state of Saudi Arabia.  In any case, Saudi Arabia’s satanic rulers are about to lose their main protector, as Israeli police close in on satanic pseudo-Jewish Israeli leader Benyamin Netanyahu.

The attempts by the Khazarians to use North Korea to start World War 3 are also failing.  Last week two senior Japanese politicians made a secret visit to North Korea to negotiate a summit meeting between Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un when Trump visits Asia in November, according to a source close to the Japanese imperial family.

This meeting, if it takes place (a final decision is pending), would probably pave the way for a peace deal as well as reunification of the Korean Peninsula.  However, an even bigger announcement than that may also be in the works.  According to senior Pentagon and Asian Secret Society sources a decision to

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.
 

2017-10-13

Cryptocurrency State of Play – Special Report from the WDS

By  White Dragon Society  31 Comments
(Some sections translated from Chinese)

The purpose of this article is to summarize the financial and economic state of the world and the potential for cryptocurrency technologies to replace existing financial systems.  We delve into some of the many interesting new cryptocurrency startup projects that are springing up, and also explore the more esoteric and nefarious side of the growing cryptocurrency world.

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.
 

H.F.1355/2

 

  *  *  *

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 
 

 A REMINDER!

[WHAT ENGLAND IS

 ESCAPING FROM SINCE JUNE 23, 2016.]

 

*

 

 

EU DICTATORSHIP EXPOSED - no codex genocide!

 

                        EUROPEAN DICTATORSHIP

 

                                The Treaty of Rome

 

          The Final Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire

 

 

In the words of Winston Churchill and in reference to Stanley Baldwin who was Prime Minister at the time (exporting Rolls Royce aero engines to Germany) prior to the outbreak of World War II he spoke the following words:

 

“Whose in charge of the clattering train?   The axels creak and the couplings strain; the pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s ear and the signals flash through the night in vain for death is in charge of the clattering train”

                          

 

The Take-Over of Britain

 

On 1st January 1973, Conservative British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the European Common Market.   Heath reassured Parliament and the British people at the time that British sovereignty would not be affected and that we were just joining a trading partnership.   His 1971 government White Paper stated the following:

 

“There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty…  The British safeguards of habeus corpus and trial by jury will remain intact.   So will the principle that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty.”

 

Subsequent papers came to light, which unequivocally show that Edward Heath recognised that he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal Europe.

 

In a 1975 public referendum, reassured by their politicians and a politically biased media that all was well, the British voted 67% to 33% to remain inside the Common Market.   Later, it emerged that many sections of the British media were involved with promoting only favourable stories about the common Market.  Few opposing views were given an airing.

 

The post-war move towards European integration was to strengthen a devastated Europe as rapidly as possible and prevent any Soviet incursion.

 

The first form of collective integration among nations in Europe occurred in March 1951 with the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community, which established a single market for steel, iron, coke and coal among the six participating nations:  France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Holland and Belgium.

 

This union was later expanded by the Treaty of Rome into the European Economic Community, which set up a ‘Common Market’.   This treaty’s subtitle has always been ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’.   Politicians have always understood this to mean the destruction of their nations’ sovereignty and the eventual formation of a United States of Europe.   Even their populations are clear on this issue.

 

British politicians, both Labour and Conservative, have not been so forthcoming.   They have consistently misled the British people by repeatedly claiming that our involvement was trade-based only, and would never lead to the destruction of Britain as a sovereign nation.

 

Today, the UK’s three leading political parties are all in support of dismantling Great Britain.   At no general elections in the past 25 years have the British people ever been given a clear choice on Britain’s European membership, with all the options, including withdrawing from the EU altogether.  

 

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Greenland are not members of the EU and are doing very well on their own today.

 

Later amendments to the Treaty of Rome gradually stepped up the transfer of power and control of Britain from Westminster to Brussels.   These further treaty amendments were:

 

                   The Single European Act   -1986

                   The Treaty on European Union (‘Maastricht’) – 1992

                   The Amsterdam (Consolidated) Treaty – 1997

                   The Treaty of Nice – 2000

 

Through these further treaties, the original Common Market has gradually been changed into the European Union of today.   The British people have never given their consent, nor have properly understood the implications of the European Union.  

 

Today, Britain has been part of the European Union and its forerunner structures for a little over 30 years, yet there are few realistic benefits we have enjoyed for the massive expense and damage our membership has cost us.

 

The burdensome value-added tax was set up in Britain in anticipation for our forthcoming membership to the Common Market.   Most don’t know that VAT is an EU levy and not a national tax.

 

Your Citizenship

 

Upon signing the Maastrict Treaty, John Major declared that there would be  “…no further surrender of sovereignty.”  However, as soon as his ink was dry, millions of us ceased being British and became citizens of the European Union.

 

With this came all the rights and privileges of being a European citizen (not explained to the British people) as well as the duties and obligations of European citizenry according to the laws of Brussels.

 

In the blink of an eye, the British lost the right to do anything they please, as long as it was not forbidden by British law, and henceforth are only able to do those things specifically allowed by European directive and regulation.

 

While it is true that these laws are not currently being stringently enforced by Brussels, who’s prepared to wager that after the cooling-off period, the screws won’t be tightened slowly but progressively as time passes?    This is the way the European Union has historically operated.

 

Defence

 

Maastricht also articulated the EU’s desire to forma a common European Army.  Once more, the wording was weasely and circumlocutory and talked of a ‘common defence policy’.   Then we see the formation of something called a ‘Rapid Reaction Force’, supposedly only for operations outside the European Union.   Today, this has morphed into the ‘European Army’.   With the command restructuring of British troops under foreign officers underway, this will also mean foreign troops and police on British soil.

 

Law

 

Maastricht introduced far-reaching changes to our judicial system.   After Maastricht, Britain’s supreme court ceased to be the House of Lords and became the European Court of Justice (ECJ).   Once again, the transfer of power and visible jurisdiction has been slow and non-threatening, but today, European law has 100% legal supremacy over British law and Burssels holds almost all the law-making powers applicable to our nation.

 

 

 

Single Currency – Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)

 

Maastrickt also laid out a schedule for complete European economic integration (known as Economic and Monetary Union – EMU) using a single currency, formerly known as the European Currency Unit (ECU), now known as ‘the euro’.   The increased drive towards establishing a single currency across the Euro zone is perhaps one of the most significant factors to emerge from Maastricht.   Since 1992, the pound’s days have been numbered.   Yet Harold Wilson had sought to reassure the British public in a 1975 pamphlet that…

 

“There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union  [EMU].   This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk.   This threat has been removed.”

 

Britain joining the euro will be the final step towards the destruction of our country as an independent, sovereign nation.   All the while Britain remains this side of EMU, she is still able to recover full independence should a majority of the country desire it and compel their politicians to act in accordance with the wishes of this majority.   If Britain adopts the euro however, the final three bricks drop out of the crumbling wall of British independence, and we will ultimately and at this time:

 

        Surrender the remainder of our gold, silver and dollar reserves to

        Brussels;

        Surrender the last of our economic control over our own nation;

       And surrender the last of our independent political power to govern

       Ourselves.

 

After this, there will be no turning back, short of war.

 

Joining the euro will be irreversible.

 

Regionalisation

 

The much touted ‘devolution’ process, which gave Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland their own assemblies, is simply the Maastricht regionalisation policy being implemented by stealth.   Today, the EU’s full title is ‘The European Union of the Regions’.   Planners in Brussels have divided the current EU land-mass into 111 regions, with Britain having 12. Each region across the Euro zone will henceforth be run from Brussels.

 

Regionalisation is an effective way to destroy the concept of a nation with national boundaries.   The EU has been very active for years in forging links at the local government level throughout the UK to bring this about.

 

One method Brussels has used to get co-operation from local councils has been the promise of funds for development projects in their local communities.   There’s nothing like EU cash (which British taxpayers provided in the first place) to build useful things in the community to enhance a local or even a European politician’s popularity with their public.

 

Another forerunner program implemented to soften up the British to the idea of accepting closer ties with their Continental neighbours is the town and village twinning scheme.

 

EU Democracy?

 

The EU Parliament has been directly elected by the citizens of the European Union since 1979, which all sounds democratic, but there are some fundamental problems.   Unlike the British Parliament, the EU Parliament cannot introduce, modify or initiate new laws.   It cannot elect a government.   The functions of EU government are performed not by the EU Parliament, but by three powerful EU forums (the EU Commission, the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers), in conjunction with the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank.   The EU Parliament is widely recognised as toothless – rubber-stamping legislation that is put before it with no informed debate on these new laws.

 

There are currently 626 seats in the EU Parliament with the following breakdown:  Belgium 25;  Denmark 16; France 87; Germany 99; Greece 25; Ireland 15; Italy 87; Luxembourg 6; Netherlands 31; Portugal 25; Spain 64; United Kingdom 87; Austria 21; Sweden 22 and Finland 16.  

 

Under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty, the number of MEPs is not to exceed 700.   The European Union is due to be enlarged by another 10 members, mostly East European, ex-Soviet satellite states, on 1st May 2004.

 

Voting is performed by MEPs at tremendous speed.   One session saw MEPs vote on 187 pieces of legislation in just one hour.

 

The EU Parliament has the appearance of democracy, but upon closer inspection, the truth is very different.   It is a beard for another type of regime that really calls the shots from Brussels:  one that is fundamentally unaccountable, undemocratic, unelectable and corrupt.

 

Qualified Majority Voting

 

In 1975, the public was reassured by Harold Wilson that Britain would always be able to use her national veto in Brussels to reject or vote down any measure that was perceived to be a threat to her national interests.   Under the Single European Act however, a new system, known as Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), was introduced which effectively put the clock on Britain’s right to exercise her veto option.

 

Since Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1985, QMV has gradually taken over and pushed the national veto out.   It takes 62 votes under QMV to pass a law and 26 votes to block one.   Britain has 10 votes under QMV, which means, given the current allegiances between countries in the EU, that Britain is powerless to refuse in many major areas of policy today, since almost everything the EU implements is decided by qualified majority voting.   Britain has a problem mustering sufficient votes from any EU allies to gain the number required to overturn any damaging legislation.

 

With Britain’s current EU voting powers in European elections, the British people can only vote out 14% of MEPs (unlike 100% of them at Westminster).   This will dwindle to less than 10% once the EU is enlarged further on 1st May 2004 to admit ten further member states.  Later, there could be no British Members of the European Parliament representing our country, as future MEPs need not be British.   At this point, our national government at Westminster will be redundant, since Britain has already been divided into 12 Euro-Regions, each of which is increasingly ruled directly from Brussels.   Soon there will be no further need for any national political candidates.

 

Immunity from Prosecution

 

All members of the EU’s governing structure, together with the tens of thousands of bureaucrats and civil servants who run the union, have been granted a lifetime immunity from prosecution.   This also goes for the new European police force, Europol, and the commanders and soldiers of the new European Army.   All buildings, offices, records, archives and minutes belonging to the EU and its institutions are inviolate.   They cannot be entered or inspected.   All personnel serving the EU are above the law, as declared in treaties which our successive politicians have signed on our behalf.

 

Funding of Political Parties

 

Under article 191 of the Treaty of Nice, the EU has been granted the power by its member states to withdraw funding for any European political party it deems inappropriate or unsuitable for Europe, which, of course, raises the spectre of the banning of political parties that criticise the European Union.

 

Human Rights

 

Perhaps most disturbingly, we see a continuation of the erosion of human rights under Article 52, which states:

 

“the EU may limit all rights and freedoms enumerated in that charter where necessary in order to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.” 

 

This means that the state can limit/withdraw (abuse) the human rights of the individual at whim and is not answerable to anyone for doing so.   This is about as alien to the British way of life as it gets.

 

When coupled with the frightening powers now being bestowed upon upon Europol and the European prosecutor, perhaps the first the British will truly learn of what their country has become is when summary arrests of citizens are made in our country and those detainees are then shunted out of Britain to be held without charge on the Continent, if necessary for up to nine months, before being tried, not by a jury of the accused’s peers, but by a tribunal of professional, politically appointed foreign judges.

 

There will be no presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no prima facie evidence presented to a court within 24 hours.   The full weight of the state’s prosecutory apparatus will be brought to bear against the prisoner, who is burdened with the hopeless task of having to prove he is not guilty.   There will be little hope of an effective appeal.

 

Why Britain Does Not Belong to Europe

 

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is  happening.   This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”  -  Jean Monnet, one of the EU’s founders

 

Britain was the first maritime power, so historically she has always traded globally, especially with her erstwhile colonies and international allies, whilst her trade with Europe has been secondary.   For this reason, Britain’s economy is more in step with those of America, Canada and her other allies, than it is with Europe.  For example, Britain conducts more trade with the USA than she does with France and Germany combined.

 

The intention to bring Britain’s economy under control of Brussels and somehow ‘harmonise it’ with those of the Continent will be a disastrous move for us and, as we shall see, is a strategy deliberately designed to break the United Kingdom as a historical, economic world power.   The priceless spoils of Britain’s wealth are to go to other European nations under control of Brussels.

 

“But Britain is a part of Europe geographically!   So why wouldn’t we want to be a part of Europe politically in order to keep the peace?”    

 

Peace has been kept in Europe for the past fifty years, not through attempts at creating a unified Europe, but through the willingness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to act as a universal European military watchdog.   NATO is a military alliance of nations dominated by the two leading powers formerly comprising ‘the Allies’ during World War II – the United States of American and Great Britain.

 

The Americans spend more on the defence of Europe than all the eurozone nations put together.

 

The European Union is planning a new European arm capable of taking strategic action independently of NATO.   This new European army will threaten the balance and stability NATO has given to the Continent and hand over military jurisdiction in Europe once again to the two nations who have historically abused it and gone to war for their own economic interests.

 

Wars chiefly happen over issues of economics.   By creating a single currency throughout Europe and hamstringing less fortunate member states to join at unfavourable exchange rates, the EU is creating an alarming new climate of inflexibility and impending European instability.   The expected problems of the weak new single currency – the euro – are already becoming apparent.

 

Britain is an economic powerhouse, is the fourth largest economy in the world by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has the greatest financial trading centre in the world centred in London.   It is sheer nonsense to maintain that Britain somehow needs the European Union to survive.

 

Britain is the European Union’s biggest customer.

 

The Terminal Power-Play for Britain

 

Is the real agenda being worked out against Britain by Brussels designed to dismantle the UK, plunder her of her historic wealth and resources, and then politically chain her so she can never again be free to operate in her traditional role as a world trading power?

 

There are a number of reasons, in the eyes of those running the EU, why Britain must cease to be a major world player and be dismantled for the future good of Europe.   Today, as we shall see, every effort by the EU towards Britain is undertaken with this eventual goal in mind.   From the destruction of the UK’s once proud fishing industry to the victimisation of her farming communities to render the UK dependent on EU food, the pressure is on for European bureaucrats and politicians to expedite this baleful agenda before the British people full awaken to what is happening.

 

So Why is it Happening?

 

History reveals that Continental politics have always spelled trouble for Britain.   We have always had a different destiny from the rest of our Continental neighbours for one simple and straightforward reason.   Britain was the nation which became the first industrial and maritime world power.

Britain was the first to develop and use her huge merchant and military navies to annexe foreign territories and then open trade with them around the world.

 

While nations in Europe still pursued parochial trade with their immediate neighbours, the cutters of the British East India Company carved their wake through the oceans, bring all manner of exotic materials to British shores.

 

Britain extended her Anglo-Saxon heritage into the Americas, Canada, India, South Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, as well as building strategic military bastions in Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other areas to protect her interests.   During the 18th and 19th centuries, her economic and military influence grew exponentially.

 

Magna Carta (1215) and subsequently the Declaration of Rights (1689) recognised our rights and freedoms and are contracts between the sovereign and the people which cannot be abrogated even by an elected parliament.

 

In Britain, we have enjoyed the freedom to engage in any activity so long as it isn’t prohibited by law.   In Europe, a citizen is only allowed to do those thing expressly permitted by the state.   Hence the need for a blizzard of directives to tell the citizen what he can and cannot do.

 

The EU is protectionist.   The British, on the other hand, positively encourage free enterprise, sensible risk-taking, and actively nurture individual spontaneity and entrepreneurial endeavour.   These are “freedom ‘ traits, which reaped the Empire and her citizens an enormous collective wealth in their day, and which even still entice a huge amount of inward investment capital and foreign corporate endeavour today.   The famous British eccentricity, celebrated and loved in countless movies, is the hallmark of this individuality.

 

Britain – an Economic Threat to the Continent

 

Nazi economist Professor Horst Jecht, of Berlin University, firmly believed that Britain was the single greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe economically as well as militarily.   Jecht puts his case in his 1942 essay,  “Developments towards the European Economic Community”:

 

“The foundation for this remarkable development of England was laid back in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries where maritime superiority was gained and a global, colonial empire acquired.   By the end of this period, countries outside Europe accounted for 40% of England’s export trade.   This development continued until World War 1.   In 1913, these countries accounted for 56% and 65% of her imports and exports respectively.   Foreign capital investment levels in these countries also started to grow significantly.

 

Since modern times, England’s economy has developed more and more away from Europe and not only during the period of English free trade.   It became even more pronounced when there was protection and closer economic and political union with the nations of the empire, particularly at the time of the Ottawa agreements of 1932.   British trade became even more concentrated overseas and, like the figure of 1913, in 1937 British exports outside Europe reached 64%.

 

In this essay and subsequent address to the Berlin economic conference during the Second World War, Dr Jecht concludes by explaining that Germany’s true role is to lead the future new economic order of Europe after the Second World War hostilities end.   Germany’s eventual defeat in 1945 however changer her immediate destiny, but not her post-World War II desire eventually to dominate Europe, a role she is well on the way to achieving today.

 

Facts:

 

The European government now has its own parliament, flag, supreme court, currency and anthem and is currently setting up its own written constitution, foreign policy, armed forces, federal police force and legal system.

 

The new European Army is headed up by a German general.

 

Europol is headed up by a German police officer.

 

The EU treaties which bind Britain to Europe take precedence over Acts of Parliament and are binding ab initio.  This means that if we are outvoted in Brussels on a proposed piece of legislation, that new law must nevertheless be implemented in Britain, no matter the cost or damage involved, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court.

 

Our national veto, once held out as the carrot, giving Britons the impression that they could always say no, has now been withdrawn in almost every area.   In plain English, if Britain doesn’t like any encroaching Brussels legislation which she believes will harm British interests, economy and culture, there is nothing she can do about it.

 

Under the current EU voting system, 62 out of 87 votes are required to pass a law, 26 votes are required to block one.   The UK only has 10 votes under the Qualified Majority Voting System (QMV), and can rarely must the support needed to increase her votes over 26 to block legislation that can be harmful to Britain.   This is one of the main tools of the acquis communautaire – ‘the ratchet’ – the mechanism that decrees that once Brussels has acquired power from the nation states, that power can never be given back.   This is the method by which Britain has already been extensively damaged by our European ‘partners’ who do not share our cultural or global trading perspectives.

 

The EU treaties do not contain any exit clause and so do not provide for any member state to reject any law, or even their entire European membership AT ANY TIME.   The idea that Britain can somehow ‘renegotiate’ her terms of membership, or pick and choose which parts she goes along with and which she rejects, is completely false.

 

John Major discovered this when he believed he had renegotiated a measure of national independence for Britain at Maastricht in 1992.   He later found that his wishes were cynically ignored through a technical loophole in the third line of the agreement had had signed.

 

The question of whether Britain should remain in the EU has scarcely featured in any general election campaign during the past 25 years.   This option is avoided at all costs by almost all politicians and simply not made available by any of the three major political parties in Britain.

 

 

SELLING BRITAIN BY THE POUND

 

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.   Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.” – Thomas Jefferson, at the Constitutional Convention, 1787.

 

“Monetary union is a path of no return.   No subsequent revision or withdrawal of any kind is either legally or politically provided for.”  -  Hans Tietmeyer, the German Buindesbank

 

“If the House of Commons by any possibility loses the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.”   W.E. Gladstone, 1891

 

“By a continuous process of inflation, government can confiscate secretly and unobserved an important part of the wealth of their citizens… The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does so in such a manner that only one man in a million is able to diagnose it.”  John Maynard Keynes,  The Economic Consequences of Peace

 

Smoke and Mirrors

 

Today, Britain is being lured into joining the European single currency with lies, false promises and deceit.   Politicians attempting to pass this off as an economic issue to the public know full well that the euro is about nothing less than the complete surrender of the Uks economic and political sovereignty to a foreign power.   Which is why the debate on the euro is almost never entered into publicly by those who push it.   Greg Lance-Watkins of Silent Majority tells us why:

 

“It follows that by joining the single currency, member states hand over total control of their economy to Brussels.   Individual policies are subsumed within the (one size fits all) system of the EU.   This will apply even where the overall EU policy is disadvantageous to a particular or number of individual states.   In other words, the economic control of a country is taken out of the hands of the national government and given to unelected officials in Brussels.   At the same time, all gold and dollar reserves, apart from a small ‘working balance’, are given up and handed to the European Central Bank.”

 

How many British pro-euro politicians have told the British people that one of the first ignominous acts we would have to commit as a nation in joining the euro would be to hand over $48 billion-worth of our total gold and dollar reserves to the European Central Bank, along with our control over setting interest and exchange rates that suit us?   In fact, the great gold transfer got underway when British Chancellor Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s holdings in gold to prop up the euro.   Who in Britain cared anyway?   Notice that these moves behind the scenes would also prevent Britain from backing out of the euro at some future point and having sufficient gold and dollar assets to underpin a re-launch of the pound. 

 

 

How accountable is the European Central Bank with all this money of ours?   As with other EU institutions, the ECB is famously about as scrutable as a battalion of Mongol horsemen.   The Financial Times advises:  “ECB intends to make decisions in secret, using forecasts it will not reveal, to achieve objectives it does not need to justify.”

 

No Turning Back

 

Sir Edward George, former governor of the Bank of England, reminds us, the euro has less to do with economics as it does with politics.   Britain ditching its traditional, strong, independent sterling currency may rightly be viewed, in the yes of her old enemies, Franc and Germany, as her final defeat.

 

Article 109L.4 of the Maastrich Treat declares that the process of monetary integration with Europe is ‘irrevocable’.   This means that if the British people don’t like the euro or the interest rates compelled upon us during the integration process, too bad – we’re stuck with them.   This would be a very costly mistake for the British people to make.   Only a successful war of disassociation/secession would enable Britain once again to re-establish her national independence from Europe.

 

To fight a war, you need troops, equipment, money and people willing to sacrifice their lives for the independence ideal.   Perhaps the British won’t lack the desire to regain their independence once they have been a part of the EU’s version of an integrated Europe for a few years.   Getting some serious fighting kit together however would be an entirely different matter.   By this time, Brussels would own our country’s army, navy air force and law enforcement, lock, stock and gun barrel.

 

Even if Britain succeeded in forcefully breaking away from the EU after it had integrated (a doubtful prospect), how could Britain then re-launch her old currency if her gold, silver and dollar reserves have been seized?

 

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

 

The Economic and Monetary Union concept (EMU) is vitally important to the european federal architects, for the euro IS federal Europe.   Having control of the one currency means that the EU Commission and its central bank control everything.   This is a frightening prospect when considering the corruption and lack of accountability within the EU, and secondly, that Britain would have only a marginal say in how she would be governed in the future.

 

The idea of running one centrally controlled, Soviet-style economy throughout Europe is not a new idea… but it IS a disastrous one.   What similarity does the humble economy of Portugal have with the mighty colossus of German?   How does Britain’s global monster economy in any way compare with the parochial tailings of Greece?   One economy throughout Europe means one set of interest rates, uniformly high tax rates, VAT on everything and a deluge of laws and directives controlling the lives of the Euro-citizen down to the finest detail from birth until death.   Socialism indeed.   Then there will be the tax hikes to pay for it all.

 

Tax Increases for all, Especially Britain

 

For Britain to join the continental monetary union, her income tax rates would need to be significantly raised in order to harmonise with those of the remainder of the Eurozone.   Estimates say the UK tax rise could be as much as 20%.  Big socialist government is always hungry for cash to run its endless departments, so VAT in Britain is expected to be expanded to include everything from books to food and could be hiked to a standard rate of 25%. 

 

If these rises are put forward as Single Market legislation, Britain will almost certainly be outvoted, as Europe desperately needs our cash.   We can, of course, appeal to the Luxembourg Court and try to have the measures overturned.   But we know what the outcome of that will be, don’t we?

 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has been tracking the downside to Britain’s existing membership of the European Union, states in his briefing document  ‘Better Off Out’  that areas tremendously hit with increased costs, restrictive and asinine Euro directives and meddling from Brussels include our air space, armed forces, boat building industry,  cheese-makers, civil service, chocolate, dairy farmers, duty-free shopping, freedom of religion, hedgerows, alternative/natural medicines, legal system, the trucking industry, market gardeners, oak trees, pheasant shooting and the rights of countryside dwellers, ponies, postal service, sexual discrimination, taxis, waste disposal, water, whisky, the working week, the roast beef of Old England and the London bus.

 

The British Support the Euro?

 

Michael Howard declared:

 

“Tony Blair, Jack Straw and their colleagues repeatedly said during the general election campaigns of 1997 and 2001 that those elections were not about the euro.   The euro would put at risk jobs, homes and livelihoods.   It has never been endorsed by the British people.”

 

In 1997 Tony Blair vowed:  “The final say will be with the British people in a referendum.”

 

Speaking in Edinburgh in 2001 during his election campaign, he stated:  “It is you, the British people, who will have the decision in your hands in a referendum.”

 

Eurosceptic Labour MP Ian Davidson declared that Mr Straw was trying to Breathe life into a corpse.”

 

He asked:  “Why do we, with low unemployment and high growth, want to join an economic zone that is a disaster, that is not working collectively?”

 

Europe adopts a highly regulated and restrictive, zero free-market approach with inflexible movements of labour, no doubt hampered by the diversity of language and culture.

 

Enlarging the Union

 

Following the Copenhagen Summit, the EU will admit 10 more economically weak candidates as of 1st May 2004:  Malta, Cyprus, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

 

The sordid, penny-market haggling over the subsidies and cash hand-outs to be made available to the new members was typical of the economics of the EU madhouse, the same amateur economics ordinary citizens around the Euro zone have been waking up to since the euro went solo on the streets at the beginning of 2002.

 

New Labour

 

Mr Blair is intent on proving himself one of the Euro-faithful by rebutting euro-dissenters with all the spin and duplicity of a medieval Italian town:

 

“Britain turning its back on Europe would be an error of vast proportions.   Be under no doubt:  if the economic tests are met, Britain should join the single currency.   For Britain to be marginalised in Europe when soon the EU will have 25 members stretching from Portugal to Poland and the largest commercial market in the world, would not just be economically unwise, it would betray a total misunderstanding of the concept of national interest in the 21st century.”

 

Yet as a junior minister in 1982 Mr Blair declared:

 

“Above all, the EEC takes away Britain’s freedom to follow the economic policies we need.   ~We will negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed our jobs.”

 

Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, explained that Tony Blair’s personal eminence and influence in Europe has only been secured by trading off a staggering amount of EU integration over the past five years.

 

“…The abolition of sterling, in principle;  the EU-wide arrest warrants for felonies, including thought crimes such as xenophobia [a dislike of foreigner]); a proto FBI/CIA rolled into one at Europol;  the Social Chapter, which has subtly overturned our trade union laws and forced Britain to adopt a disturbingly large number of Germany’s labour-market rigidities;  anti-discrimination laws that force employers to prove their innocence in court, contravening a core principle of our common law [that a person is innocent until proven guilty];  the Charter of Fundamental Rights – an insidious misnomer – containing a clause authorising suspension of all civic rights, if necessary, in the ‘general interest of the Union’; and now a European constitution, switching our final jurisdiction from the House of  Lords to the European Court.”

 

Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)

 

In October 1990, the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher committed Britain to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), a forerunner experiment to the euro and monetary union, which effectively locked the pound into other EU currencies.

 

During the 23 months of chaos that followed:

 

·        British business suffered its worst recession in 60 years.

·        100,000 UK businesses went to the wall.

·        Unemployment doubled from 1.5 to 3 millions.

·        More bankruptcies were filed than in any previous 2-year period EVER.

·        Repossessions of property increased seven times to 32,000.

·        By 1993, 511,000 were at least three months in arrears on their mortgages.

·        Britain lost estimated reserves of £68 billion.

 

 

To avoid total economic collapse and national bankruptcy, Britain was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16th September 1992, Black Wednesday.   Although the damaged caused by the ERM was not permanent, this will not be true for Britain joining the euro.   There will be no ability to exit the arrangement, whatever the damage caused.

 

Joining the euro will be irreversible.   If something goes wrong there will be no provision available for Britain to re-launch the pound.   To launch a currency requires considerable gold, silver and dollar reserves – the very reserves our politicians have been talked into handing over to the European Central Bank.

 

Europe has amassed unfunded pensions liabilities amounting to a staggering $1.2 trillion.   If Britain joins the euro and full monetary union with the Continent, our share of this huge debt could be £30,000 for every British man, woman and child, according to media financial reports issued in October 1996.

 

Abolishing the pound is about abolishing Britain’s independence and control over her own affairs.   Adopting the euro could be the worst and perhaps final mistake Britain would make as an independent nation.   It could amount to permanent fiscal damnation and cause us to inherit all liabilities and debts of Europe while handing over all our assets and reserves.

 

 

Britain – A Sterling Place to do Business

 

The Bank of England’s governor, Sir Edward George, stated in early September 2002 that interest rates could be set at the wrong level for Britain if we joined the euro, resulting in a potential and permanent disaster for our economy.

 

Britain has been thriving outside the single currency, which only demonstrates that the whole euro issue is not about generating wealth which we already enjoy, but about scrapping our national sovereignty.

It is political as distinct from economic incompetence that has fouled up our economy within the past 50 years.   The evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

If the euro is supposed to stabilise the spending of the member states of the Eurozone, as well as offer a credible currency to rival the dollar, then supporters of the single currency need to explain the observable reality of a euro that is struggling to stay afloat ever since its inauspicious birth, and why Britain even needs to change at all.

 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch advises in his ‘Better Off Out’ pamphlet:

 

“Brussels’ dictates are inflicted upon the whole of our economy, so the real point is that only some 10% of our Gross Domestic Product are involved in trade with the EU (declining and in deficit).   Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the rest of the world (growing and in surplus).   The remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic economy.   So the insignificant 10% tail is wagging our healthy 90% dog.”

 

Brussels Moves the Goal Posts … Again

 

Germany, France, Italy and Portugal have not been punished for contravening the deficit limit, as the Pact dictates, but instead have been given an extra two years and told to balance their books, something not even the EU has been able to do with its own accounts.

 

This leniency has been shown despite the fact that other EU member governments have dutifully tried to carry out measures to conform to the Pact which have been politically damaging for them at home.

 

Some analysts see this caving-in by Brussels as an unmistakable sign that the amount of debt accruing within the Union is becoming critical and the currency is in danger of losing its credibility and could eventually collapse.   Brussels is seen to be frantically avoiding a confrontation which could alienate her two leading players, France and Germany.

 

What About all those EU Rebates?

 

Most in Britain think the EU is handing Britons large sums of Eurocash in return for its membership.   Some people reason that the aggravation Britain gets from Brussels is worth tolerating if we are supposed to be getting the cash.

 

The idea that the EU gives Britain anything beneficial is ridiculous.  Figures show that we paid the EU £8.96 billion in 2000, and received back around £5 billion through EU spending in the UK and our ‘rebate’.

 

So here’s the real situation.   We give Brussels around £9 billion of our own hard-earned money, only to have them give £5 billion of it back and tell us how to spend it – this, based on the pretzel-twisting logic that the EU somehow knows better than we do how to spend our own money – of course, with all the EU restrictions on what we can and can’t do with our own wealth!

 

Meanwhile, the other £4 billion goes towards:

 

·        Enriching French farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP);

·        Decommissioning British fishing boats so that Spain and other nations can fish our waters instead;

·        Baling out the poorer EU countries;

·        Paying bureaucrats to draft an insane quantity of regulations that routinely damage Britain’s economic and strategic interests…

 

That is, if the money doesn’t take a one-way dive into the £6 billion part of the EU’s annual budget that disappears in fraud and corruption every year.

 

Conversion to the New Currency

 

Parking meters, cigarette vending machines, tills, the entire banking system, credit card systems – all will have to be dismantled, modified or reprogrammed.

 

Predictably, we have been told by Europe that these costs must be borne by the British taxpayer.   Tony Blair announced that he would earmark some £3.5 billion to fund the changeover of currencies in the public sector.   The ultimate cost of converting the entire country however has been estimated at a staggering £30 billion-plus – that is hundreds of pounds for every man woman and child in the UK – all to be borne by the business sector and their customers.  

 

Corruption and Fraud

 

AAt least 10% of the European Union’s £60-plus billion budget disappears in fraud and mismanagement every year!   The corruption and double-dealing going on in Brussels alone should be enough to compel Britain to leave the EU immediately.  But who is speaking up?

 

Paul van Buitenen did.   He was the EU-appointed auditor who brought down Jacques Santer’s Europ0ean government on fraud charges by highlighting the worst financial scandal in Euroland’s history.   Van Buitenen was able to show that billions of euros had been ‘misappropriated’ by members of the EU elite, such as French commissioner, Edith Cresson, whose live-in dentist became an unlikely beneficiary.

 

Because of his revelations, the EU swung ponderously but predictably into action.   Van Buitenen was subsequently suspended without pay by the EU Commission, the very target of his corruption investigations, for doing his job, while the officials he had accused of serious crimes were themselves suspended on full pay.   Van Buitenen was later vindicated when a further panel upheld his accusations, resulting in the resignation of Santer’s entire EU Commission in 1999.

 

Yet, such is the extent of the corruption, mediocrity and incompetence going on within the EU that the fraud has continued without check under Mr Prodi’s successive regime.   Later, van Buitenen published his best-seller, ‘Blowing the Whistle’ but Europe’s citiz43ns remained, as always, apathetic and careless at the revelations.

 

The last straw for van Buitenen was the Gestapo-like treatment of the Eus chief accountant, marta Andreasen, who had the temerity to declare that the EU’s £60 billion-plus budget was simply ‘out of control’ and ‘massively open to fraud’.   Figures could be altered ‘without leaving any trace’, she reported, and the EU’s accounting system didn’t even used double entry book-keeping, the basic standard of accounting accuracy throughout the world. 

 

Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock is a good example of how the lure of Brussels can tempt politicians wishing to avoid the professional wilderness in their own country to extend their shelf life.   Neil Kinnock never gained the confidence of the British people and so was never elected to office in the UK.   Neil Kinnock was one of the Brussels commissioners for Britain, appointed by Conservative opponent John Major.  Tony Blair would do the same to rival Chris Patten, no doubt to get them off the opposing benches at Westminster.

 

Mr Kinnock, in his role as the officially appointed EU sleaze-buster, offered any whistleblowers protection from ‘adverse consequences’ if they came clean, then promptly reneged on his offer of ‘protection’ in the case of Ms Andreasen, and even stood by and approved her sacking by the Commission, which again was the very target of Ms Andreasen’s corruption concerns.   Mr Kinnock was thus able to give the public another opportunity to see for themselves how much his word is really worth.

 

Mr Kinnock knows full well that financial irregularities in the EU’s accounts have prevented accountants at the Court of Auditors from signing them off for eight years in a row.   In fact, in a report issued a few weeks prior to Andreasen’s professional execution, the Court waqrned of massive failings in the system which could not even record how many billions of pounds were being wasted through fraud each year.   Even Britain’s own National Audit Office found ‘persistent weaknesses’ in fraud checks by EU states earlier in 2002.

 

Shadow Deputy Prime Minister David Davis was outraged:  “Is there or isn’t there a double-entry accounting system?   Because if there isn’t, then it is unlike any other accounting system in the world that anyone respects.”

 

But why should any of this concern Neil Kinnock?  His own professional shortcomings haven’t prevented him from being very comfortable today.   At the time of writing, the EU earns his family up to £500,000 a year, taking into account his salary as the Commission’s vice-president, his luxury three-storey home in Belgium’s capital, all the perks, expense accounts and the salaries of his wife Glenys, his son Stephen, and Stephen’s wife, Helle, a Danish MEP.   All paid for, courtesy of the Euro-taxpayer.

 

Above the Law

 

Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, a blanket, life-time immunity has been extended to all officials like Neil Kinnock and their servants of the institutions, which reads as follows:

 

“In the territory of each member state and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall… be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words (spoken or written).  They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office.”

 

So, in 1999, when the entire EU Commission was found to have been involved in fraud, not one individual could be prosecuted.   How’s that for accountability?

 

Article 1, Chapter 1, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EC) states that “…premises and buildings of the Communities shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation, and their archives shall be inviolable…”   Thus no buildings or offices, filing cabinets, archives or bottom drawers belonging to the EU, wherever they are located, can be searched or inspected… ever.   These two exemptions alone place the people and premises of the EU completely above the law, which flies in the face of the basic principle of British or any decent democracy that ‘no-one is above the law’.

 

Drawn and Quartered

 

(Art. 198a Maastricht) The full title of the European Union is “The European Union of the Regions’.   Within the EU there are, at present, 111 separate regions, due to be expanded with enlargement due on 1st May 2004.   In many of the continental countries, a form of regional government has been common for decades, especially in France, Germany, Spain and Italy.

 

The British Government has, for the past few years, encouraged so-called ‘devolution’ within the UK, transferring regional power from Westminster to Wales,  Scotland and Northern Ireland.   How coincidental is it then that the ‘devolved’ regions in Britain exactly match the map of the regions of the European Union?

 

EU Document 501 PC0083 “sets up the nomenclature of statistical units as a single, coherent system for dividing up the EU’s territory…”   All twelve EU regions in the UK are classified by the letters ‘UK’ plus a further letter to identify the individual region, thus:

 

North Eastern  (UKC)

North West  (UKD)

Yorks & Humberside (UKE)

East Midlands (UKF)

West Midlands (UKG)

East  (UKI)

London (UKI)

South East (UKJ)

South West (UKK)

Wales   (UKL)

Scotland (UKM)

Northern Ireland (UKN)

 

The

‘devolution’ process which saw Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland setting up their own parliaments was, in reality, merely the EU’s  usual way of giving with one hand while taking away with the other.   The landmasses of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Irish Republic, are already established regions of the European Union, now increasingly ruled directly from Brussels.

 

England must be broken up into 9 regions.   The United Kingdom, as a sovereign union, will officially cease to exist perhaps as early as 2008.

 

This is all going to lead to a nightmare of control, corruption and cynical unaccountability fostered by national governments and their comfortable politicians who care not one jot about the citizens of Europe, let alone the people of Britain?

 

Justice for All

 

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is located in Luxembourg and is based on the American Supreme Court blueprint.   It was largely the inspiration of one of the founders of the EU, Jean Monnet, and his friend and confidante, US Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.

 

·        No appeal is available in the ECJ.   Its decisions are absolute.

 

·        The all-male judge teams are both unelected and unaccountable under EU law.   They are free to do whatever they please and there is no legal comeback.   Further, the judges are not required to have any judicial experience whatsoever.   Most do not.

 

·        The kernel of the ECJ’s power is derived from the Treaty of Rome, Article 249.   The wording is deliberately generalised, enabling Brussels to extend the widest possible interpretations to these, and other clauses of the Treaty:  “A regulation shall have general application [what does ‘general’ mean?]    It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States…”

 

·        Thus the European Court of Justice has been given powers ‘with no restriction’ over the member states.   This effectively places British citizens under the control of a foreign power and is intended to remove forever Britain’s right to govern herself.   This represents the abandonment of our nation.   Any British politician currently allowing this, or who has participated in orchestrating these efforts in the past, has committed treason under the Treason Act of 1795 and the Treason Felony Act of 1848.

 

·        National parliaments are now mere rubber stamps for all the legislation pouring out of Brussels.   Legally elected British MPs can turn back none of it.

 

·        The EU is abolishing trial by jury under the new European corpus juris system being introduced in Britain.  Once the system is in place, an indicted individual will have to prove his innocence against the combined machinery of the state.

 

·        The European Union is abolishing havaeas corpus, the supreme British legal safeguard which declares ‘no imprisonment without fair trial’, instituted under Article 39 of Magna Carta, 1215.

·        Under British law, a law enforcement officer or the public prosecutor must place evidence before a court within 24 hours of a citizen’s arrest, detailing the charges being brought against them.

 

·        Unpaid lay magistrates, representing the people and drawn from the people themselves, are being replaced after more than 600 years.   They currently hear over 90% of criminal cases.   The new EU-wide justice system will be enforced by inquisitorial courts (no injury).

 

·        British judges are already imposing European law upon British citizens.   Take the ‘metric martyr’ episode in 2001, when a market trader was convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed  using British imperial measures (pounds and ounces).   British District Judge Morgan, in passing judgment upon the unfortunate grocer, stated that the British were now living under ‘new constitutional powers’.

 

·        Compare this with Edward Heath’s comment on the same treaty which gave Judge Morgan these powers:  “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty…”

 

·        British police will henceforth report to Brussels and be immune from prosecution.

 

·        The ECJ has already granted powers to Europol to intercept mail and e-mails with the excuse that it is fighting the drug menace, money laundering and the ‘War on Terror’.   The latter can naturally be extended to include actions against those who do not support the EU.   Under new legislation, actions pursued by those who disagree with the EU can be labelled seditious, treasonous and even blasphemous.

 

·        The ECJ is removing the ‘double jeopardy’ safeguard.   For centuries, British law has held that if a person is found not guilty of committing a crime, he cannot be tried again for the same offence.   Henceforth, under corpus juris law, the ECJ has given itself the ‘right’ to come back at an individual time and again with the same charge, using all its considerable ‘legal’ apparati, until it secures the required conviction.   Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, has already given prosecutors the right to appeal against not-guilty verdicts handed down by jurors.

·        A British citizen will henceforth be liable to summary arrest and extradition to a foreign country without any evidence being presented to a court.   No prima facie evidence will be presented either to the court or its victim to support such charges.

 

·        In the EU’s apparent attempt to combat football hooliganism, the legal framework already exists to arrest a person even on suspicion that they may have committed, or might in the future commit a crime.

 

·        Under ECJ law, past offences committed by the accused will be raked up against him and used to justify why he committed the crime for which he is accused.   Under British law, this is illegal.   Such information on prior convictions is only made available to the court after the verdict, in order to secure a fair trial.

 

·        Under Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, members of the new federal ‘Europol’ are “immune from legal process of any kind for acts performed…in the exercise of their official functions.”   Thus, no Europol officer can be charged or brought to trial for false imprisonment, violence against a suspect, the destruction or seizure of private property, or harassment of any individual.

 

·        Europol has been given powers to operate anywhere within the Eurozone, including Britain, with complete impunity.   They have the power of summary arrest and extradition, in spite of current British laws, which specifically prohibit such actions.   Under the power of international treaty, British law is superseded by European law.

 

·        Ironically, or perhaps not, Europol’s centre of operations, housing 300-400 officers at present, is located in the old Gestapo headquarters building in the Hague.   Plans are well underway to expand this force to many thousands more, all to be armed and granted unfettered access to all regions of the EU.   Europol has been run by a former German police officer, Jorgen Storbeck, since its inception in 1994.

 

·        Britain’s representation of Europol is quartered with the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) at its HQ London.

·        Europol has been amassing computer records on hundreds of thousands of European citizens.   None of this information is ever made public.   Europol has the power, under EU law, to instruct British police authorities to investigate anyone in Britain the EU deems a danger to law and order.

 

EU Justice – No Checks and Balances

 

Any British government endorsing the above measures, as successive British administrations have done, is signing away freedoms guaranteed to the British people in perpetuity.   Such actions have paved the way for a once democratic Britain to be handed over to a new European-wide, potentially totalitarian regime run by Britain’s former enemies.   The Blair government has been instrumental, via Home Secretary Jack Straw, in accelerating this process, and then convincing the public it is all being done in their best interests.

 

An entity like the European Union, which has gone to great lengths to remove all public scrutiny of its affairs, all media reporting of its forum meetings and which has expeditiously granted lifetime immunity from prosecution to all its personnel and officers for their future actions, what can any government possibly want with such powers?  Can such an entity not reasonably be expected in the future to exercise this awesome might and do bad things to its citizens knowing it will be able to get away with it?   History repeatedly shows that these are the same powers all totalitarian regimes grant themselves before going to war with their own people and those of other countries.

 

This process may still be reversed by a unified and angry response from millions of Britons, clamouring for Britain to reject her EU membership and regain her independence, and compelling her government to take the appropriate, official action.   Time is running out as more statutory instruments are prepared in order to force Britain to remain in the EU.

 

Gone Fishing

 

By Greg Lance-Watkins  -   www.SilentMajority.co.uk

 

Two examples of the way  the European Union has dealt disastrously with Britain will illustrate the methods used to destroy countless British lives.   In this chapter, researcher Greg Lance-Watkins summaries the EU assault on the British fishing industry:

 

·        Unbeknown to the British electorate, Prime Minister Edward Heath made a deal with the EEC and gave away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters.   Up to that point ‘fishing’ had not been included in any treaties (it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Rome) but was later added at Maastricht (Articles 38-47).   EU officials were astounded when Heath unilaterally gave British fishing away with no preconditions.

 

·        British territorial waters are now ‘a shared European Union’ resource, and that means everything in them too.   This has given Brussels the right to allocate quotas to different member states who can now fish in British waters.

 

·        Due to the predictably harsh EU quotas imposed upon Britain’s fishing industry, millions of tons of fish, all dead but accidentally caught, are required (under EU law) to be thrown back into the sea.   EU law means that more fish are thrown back by British boats than are actually landed, for fear of incurring fines for over-fishing.   This is the result of the European Union’s conservation policy, which can cost lobster fishermen also, if they land a creature that is even one millimetre too small.   Fines of up to £50,000 can be levied against larger trawlers landing even one box over quota.

 

·        Thousands of boat boardings and inspections are carried out each year by EU representatives to ensure that the law on fishing is being upheld.

 

·        By 2004, the fishing fleets of other nations within the EU will be able to work right up to the shore, with Britain’s traditional 6- mile and 12-mile limits due to be abolished.   The quotas allocated by the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU mean that Spanish trawlers are allowed to fish cod in the Irish Sea while British trawlers are forbidden from putting to sea at all.

 

·        Although Maastricht was not signed until 1992 (in which Britain’s surrender of her fishing waters was formally acknowledged), foreign fishing fleets were using Britain’s waters for many years prior to that time.

 

·        Britain was allowed to fish only between 10% and 15% of her own stocks until 1st January 2003, when even this was cut back further.   The whole British fishing industry, on land and sea, has thus been effectively destroyed.   The quota system was brought into effect to accommodate the Spanish fishing fleet which had more boats than all the rest of the EU put together, but no good fishing grounds.

 

·        This law is being rigidly enforced with British waters, and is fast becoming a major pollution factor as well as helping to destroy remaining fishing stocks.   The previous EU arrangement gives Britain control up to six miles offshore and part control up to twelve miles.   This arrangement ended in 2002, and from 1st January 2003, EU boats have been able to fish right up to Britain’s shores.   (EU Regulation 3760/92).

 

·        The British government was forced to pay over £100 million in damages to Spain for preventing their fishermen from fishing British territorial waters.   The European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1988, passed by legally elected Members of the British Parliament to protect British fisheries, was illegal and contrary to EU law.

 

·        EU fisheries policy has been such a success that as of November 2002, British waters have become so depleted of cod fishing grounds in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the north coast of Scotland.

 

·        Total number of British fishing livelihoods wrecked as a result of EU interference:  1 million.

 

 

 

Gone Farming

 

By Greg Lance-Watkins

 

How the European Union has destroyed British farming:   

 

·        Britain came under the EEC’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome.   Under the CAP’s ‘Community Preference’, Britain must purchase any goods from EU countries first, and not from her former trading partners or Commonwealth.   Thus Britain is forced at inflated prices to purchase, for example, some of France’s huge surpluses, while French farmers are compensated through the Common Agricultural Policy, a part of which Britain funds, to grow food no-one wants.

·        The CAP’s agricultural interference and draconian regulation has thus deliberately despaired and wrecked the British farming industry.   Food prices have been drastically affected as the more expensive food Britain is compelled to buy from Europe, rather than from her cheaper Commonwealth sources, finds its way into the supermarket and corner store.   UK Government estimates in 1998 put the unnecessary and unjustified increase in British food prices at over £6.5 billion.

 

·        Britain keeps pouring billions of good money after bad by continuing to fund her share of the CAP, knowing full well that nothing but more British agricultural hardship will come from it.   The CAP represents European cronyism and protectionism of the worst order.

 

·        Today some British farmers are bing paid to do nothing with their own land.   Those who are still farming actively in Britain are compelled to conform to asinine EU regulation that has drastically driven up their operating costs.   Little wonder that British farming has taken such a beating in the past twenty years as the full terms of the CAP have begun to cut in.

 

·        Other colossal increases in costs affecting farming include EU inspections of meat facilities and withdrawal of previous subsidies to British farmers which are then given to farmers in France, Spain and Greece for farming tobacco.

 

·        The Common Agricultural Policy currently consumes over half the EU’s total income.   It is also responsible for a major part of the legislation flowing out of Europe.   Even by the end of 1996, 8,956 farming laws had already been passed.

 

·        By signing up to the CAP in 1972, the British effectively lost control of up to 90% of their land mass (the area currently related to agriculture), as well as handing over total control of all our farming practices to Brussels.   As with fishing, this has resulted in the downfall of the farming industry due to the following:

 

 

     1.   Over-production within the EU brought about by liberal subsidies.

 

2.        Britain being flooded with food imports, against which the British government finds itself powerless to protect the British farmers, due to EU rules.

 

3.        Prices (to farmers, not consumers) have tumbled and thousands of farmers are now facing ruin.   Again (because of EU regulations) there is nothing the British government can do in the way of financial help or a policy of protection.

 

4.        Milk quotas were brought in to level out production across the EU.   British farmers were more efficient and productive than their Continental counterparts and so had to be restricted.   Britain is now forced to import 20% of its milk needs from France, whilst British farmers pour milk down the drain and steadily go bankrupt.

 

5.        An over-abundance of EU legislation is stifling whole sections of the industry into extinction.   Pig, sheep and cattle farmers, as well as the industries that depend on them (packaging, slaughtering, etc.) are all being forced to close.  For example:

 

6.        Since 1990, slaughterhouses in Britain have diminished in number from 1,400 to 400 due to EU regulations on ‘cleanliness’.

 

7.        Farmers have been, and are continuing to be paid for doing nothing with their land (the policy of ‘set-aside’).    The richer the land, the more subsidy the farmer receives for not farming it.   This policy is the land-based version of the de-commissioning of Britain’s fishing fleets.

 

·        The deliberate run-down of the British farming industry is taking place and, because of it, British farmers can no longer feed the citizens of these islands.   This places the country at the mercy of the EU and foreign imports.

 

·        The following is an indication of government (EU) policy:  On 3rd May 2000, the Government Rural White Paper – 7th report of the Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Vol. 1 – contained the following opening paragraph:  “The role of rural England as the food provider for the nation is no longer an essential one.”

 

·        Beef:  In a typical move which openly flouted EU law, the French government maintained an illegal 3-year ban on British beef, even though Brussels had ruled that the product was safe.   The continued blockade was imposed by France’s previous, beleaguered socialist government in an attempt to appease the powerful French farming lobby and its consumers.   The illegal ban is thought to have cost British farmers a staggering £600 million in lost exports, not to mention tainting the reputation of British beef globally, resulting in 40 other countries currently maintaining blockades of their own against us.  Under EU law, France could have amassed a potential fine of up to £100 million for disobeying a direct order from the EU to lift her illegal ban.   France is unlikely to pay a cent however as she is one of the two tails that wags the EU dog.

 

The Great Deception Behind the Rebate Row

 

By Christopher Booker (January 2006)

 

Tony Blair was quite right to point out that, without the UK rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 15 times more than France.   It was precisely this imbalance which prompted Margaret Thatcher to fight for the rebate.   It was never properly explained, however, why this ridiculous anomaly arose in the first place.

 

One of many remarkable episodes which Richard North and I were able to bring to light in our book,

The Great deception,

 just republished in a new updated edition, was the bizarre story behind the setting up of the Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960’s.  This was triggered off by the crisis facing France, through the runaway bill she was paying to subsidise French farmers for producing food nobody wanted.

 

President de Gaulle was terrified that this would bankrupt the French state, provoking social collapse.   The French therefore cunningly devised a CAP to get other countries to buy their surplus food and foot their subsidy bill.   The real reason why de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry was that it was vital first to get these arrangements agreed.  Otherwise Britain could have sabotaged a system deliberately designed to benefit France, from which Britain, because she imported, but with a smaller farming sector, she would also get fewer subsidies.

 

Only in 1969 did France get her way, at which point she needed Britain in and Edward Heath accepted the absurd arrangement.   Within a decade, with the CAP then taking up 90 per cent of the entire budget, Britain would become the biggest contributor.

Hence Mrs Thatcher’s fight for her rebate.   But even this was only a partial solution, because Britain’s farmers have continued to receive dramatically small subsidies than their competitors, contributing to the crisis which in recent years has brought much of British agriculture to its knees.

 

Thus are we still living with the problems created by that French stitch-up of 40 years ago, for reasons now almost lost in the mists of time.  For the full story refer to

The Great Deception:  Can The European Union Survive?, published by Continuum at £9.99.

 

The Sunday Telegraph, 4th December 2005

 

Blair Will Pay for his Betrayal in Brussels

 

When it comes to international negotiations, possession is nine tenths of the law.   A country may be under any amount of pressure, but as long as it is profiting from the status quo, it has nothing to fear from a breakdown.  It is instructive then to compare the behaviour of the EU at the Hong Kong trade talks with that of the United Kingdom at the Brussels summit.

 

In Hong Kong, the EU represented by its Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, was determined not to open its markets to developing countries.  Its stance was wrong-headed and ethically indefensible.

 

Euro-protectionism drives up prices, erodes Europe’s competitiveness and causes much poverty in the Third World.   But despite the pleas of the southern hemisphere nations, and despite a general American initiative to cut tariffs, Brussels remained intransigent, secure in the knowledge that no deal would mean a default to the existing situation.

 

Britain’s position in Brussels was even stronger.  No mechanism existed to reduce the British rebate without Tony Blair’s agreement.  Here, a failure to reach terms would mean not a continuation of the status quo, but something even more attractive:  a drying up of the budget.

 

Britain – which, for almost the entire period of its membership, has been one of only two countries to make any net payment to the EU – would thus have been spared its annual tribute of £12 billion, and might have used these savings to (for example) give us all a two thirds cut in council tax.

 

Why, then, was Mr Blair so determined to find an accommodation?  Why did he climb down from his own position that there would be no reduction in the rebate without a commensurate dismantling of the CAP?   Because his Europeanism has never really been based on a computation of Britain’s national interest.

 

For him, being pro-EU is about being a modern internationalist, not about securing specific gains for his country.   This is, of course, the worst possible frame of mind in which to enter negotiations.

 

More to the point, though, Mr Blair has failed in his own terms.  A generous internationalist might indeed believe that Britain ought to give money to needier countries.   But the EU budget is not a mechanism for doing so.  Its largest per capita beneficiary is Luxembourg.  By failing to secure CAP reform, Mr Blair has, in fact, done immense damage to the world’s truly deserving states.

 

Make no mistake:  the sums of money involved are immense - £7 billion, the amount Mr Blair has handed away, is roughly the entire police budget for England and Wales.  At the last election, Mr Blair claimed Tory plans for a £4 billion tax reduction would mean savage cuts in public services.   Never again will he be able to level such an accusation.

 

From now on, every time they are asked where they would find the money for tax cuts, the Tories can reasonably reply:  from Brussels.  Mr Blair has betrayed his word and his electorate.   His budget surrender will be hung, albatross-like, around his neck and invoked every time he raises taxes. 

 

The Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2005

 

Vitamins

 

There is a mass-migration of income from the medicine and pharmaceutical industries into the huge diversity of companies comprising what is known as the ‘alternative health industry’ has not gone unnoticed by the powers-that-be.   Today, British and Continental citizens are finding that new legislation from Brussels is seeking either to ban or strictly limit the availability of a wide range of traditional remedies and supplements that have been used by the public for decades, and in some cases centuries, for their well-being.  Something sinister called Codex Alimentarius is casting its Big Brother shadow across the Eurozone.   Americans and other world populations are looking on with apprehension as they know they are next!

 

The EU Supplements Directives

 

There is a European move to regulate the alternative health industry’s supplements.  

 

On 12th March 2002, the European Parliament voted and passed regulations which limit the public availability and upper intakes of hundreds of nutrients to ridiculously low levels – in certain cases,  1/50th            or  even less of what many nutritional doctors recommend as therapeutic doses.

 

Like Germany and France, many are now facing the prospect of not just severe censure in the amounts of these nutrients they can take, but what they can buy at all.  For, hidden within the Trojan Horse ‘harmonisation’ proposals used to justify entering the launch codes against the alternative health industry, the realisation is dawning that anything not on the EU positive list of ‘accepted’ supplements is now in for an outright ban.   Manufacturers who wished to field anything ‘new’ will be required to spend millions proving benefit through exhaustive ‘drug testing’ – a state of affairs guaranteed to bankrupt even the most stalwart of the green corporations.

 

For 13 years, European pharmaceutical conglomerates have been contemplating a standardised market for vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements.   Various attempts to harmonise the industry have met with a huge and sustained opposition, not least from the UK and its vitamin consumers.   In January 2000, the Brussels Commission, during one of those rare, brief periods in which it was not being found guilty of fraud and accounting corruption, table a White Paper on Food Safety.  A later document, 500PC0222 (what monster invents that kind of archiving system?), concluded that a wide disparity existed on alternative medicine dosages, and proposed legislation to correct the imbalance.   In France and Germany, for instance, no products containing more than one times the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) may be sold without a drug licence.

 

And this is a problem.  Vitamin C’s RDA is 40-60mg.  Yet the therapeutic dosage of C begins at 500mg and goes up beyond 10,000mg.  So if you wish to treat yourself with mega doses of C complex for your cancer, best visit B & Q and buy up a wheelbarrow in readiness to haul all those expensive, tiny vitamin pills back to base-camp.

 

Opposition is to No Avail

 

Most UK Members of the Euro Parliament (MEPs) voted against the food supplements and herbal initiatives, which nevertheless passed.   In spite of some 400 million pieces of mail, e-mails, faxes and sky writings thrown at Brussels vociferously protesting this attack on human rights, along with the predictable media black-out, the legislation was approved with no House debate at the usual tornado velocity, with 383 MEPs in favour and 139 against.  Considerable resources had been expended by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby members for their vote.  The public’s outrage was ignored.

 

Where are we Now?

 

There is an intervening period currently occurring which is designed to allow member states to pass laws aligning themselves with the new directives, which also strictly limit the availability of herbal medicines.   Products formulated with ingredients not on the EU’s parsimonious list of approved substances will not comply with the directives and will be banned after 1st June 2005.   Upper safe limits have been arbitrarily allocated to such a conservative list of nutrients, over which supplement dosage will be regulated, that the vast majority of other, more specialised nutrients not included on the list will be effectively cleared from the shelves of most UK, Dutch and Irish health stores, along with even the common stuff, such as vitamins C and B6, which are always sold in potencies exceeding the EU mandate.

 

Unless a concerted effort is made en masse by the affronted citizenry to pull Britain out of the European Union, the Euro juggernaut will have its way again.   A few short years from now, the Darth Vader vitamin police will screech up outside your vitamin shack and clear your shelves of the designated ‘contraband’ nutrients.  And there won’t be a thing you will be able to do about it.

 

Strategies

 

Many alternative health organisations are blanching at the thought of losing significant revenues over this new legislation to the drug industry and their huge retail conglomerates, and have formed alliances to ‘fight the Food  Supplements Directive’.  However, they do so in woeful ignorance of the simple fat that, with the European Union, they are no longer operating on a democratic, accountable field.   Their mistake, and this is the crucial point being missed, is that they are confusing Brussels with people who actually care about what the public think.

 

Brussels do not care about your supplements!   Brussels are closing loopholes, working to standardise everything across Europe, and responding to corporate lobbying and plain paper envelopes from the drug industry in their usual way, all the while ruling their new fiefdom from behind closed doors.  The public are not considered.

 

Brussels do not recognise that you even have a right to complain.   This is the new system taking over Europe as well as Britain.  There is nothing you can do about any of this through what you perceive as traditional parliamentary channels.   They simply don’t exist any more.   Your politicians have been too cowardly to tell you that this is now the state of affairs governing Britain.

 

Uneasy Bedfellows – The Great Immigration Disaster

 

Today, Britain is being successfully invaded for the third time in its 1,000 year history.   The first time, it was William of Normandy who invaded our southern shores and ended up running the country after King Harold was struck in the eye with a French arrow at the ill-fated Battle of Hastings in 1066.  The second occasion was when the Americans invaded us in a friendly way prior to the Allies launching Operation Overlord (D-Day) against the Nazis on 6th June 1944.

 

These days, Britain is being invaded with ‘asylum seekers’, most of which are not political refugees fleeing tyranny in their own countries at all, but economic migrants seeking to better their lives by choosing a new country in which to live.  And guess which is their first country of choice?  Not Germany, not France, nor Italy or Greece but Britain!

 

The United states has the Mexican immigrant problem in her south west corner.  Australians are trying to hold the Indonesians at bay to the north.  New Zealanders have the Pacific Islanders and citizens of other south-east Asian nations trying to get in.   This is economic migration.

 

Into this mix we stir the concerted plan by global socialism striving for its New World Order to homogenise national populations in order to dilute the hated national identity and thus marginalise the appeal of the nation state.   Mass, unchecked immigration is the perfect weapon to accomplish this.   The nation, like the family, is believed by the socialist today to be the root cause of all wars and woes respectively, which is why socialism is always working tirelessly to kill off both.   Actually, while nationalism has certainly been one of the reasons war has broken out in the past, it is not the main reason.   The chief motivation that triggers a country to go to war is actually the belief that it can get away with it.

 

Nations provide a check and balance system against government abuse and tyranny.  Truly democratic nations are the largest social unit that can still be directly controlled by the majority of their inhabitants.   When one nation gets too big for its boots, others can band together and sort out the renegade country.   Refugees fleeing the tyranny can also hope to find sanctuary in another land.   Nazi Germany and Japan were brought to account during the last war by this check and balance system, although the cost was ugly and extremely high.  A world containing a democracy of independent nations still provides for this control system to operate effectively if someone gets out of line.

 

But set up a global government structure not answerable to its peoples, or even a continental federation like the EU, place all the power into the hands of a few, unelected, unaccountable committees, and the check and balance system is lost.   One of course lives in the hope that such a mega-government will be benevolent.   But it it isn’t?  What can you do about it now?  Where will you flee?   Who will bring the tyranny to account?

 

Our neighbours on the mainland have suffered enough at the hands of their extremists and ideologists.   No countries deserve peace and a chance to rid themselves of their power-hungry political cliques more than France, Austria, Germany and Italy.   It is for this reason that the European Union poses the greatest danger to European and hence world peace, not just because it is run by a group of fifth-rate, financially corrupt nest-featherers, but because there is no accountability to the public.   This is especially true with Britain, where the safety net has been removed just as we are about to be persuaded to take our own one-way, high-wire walk into European integration.   The European Union has already shown itself capable of:

 

·        Corruption on a Herculean scale.

·        Removing its citizens’ human rights if it so chooses.

·        Ignoring mass protests of its citizens over the measures it introduces.

·        Imprisoning people for periods without fair trial.

·        Equipping the state with all the instruments of repression.

·        Rendering immunity from prosecution to all its officials.

 

Open Door

 

From 1950 to 1990, the total population of Caribbean and Asian immigrants in Britain went from around 80,000 to a little over 3 million, mostly concentrated in the south-east of the country and the major cities.  Since the early 1990’s, the immigrant population, comprising both legal entrants and those sneaking in, has exploded exponentially.  Figures released by the Home Office show that just under 30,000 illegal immigrants claimed asylum in a three-month period in the summer of 2002.  Nine out of ten had their cases thrown out, yet only 3,565 were subsequently deported.

 

The mass, unchecked immigration sanctioned by the present and past British governments has deeply offended the British.  Needless to say, the immigration issue is hardly about ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, or ‘populism’, except when these labels justifiably apply to politically correct liberalists who seek to stifle the honest outrage of the majority.  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be any immigrants.  The reason the British are so upset is because they were simply never asked who they wanted to come to live with them….and how many.

 

Immigration is ever the hot issue it always was.  Even to discuss the problem is to invite a torrent of hate-filled abuse and cries of ‘racist!’ and ‘Nazi!’ from the socialist nation-wreckers.  This of course is their intention:  to keep free speech suppressed, all the while allowing their damaging, dangerous policies to proceed unimpugned.  One such shameful issue has been the catastrophic failure of our political class to admit the disaster of Britain’s immigration policy.

 

·        According to government sources, genuine asylum seekers fleeing political persecution make up a mere 3% of those attempting to get into Britain.  The vast majority are illegal economic immigrants.  People are attempting to enter Britain in such numbers because they see the real chance of a prosperous future for themselves here.

 

·        The government mechanism for curbing immigration and ensuring only valid cases are passed appears to have completely broken down.  Very few asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down at the time of writing are actually being deported.  Many are either just released into the community or disappear into British society.

·        British taxpayers are having to foot the expense of providing camps, healthcare, social security, education and housing for tens of thousands of economic migrants every month!

 

·        Under new government guidelines, four-star hotels and holiday camps are being set aside to house illegal immigrants.

 

·        Asylum seekers have also been benefiting from hand-outs from the politically correct National Lottery Community Fund.  In 2001, illegal immigrants received a staggering £20 million to the outrage of other groups, such as the Victims of Crime Trust, who were passed over.  Clive Elliott of the VCT called for a boycott of the Lottery, remonstrating:  “I accuse the Community Fund of being biased and prejudiced and even exhibiting institutionalised racism when choosing its priorities.”

 

·        Today, one in 20 of London’s population is either an ‘asylum seeker’ or a refugee.

 

·        Asylum applications can involve long and expensive legal processes, again paid for by the British taxpayer.

 

·        Unchecked illegal immigration provides easy opportunity for terrorists to enter Britain undetected.  One refugee leader, Dr Mohammed Sekkoum, believes that at least 100 Algerians who are known terrorists in their own country have entered and are living secretly in Britain.

 

·        Communities in south-eastern England have found themselves literally overrun by illegal immigrants.

 

·        It appears that Britain has lost control of her own borders.

 

·        The white population of Britain is reproducing itself far more slowly than the immigrant populations, with the inevitable effect of changing the racial mix of the country.

 

·        Illegal immigration allows a nation state’s identify to be diluted as other cultures homogenise with the domestic population.

 

·        Illegal immigration provides more justification for EU state interference and control.

·        Publicising illegal immigration will more likely cause the acceptance by the public of EU security measures, such as the introduction of a continent-wide ID card, which the citizenry normally would not tolerate.  Will Europe once again hear:  “Your papers, please”?

 

·        Cultural diversity has historically caused deep-seated and long-term problems with stability and control, as we have seen with Northern Ireland, Africa, Yugoslavia and Britain and many other examples throughout history.  Yet ‘multiculturalism’ still remains the weapon of choice for EU socialists for four main reasons:

 

1.        It wrecks a nation’s national identity and customs;

 

2.        It improves socialism’s standing with the immigrants who will henceforth vote for their benefactors;

 

3.        It creates problems which can only be solved with the state taking on more powers, e.g. the issuance of  ID cards and other security measures;

 

4.        No indigenous citizen is able to complain about the effects of this ‘unchecked’ immigration for fear of being labelled a ‘racist’.

 

·        In ancient times, when the Assyrian empire invaded a nation, it would     deport the indigenous population and settle foreign peoples into the conquered land, such as with the Samaritans into northern Israel.   This sweeping measure prevented the germination of nationalist resistance movements among the conquered race.

·        In 1998, the EU set up a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna.   Neither ‘crime’ was defined, leaving each open to wide interpretation, one of the EU’s favourite tactics.

 

·        While unacceptable ‘racist’ views are deplored by most, a free society must allow freedom of speech, however objectionable.  Otherwise, who determines what is acceptable to think about and say, and what isn’t?  The EU?

 

Are the British Racist?

 

A cataclysmic weapon has been deployed against Britain in the form of mass, unchecked immigration, coupled with the drafting of new legislation which will actually make it illegal to voice your opposition to EU policies of the day.

 

But are the British who speak up about such matters ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’, or are they not justified  in feeling apprehensive and nervous about what is going on around them?  The future may yet see Islamic fundamentalism take to the streets in Britain to propagate its own violence, since radical Islam, by its own admission, refuses to assimilate into Britain’s new secular society, let alone the previous Christian one.  This may already have begun to happen.

 

Logging on to You

 

After the forthcoming ‘enlargement’ of the EU in May 2004, the aim is eventually to have all 450 million inhabitants registered on the central Europol database with an ‘entitlement’ (read ‘identity’) card, fingerprints, DNA-typing and dozens of fields of information on political and sexual preferences, arrest records, tax data, religious beliefs and other demographic denominators.  Misbehaviour by any individual will incur a withdrawal of ‘entitlements’ (privileges granted by the state) and the full machinery of the state’s oppressive law enforcement apparatus being arrayed against them.

 

Another problem is that terrorists can gain access to Britain relatively easily in order to wreak havoc on soft targets, as we almost saw with the ricin episode in North London.  Such terrorist events, while grotesque and macabre to the public, in fact greatly serve the ends of the socialist architects.  Another high-profile terrorism shooting, for instance, provokes the usual round of gun-control legislation, further disarming law-abiding citizens, while at the same time ensuring that the police become more heavily armed and the serious weaponry is left in the hands of hardened criminals and troublemakers.

 

Old Soviet

 

Anatoly Golytsin, a Kremlin staffer, defected from the USSR in 1984 and published his book, New Lies for Old.   In it, Golytsin described how, a few years into the future, a series of political events would occur in Russia which would lead the world to believe that Communism had collapsed.  This in fact happened with the breaking up of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The West was indeed lulled to sleep, according to Golytsin, trusting that the Cold War was over.  Meanwhile, was a more powerful and better organised regime forming beneath Western nations in Europe after decades of careful planning and execution?

 

The political left in Britain endorses any move that contributes towards the break-up of the state and its acceleration into their utopia of either a pan-European super state or global federation.  Reckless immigration, along the lines we are seeing today, appears to be deliberately encourage, through inaction, by the government of the day, even as it was by previous administrations, regardless of party politics.

 

Britain – a Cultural War-Zone

    

The woman in the street and the man on the Clapham omnibus, born during the 1920’s into a Britain of deference, respect and long-established British values, have both received a rude awakening.  The Britain they once admired and loved has ceased to exist.

 

There was once a Britain where citizens regarded themselves as having the highest ideals of decency and justice.  But the character of today’s Britons, occupying the same place on the globe as their empirical predecessors, would be as alien to those old adversaries Gladstone and Disraeli as the dark side of the moon.

 

To the old soldiers, sailors and airmen of World War II, the country they loved and fought for is unrecognisable to them today, and so are the inhabitants.  Forbidden by law to say anything about what is going on around them, they choke on the ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cultural diversity’ gags that have been stuffed in their mouths.  Bitter resentment and anger seethe in their hearts that no one asked them whether they wanted all the changes the socialists forced upon them anyway.  They came from an era when everyone seemed to care.  Today, how shocked they are to find that it is they are viewed as the enemies of ‘tolerance’ and ‘progress’.

 

While millions of the silent majority resent what has happened and seek a lawful, political solution from one of their major political parties, not one speaks for them.  The Big Three, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, are all pushing for the death of Britain.  New Labour waved the Union Jack at the Queen’s Jubilee, while chortling inwardly at its coming demise.  The soft and vacillating Conservative right rubberstamps a multiculturalism it secretly hates, grinning sheepishly up at the British Tower of Babel which hideously offends it, just to appear relevant with the trendy modernizers of Blair’s Third Way’.

 

Are the British institutionally racist?  Well if we are, you’d be hard put to explain why British army and civilian personnel went native in India.  Africa and a hundred places in between during the empire years, even as they do today.   Millions of Brits over the centuries have married foreign spouses, incorporated foreign cuisine and adopted foreign ways and brought all those great foreign words into our tremendously versatile language. 

 

Today the huge contributions the British have made to the world are still venerated in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand and a hundred other countries.  Certainly not much of an indication that the British culture is at war with the natives.  In fact, name another empire that has ever withdrawn from its power and still enjoys the kind of relationship we do with most of our former colonies today?

 

So Britain is to get the destiny she deserves.  Lenin is to have his day.  The state is God.  Multiculturalism and political correctness became the new faith and morality for Britain round about the time the nation realised it had lost God in the mud somewhere between the guilt of Passchendaele and the shame of the Anglican Lambeth Conferences.

 More!

 

*  *  *

                                        ---------------

-------

 

['FORTUNATELY ,WE ARE NOW LEAVING THE  CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC GODLESS BEAST IN BRUSSELS-AND ABOUT TIME TOO! WE AS MANY OTHERS VOTED NO! IN 1975  AND HAVE CONTINUED EACH DAY TO FIGHT THE BATTLE FOR ENGLAND'S FREEDOM EVER SINCE.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 AUGUST-2017

 

H.F.1266-BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

 

(PART 1)

In the years since 2004 we have seen numerous articles on the Jewish influence throughout the world, so much so, that it must be bewildering to anyone to come to a firm judgement as to the TRUTH

of so many matters where there is so great a divide as to ferment such great anger and even hatred of those of the Jewish faith particularly on the matter of Palestine.

The following article is instructive in order to show as the title states below.-]

 

 

Who Rules
America?


ARESEARCH REPORT
You already know that the news
and entertainment media are
biased. Now you will find out
why they are biased.


Updated November 2004. Copyright ©2004 by National Vanguard Books

[Some information is missing from this article.]

 Who Rules America?


by the research staff of National Vanguard Books


THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than
that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in
America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or
high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America’s mass
media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches
into every home in America, and it works its will during
nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and
molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich
or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and
then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know—or think we know—about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes
to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine,
our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain
news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV “docudramas” that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media
masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in
their management of the news and the entertainment that
they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered:
which items are emphasized and which are played down;
the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations—all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly
affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors
remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just
what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully
developed psychological techniques, they guide our
thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the
“in” crowd, the “beautiful people,” the “smart money.”
They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be
toward various types of people and behavior by placing
those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama
or situation comedy and having the other TV characters
react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected,
liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will
a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and
hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand,

a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly
darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best,
as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters,
or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated
by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens.
The White racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar
stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between
these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if
at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and
attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in
real life. For all too many Americans the real world has
been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment,
and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval
of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for
whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a
powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the
news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about
this form of thought control is that even when we realize
that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still
are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not
only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit
boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum
of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle
East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-
Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S.
government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish
conflict, or that 9-11 was a result of that support. Nor does
anyone dare suggest that it served Jewish interests, rather
than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq,
Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum
of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is
established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues
in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others
are emotionally partisan—with the partisanship always on
the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without
exception, however, take the position that “multiculturalism”
and racial mixing are here to stay and that they are good
things.

2



Because there are differences in

Peter Chernin of Fox: Without the
cheerleading of Fox News, the Iraq War
would have been a much harder sell to the
American people.
of corporate mergers and acquisi

degree, however, most Americans

tions that have produced a handful

fail to realize that they are being ma-

of multi-billion-dollar media con

nipulated. Even the citizen who

glomerates. The largest of these

complains about “managed news”

conglomerates are rapidly growing

falls into the trap of thinking that

even bigger by consuming their

because he is presented with an ap

competition, almost tripling in size

parent spectrum of opinion he can

during the 1990s. Whenever you

escape the thought controllers’ in-

watch television, whether from a

fluence by believing the editor or

local broadcasting station or via

commentator of his choice. It’s a

cable or a satellite dish; whenever

“heads I win, tails you lose” situa

you see a feature film in a theater

tion. Every point on the permissible

or at home; whenever you listen to

spectrum of public opinion is accept-

the radio or to recorded music;

able to the media masters—and no

whenever you read a newspaper,

impermissible fact or viewpoint is

book, or magazine—it is very

allowed any exposure at all, if they

likely that the information or en-

can prevent it.

tertainment you receive was pro-

The control of the opinion-mold

duced and/or distributed by one of

ing media is nearly monolithic. All

these megamedia companies:

of the controlled media—television,
radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures—
speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no
alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great
mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at
odds with those of the media masters. They are presented
with a single view of the world—a world in which every
voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish “Holocaust” tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across
our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and
bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations,
and the desirability of a “pluralistic,” cosmopolitan society
rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the
world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends—
and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming.
People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and
shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media?
As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn’t
simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-
hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If
that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would
reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to
rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we
are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News and Entertainment Media

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increase of competition, but rather in an accelerating wave

Time Warner. The largest media conglomerate today is Time Warner (briefly called AOL-
Time Warner; the AOL was dropped from the name when
accounting practices at the AOL division were questioned
by government investigators), which reached its current form
when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion
in 2000. The combined company had revenue of $39.5 billion in 2003. The merger brought together Steve Case, a
Gentile, as chairman of AOL-Time Warner, and Gerald
Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Warner, founded by the Jewish
Warner brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly
became part of the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact
so well-known that it is openly admitted by Jewish authors,
as is the fact that each new media acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn: Speaking of the initial merger of Time,
Inc. with Warner, Jewish writer Michael Wolff said in New
York magazine in 2001 “since Time Inc.’s merger with
Warner ten years ago, one of the interesting transitions is
that it has become a Jewish company.” (“From AOL to W,”
New York magazine, January 29, 2001)

The third most powerful man at AOL-Time Warner,
at least on paper, was Vice Chairman Ted Turner, a White
Gentile. Turner had traded his Turner Broadcasting System, which included CNN, to Time Warner in 1996 for a
large block of Time Warner shares. By April 2001 Levin
had effectively fired Ted Turner, eliminating him from
any real power. However, Turner remained a very large
and outspoken shareholder and member of the board of
directors.

Levin overplayed his hand, and in a May 2002 showdown, he was fired by the company’s board. For Ted Turner,
who had lost $7 billion of his $9 billion due to Levin’s mismanagement, it was small solace. Turner remains an outsider with no control over the inner workings of the company.

3



Ted Turner’s Lesson:


“Be very careful with whom you merge.”

WHEN TED TURNER, the Gentile media maverick (pictured, top), made
a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in the media boardrooms
across the country. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and
then built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70
million subscribers.

Although Turner had never taken a stand contrary to Jewish interests, he was regarded by William Paley and the other Jews at CBS
as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the
future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel
Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former
boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish
theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to
launch a “friendly” takeover of CBS. From 1986 to 1995 Tisch was
the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish
influence there. Subsequent efforts by Ted Turner to acquire CBS
were obstructed by Gerald Levin’s (pictured, bottom) Time Warner,
which owned nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and had veto power
over major deals. But when his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered
to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objections.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner
never commanded the “connections” necessary for being a media
master. He finally decided if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he sold
out to Levin’s Time Warner. Ted Turner summed it up:

“I’ve had an incredible life for the most part. I made a lot of
smart moves, and I made a lot of money. Then something happened,
and I merged with Time Warner, which looked like the right thing to
do at the time. And it was good for shareholders.

“But then I lost control. I thought I would have enough moral
authority to have all the influence in the new company. If you go into
business, be very careful with whom you merge.

“I thought I was buying Time Warner, but they were buying me.
We had kind of a difference in viewpoint. Then they merged with
AOL, and that was a complete disaster, at least so far. I have lost 85
percent of my wealth.”

Also under pressure, Steve Case resigned effective in May
2003. The board replaced both Levin and Case with a Black,
Richard Parsons. Behind Parsons the Jewish influence and
power remains dominant.

AOL is the largest Internet service provider in the
world, with 34 million U.S. subscribers. It is now being
used as an online platform for the Jewish content from
Time Warner. Jodi Kahn and Meg Siesfeld, both Jews,
lead the Time Inc. Interactive team under executive editor Ned Desmond, a White Gentile. All three report to
Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. Their
job is to transfer Time Warner’s content to target spe

cific segments of America Online’s audience, especially
women, children, and teens.

Time Warner was already the second largest of the
international media leviathans when it merged with AOL.
Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO (26 million subscribers)
is the nation’s largest pay-TV cable network. HBO’s
“competitor” Cinemax is another of Time Warner’s many
cable ventures.

Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Jewish billionaire Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was
America’s largest record company, with 50 labels. Warner
Music was an early promoter of “gangsta rap.” Through

4



its involvement with Interscope

Time Warner’s Norman Pearlstine: He
controls 50 popular magazines.
epitomized wholesome family en-

Records (prior to Interscope’s ac

tertainment. While it still holds the

quisition by another Jewish-owned

rights to Snow White, the company

media firm), it helped to popular-

under Eisner has expanded into the

ize a genre whose graphic lyrics

production of a great deal of so-

explicitly urge Blacks to commit

called “adult” material.

acts of violence against Whites.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired

Bronfman purchased Warner Mu-

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which

sic in 2004, keeping it solidly in

owns the ABC television network,

Jewish hands.

which in turn owns ten TV stations

In addition to cable and music,

outright in such big markets as New

Time Warner is heavily involved in

York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los

the production of feature films

Angeles, San Francisco, and Hous

(Warner Brothers Studio, Castle

ton. In addition, in the United States

Rock Entertainment, and New Line

ABC has 225 affiliated TV stations,

Cinema). Time Warner’s publishing
division is managed by its editor-inchief, Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. He
controls 50 magazines including
Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and
People. Book publishing ventures include Time-Life Books, Book-of-the-
Month Club, Little Brown, and many
others. Time Warner also owns
Shoutcast and Winamp, the very tools
that most independent Internet radio
broadcasters rely on, and, as a dominant player in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA),
was essentially “negotiating” with itself when Internet radio music royalty rules were set that strongly
favored large content providers and
forced many small broadcasters into
silence. (The Register, “AOL Time
Warner takes grip of net radio,” 8th
April 2003)

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today,
with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney
Company. Its leading personality and CEO, Michael Eisner,
is a Jew.

The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one
media analyst as a “control freak,” includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable
networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group
includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns
Miramax Films, run by the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob
and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies
as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile
Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it

Disney CEO Michael Eisner: Subverting the
Disney legacy.
over 2,900 affiliated radio stations
and produces over 7,200 radio programs. ABC owns 54 radio stations
and operates 57 radio stations,
many in major cities such as New
York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Radio Disney, part of ABC
Radio Networks, provides programming targeting children.

Sports network ESPN, an ABC
cable subsidiary, is headed by President and CEO George W.
Bodenheimer, who is a Jew. The
corporation also controls the Disney
Channel, Toon Disney, A&E, Lifetime Television, SOAPnet and the
History Channel, with between 86
and 88 million subscribers each.
The ABC Family television network
has 84 million subscribers and, in
addition to broadcasting entertainment (some of it quite raunchy for

a “family” channel), is also the network outlet for Christian Zionist TV evangelist Pat Robertson.

Although primarily a telecommunications company,
ABC/Disney earns over $1 billion in publishing, owning
Walt Disney Company Book Publishing, Hyperion Books,
and Miramax Books. It also owns six daily newspapers
and publishes over 20 magazines. Disney Publishing
Worldwide publishes books and magazines in 55 languages in 74 countries, reaching more than 100 million
readers each month

On the Internet, Disney runs Buena Vista Internet
Group, ABC Internet Group, ABC.com, ABCNEWS.com,
Oscar.com, Mr. Showbiz, Disney Online, Disney’s Daily
Blast, Disney.com, Family.com, ESPN Internet Group,
ESPN.sportzone.com, Soccernet.com, NFL.com,
NBA.com, Infoseek (partial ownership), and Disney Interactive.

5



Viacom. Number three on the

Sumner Redstone of Viacom: He encouraged
his lieutenant, Tom Freston, to create a
homosexual-oriented television network to
add to his media empire.
Viacom also owns the Country

list, with 2003 revenues of just over

Music Television and The Nashville

$26.5 billion, is Viacom, Inc.,

Network cable channels and is the

headed by Sumner Redstone (born

largest outdoor advertising (bill-

Murray Rothstein), a Jew. Melvin A.

boards, etc.) entity in the U.S.

Karmazin, another Jew, was num-

Viacom’s publishing division in

ber two at Viacom until June 2004,

cludes Simon & Schuster, Scribner,

holding the positions of president

The Free Press, Fireside, and Arch-

and chief operating officer.

way Paperbacks. It distributes vid-

Karmazin remains a large Viacom

eos through its over 8,000

shareholder. Replacing Karmazin as

Blockbuster stores. It is also in

co-presidents and co-COOs are a

volved in satellite broadcasting,

Jew, Leslie Moonves, and Tom

theme parks, and video games.

Freston, a possible Jew. (We have

Viacom’s chief claim to fame,

been unable to confirm Freston’s

however, is as the world’s largest

Jewish ancestry; he has done work

provider of cable programming

for Jewish organizations and was

through its Showtime, MTV, Nick-

involved in the garment trade, a
heavily Jewish industry, importing
clothing from the Third World to the

U.S. in the 1970s.)
Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three
largest networks, owns 39 television stations outright with another
200 affiliates in its wholly-owned
CBS Television Network, owns
185 radio stations in its Infinity
radio group, and has over 1,500
affiliated stations through its CBS
Radio Network. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry
Lansing (born Sherry Lee
Heimann), who is planning to retire at the end of 2005.

Viacom was formed in 1971 as
a way to dodge an anti-monopoly
FCC ruling that required CBS to
spin off a part of its cable TV operations and syndicated programming business. This move by the government
unfortunately did nothing to reduce the mostly Jewish
collaborative monopoly that remains the major problem
with the industry. In 1999, after CBS had again augmented itself by buying King World Productions (a leading TV program syndicator), Viacom acquired its
progenitor company, CBS, in a double mockery of the
spirit of the 1971 ruling.

Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999
stockholders’ votes at CBS and Viacom. CBS Television
has long been headed by the previously mentioned Leslie
Moonves; the other Viacom co-president, Tom Freston,
headed wholly-owned MTV.

Edgar Bronfman, Jr. of Warner Music, late
of Vivendi Universal. This Seagram’s liquor
heir buys and sells media empires like
collectors trade stamps. His father is
president of the World Jewish Congress.
elodeon, Black Entertainment Television, and other networks. Since
1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have
acquired larger and larger shares of
the juvenile television audience.
MTV dominates the television market for viewers between the ages of
12 and 24.

Sumner Redstone owns 76 per
cent of the shares of Viacom. He offers Jackass as a teen role model and
pumps MTV’s racially mixed rock
and rap videos into 342 million
homes in 140 countries and is a
dominant cultural influence on
White teenagers around the world.
MTV also makes race-mixing movies like Save the Last Dance.

Nickelodeon, with over 87 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old
TV audience in America and is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most
of its shows do not yet display the

blatant degeneracy that is MTV’s trademark, but Redstone
is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. Nickelodeon
continues a 12-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

NBC Universal. Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar
Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father,
Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress.

Seagram owned Universal Studios and later purchased
Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of “gangsta rap,”
from Warner. Universal and Interscope now belong to Viv

6



endi Universal, which merged with
NBC in May 2004, with the parent
company now called NBC Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest
man in the record business in May
1998 when he also acquired control
of PolyGram, the European record
giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the
Dutch electronics manufacturer
Philips.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family traded Seagram to Vivendi for
stock in Vivendi, and Edgar, Jr. became vice chairman of Vivendi. Vivendi was originally a French utilities
company, and was then led by Gentile Jean-Marie Messier. A board of
directors faction led by Bronfman
forced Messier to resign in July
2002.

Vivendi also acquired bisexual
Jew Barry Diller’s USA Networks
in 2002. (Diller is the owner of
InterActive Corporation, which
owns Expedia, Ticketmaster, The
Home Shopping Network, Lending
Tree, Hotels.com, CitySearch, Evite,
Match.com, and other Internet businesses.) Vivendi combined the USA
Network, Universal Studios, Universal Television, and theme parks
into Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE).

After the Vivendi-NBC merger,
Bronfman used his considerable personal profits to strike out on his own,
and recently purchased Warner Music from Jewish-dominated Time
Warner. The current chairman of
NBC Universal is a Gentile often associated with Jewish causes, longtime NBC employee Bob Wright.
Ron Meyer, a Jew, is president and
chief operating officer of Universal
Studios. Stacey Snider, also Jewish,
is the chairman of Universal Pictures. The president of NBC Universal Television Group is Jeff Zucker,
another Jew.

With two of the top four media
conglomerates in the hands of Jews
(Disney and Viacom), with Jewish
executives running the media opera-

Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation: An
ardent Zionist and backer of the neocons.
Melvin Karmazin, out at Viacom and
currently oligarch without portfolio. When a
reporter asked the then-CBS president why
he wanted a merger with Viacom, he said:
“This is the deal I’ve wanted to make, I think,
from the time I was bar-mitzvahed.”
Sony’s Andrew Lack: The Japan-based
company, perhaps not wanting to disrupt
“American” corporate culture, has staffed
its U.S. operations with Jewish executives.
tions of NBC Universal, and with
Jews filling a large proportion of the
executive jobs at Time Warner, it is
unlikely that such an overwhelming
degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on
the Jews’ part.

Other media companies:
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owns Fox Television Network,
Fox News, the FX Channel, 20th
Century Fox Films, Fox 2000, and
publisher Harper Collins. News
Corp. is the fifth largest megamedia
corporation in the nation, with 2003
revenues of approximately $19.2
billion. It is the only other media
company which comes close to the
top four.

Its Fox News Channel has been
a key outlet pushing the Jewish
neoconservative agenda that lies behind the Iraq War and which animates both the administration of
George W. Bush and the “new conservatism” that embraces aggressive
Zionism and multiracialism.

Murdoch is nominally a Gentile,
but there is some uncertainty about
his ancestry and he has vigorously
supported Zionism and other Jewish
causes throughout his life. (Historian
David Irving has published information from a claimed high-level media source who says that Murdoch’s
mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, was
Jewish, but we have not been able
to confirm this.) Murdoch’s number
two executive is Peter Chernin, who
is president and chief operating officer—and a Jew.

Under Chernin, Jews hold key
positions in the company: Gail
Berman runs Fox Entertainment
Group; Mitchell Stern heads satellite television division DirecTV;
Jane Friedman is chairman and CEO
of Harper Collins; and Thomas
Rothman is chairman of Fox Filmed
Entertainment. News Corporation
also owns the New York Post and TV
Guide, and both are published under Chernin’s supervision. The primary printed neoconservative

7



journal, The Weekly Standard, is

William Kristol preaches neoconservatism
under Chernin and Murdoch.
20th century. When Walt Disney
also published by News Corporation

died in 1966, the last barrier to the
and edited by William Kristol, a

total Jewish domination of Holly-
leading Jewish neocon spokesman

wood was gone, and Jews were able
and “intellectual.”

to grab ownership of the company
Most of the television and movie

that Walt built. Since then they have
production companies that are not

had everything their way in the
owned by the large media corpora-

movie industry.
tions are also controlled by Jews.

Films produced by seven of the
For example, Spyglass, an “in

firms mentioned above—Disney,
dependent” film producer which has

Warner Brothers, Paramount
made such films as The Sixth Sense,

(Viacom), Universal (NBC Univer-
The Insider, and Shanghai Noon, is

sal), 20th Century Fox (News
controlled by its Jewish founders

Corp.), DreamWorks, and Columbia
Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum,

(Sony)—accounted for 94% of total
who are co-chairmen. Jonathan

box-office receipts for the year 2003.
Glickman serves as president and

The big three in television net-
Paul Neinstein is executive vice work broadcasting used to be ABC,
president. Both men are Jews. Spy-

Steven Spielberg is a partner with Jeffrey
Katzenberg and David Geffen in up-and-
coming Jewish media firm Dreamworks SKG.
CBS, and NBC. With the consoliglass makes movies exclusively for

dation of the media empires, these
DreamWorks SKG.

three are no longer independent en-
The best known of the smaller

tities. While they were independent,
media companies, DreamWorks

however, each was controlled by a
SKG, is a strictly kosher affair.

Jew since its inception: ABC by
DreamWorks was formed in 1994

Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by
amid great media hype by record-

David Sarnoff and then by his son
ing industry mogul David Geffen,

Robert; and CBS first by William
former Disney Pictures chairman

Paley and then by Laurence Tisch.
Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film direc-

Over several decades these networks
tor Steven Spielberg, all three of

were staffed from top to bottom with
whom are Jews. The company pro-

Jews, and the essential Jewishness
duces movies, animated films, tele-of network television did not change
vision programs, and recorded

Amy Pascal is the head of Columbia Pictures.
when the networks were absorbed by
music. Considering the cash and

other Jewish-dominated media cor-
connections that Geffen, Katz

porations. The Jewish presence in
enberg, and Spielberg have,

television news remains particularly
DreamWorks may soon be in the

strong.
same league as the big four.

NBC provides a good example
One major studio, Columbia Pic-

of this. The president of NBC News
tures, is owned by the Japanese mul

is Neal Shapiro. Jeff Zucker is NBC
tinational firm Sony. Nevertheless,

Universal Television Group presithe studio’s chairman is Jewess Amy

dent. Reporting directly to Zucker is
Pascal, and its output fully reflects

his close friend Jonathan Wald, for-
the Jewish social agenda. Sony’s

merly an NBC program producer,

music division recently merged with
European music giant BMG to form
Sony BMG Music Entertainment, now one of the world’s
largest music distributors. It is headed by CEO Andrew
Lack, formerly president and CEO of NBC—and a Jew.
Sony’s overall American operations are headed by a Jew
named Howard Stringer, formerly of CBS, who hired Lack.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the
production and distribution of films since shortly after the
inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the

now a senior consultant for CNBC.

David M. Zaslav is president of
NBC Cable (and also a director of digital video firm TiVo
Inc.). The president of MSNBC is Rick Kaplan. All of these
men are Jews.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. Sumner Redstone, Tom
Freston, and Les Moonves control Viacom’s CBS. Moonves
demonstrated his power in 2002 by replacing the entire staff
of the new CBS Early Show. He is also a great-nephew of

8



Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion,
Israel’s first prime minister. Al Ortiz
(also a Jew) is executive producer and
director of special events coverage for
CBS News. Senior executive producer
Michael Bass and Victor Neufeld (formerly producer of ABC’s 20/20) produce
the CBS Early Show; both are Jews.

At ABC, David Westin, who is a Jew
according to Jeffrey Blankfort of the
Middle East Labor Bulletin, is the president of ABC News. The senior vice
president for news at ABC is Paul Slavin,
also a Jew. Bernard Gershon, a Jew, is
senior vice president/general manager of
the ABC News Digital Media Group, in
charge of ABCNEWS.com, ABC News
Productions, and ABC News Video
Source.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information
medium in America. About 58 million
of them are sold (and presumably read)
each day. These millions are divided
among some 1,456 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer
number of different newspapers across
America would provide a safeguard
against minority control and distortion.
Alas, such is not the case. There is less
independence, less competition, and
much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would
think.

In 1945, four out of five American
newspapers were independently owned
and published by local people with close
ties to their communities. Those days,
however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or
driven out of business by the mid-1970s.
Today most “local” newspapers are
owned by a rather small number of large
companies controlled by executives who
live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20
percent of the country’s 1,456 papers are
independently owned; the rest belong to
multi-newspaper chains. Only 103 of the
total number have circulations of more
than 100,000. Only a handful are large
enough to maintain independent report-


Top, Samuel Newhouse, Jr. of
Advance Publications; below him
heir apparent Samuel Newhouse IV.
The Newhouse media empire has
avoided much of the volatility of the
others by remaining privately held.
It was established through
rapacious monopolistic practices,
driving competitors out of business.

Donald Graham, CEO of the
Washington Post Company. His is
the third generation of racially
Jewish owners of the most influential
paper in the nation’s capital and all
its associated enterprises.
ing staffs outside their own communities;
the rest must depend on these few for all
of their national and international news.

The Associated Press (AP), which
sells content to newspapers, is currently
under the control of its Jewish vice president and managing editor, Michael
Silverman, who directs the day-to-day
news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed
the AP’s national news as assistant managing editor, beginning in 1989. Jewess
Ann Levin is AP’s national news editor.
Silverman and Levin are under Jonathan
Wolman, also a Jew, who was promoted
to senior vice president of AP in November 2002.

In only two per cent of the cities in
America is there more than one daily
newspaper, and competition is frequently
nominal even among them, as between
morning and afternoon editions under the
same ownership or under joint operating
agreements.

Much of the competition has disappeared through the monopolistic tactics
of the Jewish Newhouse family’s holding company,Advance Publications. Advance publications buys one of two
competing newspapers, and then starts an
advertising war by slashing advertising
rates, which drives both papers to the
edge of bankruptcy. Advance Publications then steps in and buys the competing newspaper. Often both papers
continue: one as a morning paper and the
other as an evening paper. Eventually,
though, one of the papers is closed—giving the Newhouse brothers the only daily
newspaper in that city. For example, in
2001 the Newhouses closed the Syracuse
Herald-Journal leaving their other Syracuse newspaper, the Post-Journal, with
a monopoly.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack
of real competition among America’s
daily newspapers: it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for
all the organs of opinion control on which
they could fasten their grip. The
Newhouses own 31 daily newspapers,
including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain

9



Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans
Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of
television stations and cable operations; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 35 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including The New Yorker, Vogue, Wired, Glamour, Vanity Fair,
Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and
all the other magazines of the wholly-owned Conde Nast
group. The staffing of the magazines is, as you might expect, quite Kosher. Parade can serve as an example: Its
publisher is Randy Siegel, its editor and senior vice president is Lee Kravitz, its creative director is Ira Yoffe, its
science editor is David H. Levy, and its health editor is Dr.
Isadore Rosenfeld.

This Jewish media empire was
founded by the late Samuel
Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age
of 84, he bequeathed media holdings
worth an estimated $1.3 billion to
his two sons, Samuel and Donald.
With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $9
billion today. The gobbling up of so
many newspapers by the Newhouse
family was facilitated by newspapers’ revenue structure. Newspapers, to a large degree, are not
supported by their subscribers but
by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue—not the small change
collected from a newspaper’s readers—that largely pays the editor’s
salary and yields the owner’s profit.
Whenever the large advertisers in a
city choose to favor one newspaper
over another with their business, the
favored newspaper will flourish
while its competitor dies. Since the
beginning of the last century, when
Jewish mercantile power in America
became a dominant economic force,
there has been a steady rise in the
number of American newspapers in
Jewish hands, accompanied by a
steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers—to
some extent a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly

dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained
by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper
business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the
tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment

of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opin

ion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over

America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to

use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy

could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of
the nation’s three most prestigious
and influential newspapers: the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal,
and the Washington Post. These
three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the
newspapers that set the trends and
the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide
what is news and what isn’t at the
national and international levels.
They originate the news; the others
merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.
The New York Times, with a
2003 circulation of 1,119,000, is the
unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of
the nation. It tells America’s “smart
set” which books to buy and which
films to see; which opinions are in
style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders,
artists, and businessmen are the real
comers. And for a few decades in
the 19th century it was a genuinely
American newspaper.
The New York Times was
founded in 1851 by two Gentiles,
Henry J. Raymond and George
Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate
by a wealthy Jewish publisher,
Adolph Ochs. His great-greatgrandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is
the paper’s current publisher and the
chairman of the New York Times
Co. Russell T. Lewis, also a Jew, is
president and chief executive officer
of The New York Times Company.
Michael Golden, another Jew, is

Peter R. Kann, who controls Dow Jones &
Co., publishers of the Wall Street Journal,
Barron’s, and 33 other newspapers.
Harvey Weinstein, who, with his brother Bob,
has produced such motion pictures as The
Crying Game, Priest, and Kids through
Miramax Films in association with Michael
Eisner’s Walt Disney Company.
10



vice chairman. Martin Nisenholtz, a Jew, runs their massive Internet operations.

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston
Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; eight TV
and two radio broadcasting stations; and more than 40 news-
oriented Web operations. It also publishes the International
Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from
the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news
agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post,
which, by establishing its “leaks” throughout government
agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a
non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson
Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean,
and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933,
however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a
bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier
and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, a Jew
who was industry czar in America during the First World
War. The Washington Post was run by Katherine Meyer
Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter, until her death in 2001.
She was the principal stockholder and board chairman of
the Washington Post Company; and she appointed her son,
Donald Graham, publisher of the paper in 1979. Donald
became Washington Post Company CEO in 1991 and its
board chairman in 1993, and the chain of Jewish control at
the Post remains unbroken. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 732,000, and its Sunday edition sells over one
million copies.

The Washington Post Company has a number of other
media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers,
including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in
Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in
Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville);
and in magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two
weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek.

The Washington Post Company’s various television ventures reach a total of about 12 million homes, and its cable
TV service, Cable One, has 750,000 subscribers.

The Wall Street Journal sells 1,820,000 copies each
weekday and is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a
New York corporation that also publishes 33 other newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a
Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher
of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no
better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street

Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News (circulation 729,000) was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by
Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Another Jew, Les Goodstein, is the president and chief operating officer of the New York Daily News. And, as mentioned
above, the neocon-slanted New York Post (circulation
652,000) is owned by News Corporation under the supervision of Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines

The story is much the same for other media as it is for
television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider,
for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any
importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek,
and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications,
the news media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger
of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The editor-inchief of Time Warner Communication is Norman Pearlstine,
a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the
Washington Post Company, under the Jew Donald Graham.
Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.0 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken
the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in
the nation.
Our Responsibility

Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking
into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such
as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and
Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works
can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable. When confronted with these facts, Jewish spokesmen customarily will
use evasive tactics. “Ted Turner isn’t a Jew!” they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the issue. If pressed
further they will accuse the confronter of “anti-Semitism”
for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that
keeps many persons who know the facts silent.

But we must not remain silent on this most important of
issues. The Jewish control of the American mass media is
the single most important fact of life, not just in America,
but in the whole world today. There is nothing—plague,
famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war—more dangerous to the future of our people.

11



Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of
the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than
American interests to decide questions of war and peace.
Without Jewish media control, there would have been no
Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no
NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would have been
no Iraq War, and thousands of lives would have been saved.
There would have been little, if any, American support for
the Zionist state of Israel, and the hatreds, feuds, and terror
of the Middle East would never have been brought to our
shores.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them
a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of
the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and
ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films
than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken
the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is
nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian
women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and

character—except that the character of the White race is
suspect because of a history of oppressing other races;
and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation
is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison
among our people, and we must break the power of those
who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power
to be in the hands of any alien minority with values and
interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews,
with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White
Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt
and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their
own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of
Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We
must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power
that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is
injecting its lethal poison into our people’s minds and
souls. If our race fails to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

Media of Our Own


A growing number of White Americans are working to build new media not under Jewish
control. National Vanguard Books, the publisher of this pamphlet, also publishes its own
full-color magazine of news, thought, and opinion, National Vanguard, a sample of which
is available from the address below for $5 in the U.S. and Canada, $8 elsewhere. We also
operate a news and comment Web site, updated several times daily, at NationalVanguard.org;
and a weekly radio program, American Dissident Voices. The program itself and a broadcast schedule are available at natvan.com and NationalVanguard.org or by writing to the
address below. It is vital that we support our own alternative media.

The National Alliance, parent organization of National Vanguard Books, is a membership
organization of activists working for White interests and helping to build and fund our
new media. For further information on Alliance membership, write to P.O. Box 90, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.

Additional copies of this pamphlet may be ordered from National Vanguard Books, P.O.
Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946 USA. 10 copies, $6. 25 copies, $9. 100 copies, $20. 1000
copies, $154. Prices include postage. Our book catalogue, listing over 600 books, videos,
and audio recordings, is available for $3 postpaid.

All contents copyright ©2004 National Vanguard Books, Inc. Media owners, managers,
and corporate relationships change from time to time, of course. All of the names and
other data in this report, except where otherwise noted, are accurate as of November
2004.

12

*  *  *

 

ADDED AUGUST 2-2018

WITH 193 COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD IN MIND

IN OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS AT WESTMINSTER IN OUR MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR THERE IS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ONLY ONE LONG RECOGNISED OVERSEAS  LOBBY GROUP

 THAT FOR

ISRAEL

WE'VE HEARD OF THE

CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL

AND THE

LABOUR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL

BUT AT THIS MOST IMPORTANT TIME IN THE HISTORY

WE HAVE YET TO HEAR OF THE

CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS

 OF

 ENGLAND

AND THE

LABOUR FRIENDS

 OF

ENGLAND

 

WHY!

 

    There are 195 countries in the world today. This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: the Holy See and the State of Palestine.

    How many countries are there in the world? (2018) - Total & List ...

    www.worldometers.info/.../how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/

     

*  *

About 1,440,000 results
 

    Full text of "Who Rules America - Khazar Media Grip" - Internet Archive

    https://archive.org/.../WhoRulesAmerica.../WhoRulesAmerica-KhazarMediaGrip_djvu.txt
    ‎
    Copyright ©2004 by National Vanguard Books Who Rules America? by the
    research ... Molding American Minds For example, a racially mixed couple will be
     ...
     

 

*  *  *

Will the Jews finally be freed from Khazarian mafia slavery as Israel is liberated?

By  Weekly Reports, White Dragon Society  239 Comments

*  *  *

More!

The information contained in this link is most controversial particularly the comment by Winston Churchill which was not printed at the time. The present furore over 'Anti-Semitism' needs to be finally dealt with by a INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE of the HOUSE OF COMMONS which should not contain any MEMBERS of the FRIENDS of ISRAEL.  AS we see above the WORLD  will be changing into a NEW ERA of DEMOCRACY with a more OPEN SOCIETY shedding OLD POWER GROUPS for

 

JUSTICE and PEACE

*  *  *

JULY 16,2018

H.F.1625/4

H.F.1368/1
 

ALEX BRUMMER: Jeremy Corbyn's refusal to tackle anti-Semitism is a stain on Britain and an insult to the memory of my grandparents who died at Auschwitz

By Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail

 August 2,2018

 

ALEX BRUMMER: My father, a refugee from the Holocaust who died just two short months ago at the grand age of 103, would have been horrified

My father, a refugee from the Holocaust who died just two short months ago at the grand age of 103, would have been horrified.

The British value he held most dear was that of tolerance. It had been ingrained in him from the day he first set foot in this country as a victim of the Nazi conquest after suffering a brutal anti-Semitic attack in his home town on the Hungary-Czechoslovakia border.

The very idea that the future leader of Britain’s major opposition party might host an event on Holocaust Memorial Day where a speaker equated the Israeli government with Nazis responsible for the most terrible atrocities known to humankind would have been as shocking as it was unbelievable.

Anxiety

Yet Jeremy Corbyn presided over such a gathering in 2010 at the House of Commons. That Corbyn failed to distance himself from the meeting as soon as the remarks were made is shocking. That he failed to do so after reports of the event in The Jewish Chronicle is unconscionable.

That it has taken the Labour leader eight years to issue a mealy-mouthed apology ‘for the concerns and anxiety this has caused’, makes him appear not only virulently anti-Jewish, but utterly insensitive to the ghastly events which all but wiped the Jewish people from the face of the earth, along with other victims of Nazism such as the Roma and the disabled.

 

In 2010 Mr Corbyn was filmed outside the Israeli embassy in London comparing its blockade of Gaza to Nazi atrocities 

Corbyn’s defenders, if there can be any shameful enough to continue supporting him, will claim it was appropriate for him to host the gathering because the star speaker who made the comparison with the Nazis was Hajo Meyer, himself a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz.

But why should this confer any legitimacy on Corbyn’s presence at a meeting which sought to brush over the industrial killings of six million Jews, along with the atrocities so many suffered?

My own family was all but destroyed by the Nazis and their Hungarian allies, the Arrow Cross Party. My father Michael’s two older brothers, Joseph and Ferenc, living peacefully in the community of Berehove (now in Ukraine), ran a popular milk bar in the centre of town. It was from this bar that they were forcibly dragged to join work gangs in the forest.

At first there was an exchange of letters and food parcels with the family — then, after 1942, only silence. More than seven decades on, none of us knows what befell them. What I do know from first-hand accounts is the abomination which affected the rest of the family.

In 1944, Hitler’s arch bureaucrat and assassin Adolf Eichmann was charged with exterminating Hungary’s Jews.

   

More from Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail...

My grandfather Sandor (after whom I am named), my grandmother, my father’s two younger sisters, younger brother and niece were shipped off to Auschwitz death camp. As they left their home town by train they begged Jew-hating locals for water and were showered with salt.

When they disembarked at Auschwitz my grandparents were separated from the young and dispatched straight to the gas chambers. My teenage aunts and young cousin miraculously survived, but the ghastly smell of human ashes from the crematoria and the filth of the huts to which they were dispatched would deprive them of their sense of smell for the rest of their lives.

My two aunts also suffered terrible indignities and physical harm in the camps at the hands of the Nazis. That is still a forbidden subject in the family because of the enduring stain it left on their lives.

The barbarism of the Holocaust affected survivors in many different ways. Many found comfort in an intense religiosity and this resulted in the growth and spread of the Haredi community, the Jews in black hats and beards to be seen in Stamford Hill in North London, Jerusalem and parts of Brooklyn in New York.

Others were so alienated by the experience that their families turned away from Judaism and embraced Christianity.

A few, such as Hajo Meyer who spoke at that Corbyn meeting, were so embittered by their experiences that they became human rights extremists, turned to the hard-Left and embraced the anti-Zionist creed, and drew comparisons between Israel and the Nazis.

 
 

Jeremy Corbyn's refusal to sign up to the full internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism might be explained by fears that he knows he has fallen foul of it himself

But the idea that anyone —particularly someone as politically active as Corbyn — should ever think these Nazi comparisons acceptable or mainstream is beyond belief.

By treating them as if they are, Corbyn and his supporters cheapen the horrors suffered by those in the Holocaust.

I do not tell of my own family’s experiences with anything but reverence. Indeed, some of my cousins think it unseemly to remind still-living survivors of terrible events. I believe I have a duty to ensure younger generations less well-versed in anti-Semitism than my own realise where it might lead if embraced by a party with a chance of achieving power.

The reason my father Michael would have found the levels of anti-Semitism in today’s Labour Party so shocking is because of his own life story. In the late Thirties he left the family farm in Hungary and sailed to British-mandated Palestine in the hope of joining a future Israeli navy.

Onslaught

Turned back by British armed forces, who were understandably refusing entry to the huge numbers of Jewish refugees trying to get into Palestine, he made his way to Italy, then back towards the farm through war-torn Europe to try to rescue his family from the impending Nazi onslaught.

Instead, he was set upon by Nazi-sympathising thugs and almost beaten to a pulp before managing to make an escape and eventually reaching Britain where an older brother had made a career as the Cantor-Minister to a Jewish community in the Liverpool area.

At Victoria station, not speaking English, he wandered in error into the ladies’ waiting room. There he was approached by an elegant woman, who spoke a little German, pointed out he was in the wrong place and inquired where he was heading. He said Liverpool. She walked him across London to Euston station and helped him buy a ticket. The contrast between the decency and dignity of the welcome he received in London and the hostility and brutality of his native Hungary could not have been more profound.

As first a farmer, then owner of a kosher butcher and delicatessen and believer in enterprise, my father was a natural Tory. Yet for most of my life the mainstream Labour Party was the natural home for Jewish voters and attracted a generation of Jewish politicians who were at their most powerful in the Harold Wilson, James Callaghan era of the Seventies.

Extreme

Most were enthusiastic supporters of Israel and admirers of the country’s democratic values and kibbutz system of a shared society and culture. The Tories were regarded with more suspicion because of the Right-wing, racist views of some extremist members.

The truth is that the extreme Left, of which Corbyn is part and which has captured Labour’s inner councils, always had a virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bent.

It stems partly from history. Before the enlightenment in the 18th century, Jews were forced into ancillary trades such as money lending because land ownership was blocked to them. Once they were allowed to become fuller members of society, they were seen as having acquired special privileges, using them for economic gain.

This made them targets of anti-capitalist Leftists. Layered on to this is the belief that Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’, still exploits its exclusivity. It is seen by Corbyn and the Left as a colonialist enterprise which since 1967 has occupied disputed Palestinian territory.

Yet Britain, with its history of accepting refugees, its brave Parliamentary democracy and its wars against fascism, has ensured that anti-Semitism was never allowed to flourish.

That we should now find ourselves at the centre of a row about its dramatic rise is shocking the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world.

It is a stain on Corbyn’s Labour and an insult to the six million murdered in concentration camps and the brave survivors and refugees who keep the flame of their loved ones’ memory burning bright.

 

ALEX BRUMMER: Jeremy Corbyn's refusal to tackle anti-Semitism is a stain on Britain and an insult to the memory of my grandparents who died at Auschwitz

By Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail

 August 2,2018

 

H.F.1642

 
 
 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

-'WE ARE AFTER ALL AN INSULAR  ISLAND PEOPLE']

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

. Even Remainers now back a 'hard' Brexit: Most Brits want to regain full control ...
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail and Kate Ferguson For Mailonline ... a straight
choice between that and no deal, with 58 per cent backing it.
 

Most Brits want to regain full control of our borders and to become free of meddling EU judges, survey reveals

  • Most polled want the UK to become free of EU judges and full border control 

  • Two thirds said they would prefer 'no deal' rather than a soft Brexit, poll found

  • Findings boost for Theresa May who says no deal is better than a bad deal

Most Remain voters now back a Brexit that gives Britain a clean break from the EU and control back of our borders, a major study has found.

Many of those who voted to stay in the European Union also now believe the country should only pay a small ‘divorce bill’ and stop EU judges ruling over the UK.

The results are a major boost for Theresa May’s Brexit stategy - and suggest diehard Remainers, such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable and former prime minister Tony Blair, have overestimated support for backtracking on Brexit. 

Full artical


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782712/Most-Brits-hard-Brexit-new-survey-finds.html#ixzz4pXWhGZDU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

.'..We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of the fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.  The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech would betray you

'An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth, to argue another Englishman into slavery'.

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

+4+5+6+7+8+9+10

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 
 
 
 
BREXIT

ANNOUNCEMENT

ARTICLE 50 LETTER

DELIVERED BY

'HER MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR

TO

BRUSSELS

ON

MARCH 29-2017

*

ON

THE FINAL STRETCH

 TO

 FREEDOM

OF THE

PEOPLE AND NATION STATE OF

 ENGLAND

[TIME ELAPSED SINCE REFERENDUM IN JUNE-2016

  12 MONTHS

 

 JULY-2017- AUG-2019 (?)

JULY 23-2017.

*

 

[No 1]

 

    DAILY MAIL

     

    -MAY: EU MIGRANTS CAN STAY IN UK


     Daily Mail
    May says 3.2million EU citizens CAN stay in Britain after we leave
    Daily Mail - 14 hours ago
    May insists her offer to let three million EU citizens stay after Brexit is 'fair' ... All of
    the 3.2million EU nationals currently in the UK will be allowed to stay ..... in case
    there is a late surge of migrants arriving as Brexit approaches.

    JUNE 23,2017
H.F.1226 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-July-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-July-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW
 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

 

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 
 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

      9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA
LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND
SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND
100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

 THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 
  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
    •
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with Britian would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*

Brexit will let us rediscover role as trading power | Daily Mail Online

Theresa May's Brexit speech puts Cameron to shame | Daily Mail ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Commons and Lords get ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Full reports and analysis

 

A great nation is reborn: Quitting will let us rediscover our role as a ...

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.
 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

  WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

  WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

  WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

  

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

 *		 7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

  WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

  WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW
 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

YESTERDAY  was a HISTORIC DAY for OUR COUNTRY. BY a RESOUNDING MAJORITY of 384, the COMMONS swept away [our  past 45 years of tutelage within an undemocratic-unaccountable-unbearable-corrupt-expensive- strait-jacket Europe.]

 

THIS was a historic day for our country. At 7.30pm yesterday by a resounding majority of 384, the Commons swept away the last serious obstacle to freeing Britain from the chains that have bound us to an unelected, unaccountable Brussels for 45 YEARS.

True, we can still expect dirty tricks from the 114 who, to their shame, voted  against implementing the

PEOPLE'S WILL.

Of these , this newspaper will not waste ink on cursing SNP members, whose fantasies of SCOTLAND as an independent EU nation state gave them a spurious excuse for defying the UK majority.

AS for the rest, no criticism is too harsh for those Labour MPs who represent solidly Brexiteer constituencies, but voted to

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

So, too, do the creeps who in 2015 backed the call for a binding referendum, but voted last night against implementing its result.

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

-that flip-flopping representative of the moneyed elite, suckled on the [thirsty] breast of Brussels.

IN 2008, it was he who led demands for an in/out referendum on Europe (as we demonstrate on the opposite page-

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

*  *  *

PETER OBORNE

 

 

*  *  *

[IN AUGUST 2018 WITH TWO YEARS ALREADY PAST AND THERESA MAY IN FRANCE FOR TALKS WITH FRENCH PRIME MINISTER EMMANUEL MACRON ON HER CHEQUERS COMPROMISE PLAN WHICH MACRON HAS REFUSED TO CONSIDER-WHY SHOULD HE BOTHER WHEN HE KNOWS THAT HER IRON LADY LABEL HAS PROVED A PIECE OF FICTION AND HER WORDS ON BECOMING PRIME MINISTER:

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

A PACK OF LIES.]

*

 

No doubt there are occasions when the PM of our country is sparing with the truth national security... But in the matter of Brexit which Parliament laid the decision on the PEOPLE then the only word that comes to mind when  the People's vote is  ignored TRAITOR.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 4,2018

 
 
 

DAILY MAIL

COMMENT:

At last, a leader who understands Britain ..

Thursday,October 6, 2016

FIVE days ago, this paper said Theresa May remained something of an enigma after six years with her head down at the Home Office. Like the rest of the country, we wanted to know more about her vision for Britain and what makes her tick.

Yesterday, in straightforward language-and with the quiet assurance of a leader clear in her aims and confident of her ability to achieve them-she gave us the answers we sought.

Indeed, this was an historic speech, raising the curtain on a new age for

BRITAIN 

as a

SELF-GOVERNING NATION STATE

and telling us more in one hour about what the new Prime Minister stands for than we learned about David Cameron in his six years at the helm.

Above all, it was a speech of a women who understands the great mass of British voters, whose fears and aspirations have been ignored by the political class for so long.

More than this, she actually likes the people fate has chosen her to lead, sharing their concerns and

LOVE OF COUNTRY

with a genuine fellow-feeling unheard of from an occupant of No 10 since the days of the great Margaret Thatcher.

True, many have remarked that parts of her speech-on workers-rights, tax-dodging fat cats and state intervention-might have been written by Ed Miliband or even Jeremy Corbyn.

But this is no cynical, focus group-driven invasion of the Left's territory-effective though it may be in attracting Labour voters dismayed by their parties descent into idiocy.

Rather, the PM was voicing her own view (shared by millions, including this paper) prosperity, it is too often  abused to exploit the vulnerable and enrich the immoral...

 

Full article

'In our own history, above all, every step in advance has been at the same time a step backwards. It has often been shown how our latest constitution is, amidst all external differences, essentially the same as the earliest, how every struggle for right and freedom, from the thirteenth century onwards, has simply been a struggle for recovering something old.-FREEMAN, Historical Essays. iv 253

 

'All our hopes of the future depend on a sound unders6anding of the past.- HARRISON. The Meaning of History,6

 

ALFRED KING OF THE ENGLISH

 

OCTOBER 6-2016

 

H.F.1001 BREXIT BY JANUARY 2017.

 

*  *  *
 

[IT REMINDS US OF 1970-72 ALL OVER AGAIN-A PERIOD OF LIES-DECEIT AND TREASON.]

 

*

Robbins bit his lip and flashed a pair of dimples: QUENTIN LETTS watches on as May's increasingly powerful fixer gives evidence alongside Dominic Raab - as he is interrupted by news of his own demotion

By Quentin Letts for the Daily Mail

July 25, 2018

 

Coups d’etat used to be conducted by Latin-American generalissimos with dark glasses and scrambled egg – huevos revueltos – on their army tunics.

In Britain the Establishment has little taste for gold braid. 

Are our anti-democratic outrages carried out by murmuring mandarins working to the Cabinet-bypassing diktats of a dishonest prime minister?

First the Iraq War. Now the Chequers ‘betrayal’ of Brexit?

Whitehall’s most controversial fixer, Oliver Robbins, came to Westminster for a taste of parliamentary scrutiny. Mr Robbins runs Theresa May’s Europe unit at 10 Downing Street.

 

Dominic Raab, Secretary of State for Exiting the

 

European Union and Olly Robbins who runs Theresa

 

May's Europe policy unit at number 10 Downing Street

He has been given powers that arguably usurp those of HM Secretary of State for Brexit. 

Mr Robbins is the man whose soft-Brexit papers were sprung on the Cabinet at Chequers.

Eurosceptic MPs have long been itching to interrogate him but were told he was unavailable. 

Finally it was agreed he could go before Hilary Benn’s pro-Remain select committee on Brexit. Yesterday he did so. Last afternoon of term. Convenient.

Physically, Mr Robbins is a commanding presence: tall, bull-necked, strong hair, wide shoulders. 

He wore a smart suit, his black shoes dazzlingly polished. He sat alongside Dominic Raab, new Brexit Secretary (predecessor David Davis having quit at Mr Robbins’s interferences).

Anyone judging Raab and Robbins simply on looks might have presumed that the latter was the politician, for he bore himself with the greater pomp. Mr Raab? A foot shorter, with the darting, stressy look of a clerk. 

 

 vein throbs on the right of his brow and he is prone to flushing in the face.

When they spoke, the balance changed. Raab was husky, lawyerly enough to see off nitpickers (eg. matinee favourite Joanna Cherry of the SNP), at other moments quite impressively brusque with low-grade pointscorers (eg. Labour’s Stephen Kinnock). 

By contrast Mr Robbins’s voice was as soft as margarine. He was deferential. He bit on the lower lip, did lots of nodding and flashed a pair of dimples, working rising inflections into his tone. Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood and his stand-in Sir Mark Sedwill, along with civil service chief executive John Manzoni, speak in almost an identical way.

John Whittingdale (Con, Maldon) claimed that ‘most ministers knew nothing’ of the soft-Brexit plan pulled out of the Chequers hat.

Mr Robbins, meekly: ‘I don’t think so.’ He claimed Mrs May’s ‘engagement with colleagues was constant’. Constant but deceptive, perhaps.

Mr Whittingdale said it looked as if Mrs May had tried to ‘circumvent’ her Cabinet. 

Mr Robbins, who began most of his answers with ‘so’, said ‘it’s certainly not a picture I or the Prime Minister would recognise’.

 

Theresa May’s head of the Europe unit at number 10 Downing Street Olly Robbins was undergoing a spot of parliamentary scrutiny today. He has been given powers that arguably usurp those of HM Secretary of State for Brexit, Dominic Raab

Mr Robbins’s enhanced powers were confirmed in a parliamentary written answer published a few minutes before yesterday’s committee hearing.

It confirmed a ‘change of government machinery’ which all but emasculates the Brexit department.

Craig Mackinlay (Con, S Thanet) said: ‘I feel a coup d’etat has been going on.’ Mr Robbins: ‘So, Mr Mackinlay, I honestly don’t recognise the picture.’

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con, NE Somerset) wondered when Mr Robbins had started writing his Chequers papers. 

‘These papers had their origins in other papers,’ said Mr Robbins. See how sneaky they are at this sort of thing? He finally conceded that the first versions of the Chequers papers were written ‘about a fortnight’ earlier.

Mr Rees-Mogg, with deadly politeness, said he did not hold Mr Robbins responsible for a ‘worrying’ breakdown in Cabinet government. 

Mr Robbins thanked him. Mr Rees-Mogg now said that he blamed Mrs May. Mr Robbins gave a pale gulp, wishing he had not been so quick to thank the Mogg.

It is often said Tony Blair lied to ministers and to Parliament when he took us into the Iraq War, and that his dishonesty wrecked public trust in our political system.

If Mrs May has just misled her own ministers, on a national strategic relationship with the EU which may impede our economy for decades, her reputation will sink as low as that of the sharply hated Blair. And she will deserve the odium.

 

A vein throbs on the right of his brow and he is prone to flushing in the face.

When they spoke, the balance changed. Raab was husky, lawyerly enough to see off nitpickers (eg. matinee favourite Joanna Cherry of the SNP), at other moments quite impressively brusque with low-grade pointscorers (eg. Labour’s Stephen Kinnock). 

By contrast Mr Robbins’s voice was as soft as margarine. He was deferential. He bit on the lower lip, did lots of nodding and flashed a pair of dimples, working rising inflections into his tone. Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood and his stand-in Sir Mark Sedwill, along with civil service chief executive John Manzoni, speak in almost an identical way.

John Whittingdale (Con, Maldon) claimed that ‘most ministers knew nothing’ of the soft-Brexit plan pulled out of the Chequers hat.

Mr Robbins, meekly: ‘I don’t think so.’ He claimed Mrs May’s ‘engagement with colleagues was constant’. Constant but deceptive, perhaps.

Mr Whittingdale said it looked as if Mrs May had tried to ‘circumvent’ her Cabinet. 

Mr Robbins, who began most of his answers with ‘so’, said ‘it’s certainly not a picture I or the Prime Minister would recognise’.

 

Theresa May’s head of the Europe unit at number 10

 

Downing Street Olly Robbins was undergoing a spot of

 

parliamentary scrutiny today. He has been given

 

powers that arguably usurp those of HM Secretary of

 

State for Brexit, Dominic Raab

Mr Robbins’s enhanced powers were confirmed in a parliamentary written answer published a few minutes before yesterday’s committee hearing.

It confirmed a ‘change of government machinery’ which all but emasculates the Brexit department.

Craig Mackinlay (Con, S Thanet) said: ‘I feel a coup d’etat has been going on.’ Mr Robbins: ‘So, Mr Mackinlay, I honestly don’t recognise the picture.’

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con, NE Somerset) wondered when Mr Robbins had started writing his Chequers papers. 

‘These papers had their origins in other papers,’ said Mr Robbins. See how sneaky they are at this sort of thing? He finally conceded that the first versions of the Chequers papers were written ‘about a fortnight’ earlier.

Mr Rees-Mogg, with deadly politeness, said he did not hold Mr Robbins responsible for a ‘worrying’ breakdown in Cabinet government. 

Mr Robbins thanked him. Mr Rees-Mogg now said that he blamed Mrs May. Mr Robbins gave a pale gulp, wishing he had not been so quick to thank the Mogg.

It is often said Tony Blair lied to ministers and to Parliament when he took us into the Iraq War, and that his dishonesty wrecked public trust in our political system.

If Mrs May has just misled her own ministers, on a national strategic relationship with the EU which may impede our economy for decades, her reputation will sink as low as that of the sharply hated Blair. And she will deserve the odium.

 

*

 

By Quentin Letts for the Daily Mail

July 25, 2018

 

*

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

H.F.1632

 

*  *  *

 

 

 
Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS]

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

 

 

Let's get on with it! DOMINIC RAAB's Brexit war cry as he says it's time to take back control of our borders, our laws and our future

By Dominic Raab For The Daily Mail

 July 26,2018

 

e-mail

 

View
comments

 As I head to Brussels today for more Brexit talks, I have the words of many Mail readers ringing in my ears:

 

 

'Let's get on with it.' 

 

 

 

It has been more than two years since the referendum, and I know many people want us to get on and deliver on the verdict of the British people. Taking back control of our money, our law, our borders – and our country's future.

We are well on the way to delivering exactly that. As the new Brexit Secretary, I am relishing the challenge. 

Our White Paper, published this month, spells out our vision in more detail and I will be in Brussels today for further negotiations with Michel Barnier.

 

Dominic Raab says he is relishing the

 

challenge of getting on 'taking back

 

control of our money, our law, our

 

borders – and our country's future' as

 

the new Brexit Secretary

Our plan sets out a principled and pragmatic Brexit. One that sees us outside of the political institutions in Brussels that so many of us campaigned to leave.

Not only do we have a plan, we are delivering it. In Parliament, above all the din, we are getting the legislation in place to deliver Brexit.

The EU (Withdrawal) Act passed last month will mean we take back control over our laws and guarantee a smooth legal transition for businesses and citizens.

ast week our Customs Bill, which gives us the power to make trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, passed the House of Commons.

In the negotiations with the EU, 80 per cent of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed. Mr Barnier and I will be discussing how we complete the remaining 20 per cent, including guarantees to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

 

he UK plan would establish a new free

 

trade area for goods with Europe, ensuring our manufacturers, our small businesses, and the people they employ, continue frictionless trade with the remaining EU countries.

I was at one such manufacturer, a family business run by Tom Hainsworth, on Monday. They helped make the uniforms for the Battle of Waterloo. It's a firm with a rich history, and under our proposals, a bright future.

At the same time as securing our trade with the EU, our plan also allows us to go out and strike global trade deals with old friends and new partners around the world – bringing jobs to the UK and providing cheaper goods for our consumers.

On security, we are focused on maintain the operational capabilities that keep our people safe across Europe. 

That means the UK participating in key crime-fighting agencies, such as Europol, and sharing vital information that helps keep dangerous people off our streets.

We have a plan with ambition, the energy to deliver and we are working hard to resolve the outstanding issues with our EU friends. I trust that ambition, energy and pragmatism will be reciprocated.

Of course, there is no deal unless we agree the whole deal – it must work for the UK and the EU.

We are striving for the best deal. But in case our ambition and energy are not matched, we are stepping up our preparation for no deal.

We are hiring up to 1,000 more Border Force staff to police our border. Starting this summer, we will publish dozens of notices to industry and consumers on the steps we would need to take if we do not agree a deal, to avoid disruption to transport, trade and supply chains.

Leaving the EU with no deal is not what we want. A good deal would be better for the UK and the EU.

But while there are a few who might wallow in pessimism or have us cower in a corner at this historic crossroads, I am confident Britain's best days lie ahead.

That is because I am stubbornly optimistic about our country, and I am confident in our people. In the coming months, we will rise to this challenge and galvanise our resolve.

With ambition, hard work, and energy – on all sides – we can strike the right deal for the UK. Come what may, we will be ready for

Brexit.

*  *  *

 

 

PRINCIPLES.

'Principle  is the passion for truth and right.-'

 

Hazlitt

 

*

'He who merely knows right principles is not equal to him who loves them.'-

 

Confucius

 

*

 PERSEVERANCE

 

'An enterprise, when fairly once begun should not be left till all that ought is won.-'

Shakespeare

 

*

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held.

Wordsworth

*

VICTORY

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word : Victory-victory at all cots, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.- WINSTON CHURCHILL. May 1940.

 
ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

293

In 1962,

Field Marshall Montgomery

 found Sir Winston Churchill sitting up in bed smoking a cigar. Churchill shouted for more brandy and protested against Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market which as we soon found out was in reality  HITLER'S plan for Europe under GERMAN Control.

MR RABB

 

We could not reason with Hitler in 1938 just as we cannot with EU's Hitlerian descendants of his kind in 2018. Your resolve is no doubt well-meaning but you have shown the traps but not the iron determination and single purpose to extricate our country fully from the

BEAST OF BRUSSELS

ON

 MARCH 29,2019

 

ONLY A CHANGE OF PRIME MINISTER TO A  FIRM BREXITEER WILL ENSURE OUR FULL EXIT FROM HITLER'S SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

A WARNING FROM HISTORY

 

COMPROMISE

 

'From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights has been abandoned.  I insist that this shall cease.  The country needs repose after its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles.-

Charles Sumner-Am.States.(1811-74)

 

*

     

    ROBERT HARDMAN: The Brussels bully hailed as a ... -

     

    Daily Mail

     

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../ROBERT-HARDMAN-Brussels-bully-hailed-scheming-blend-baddies.html

    1 day ago ... The real power in Brussels is now wielded by Martin Selmayr, ... is perhaps best
    known in Britain for reportedly leaking the details of a key Brexit ... be quite so in
    thrall to an unelected German academic-turned-lawyer- ... has his way, it will be
    not so much a deal as a punishment beating.' .... YOU MAY LIKE.
     

* *  *

Let's get on with it! DOMINIC RAAB's Brexit war cry as he says it's time to take back control of our borders, our laws and our future

By Dominic Raab For The Daily Mail

 July 26,2018

 

COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CHANGES OF TEXT ETC.-ARE OURS!]

H.F.1637

 
 
 

News for DAILY MAIL-UK pays worst state pension in the developed world

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension in the developed world with a basic payout of £122.30 a week
  • The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West 
  • Former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get worse 
  • Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70 

By Daniel Martin, Policy Editor For The Daily Mail

February 12, 2018

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found.

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings – and last night former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get even worse.

Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70, while future payments could be cut even further to avoid needing massive hikes in national insurance, Baroness Altmann said.
 

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found

The league table revealing Britain's pension shame was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which analyses the world's industrialised nations. 

Out of all the countries compared, Britain comes bottom – even behind poorer nations such as Chile, Poland and Mexico.

While the UK's state pension is worth just 29 per cent of average earnings, in France the equivalent figure is 74.5 per cent. 

Germany's state pension is worth 50.5 per cent of average earnings, while in the USA it is 49.1 per cent. 

The most generous state pension in the world is in the Netherlands, where the payments are slightly higher than average earnings.
 

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings. File photo

Baroness Altmann warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it. 

She said: 'We are one of the world's leading economies, but our support for the oldest in society is not fit for purpose.

'In April 2016, major reforms to the UK state pension were supposed to have made the system affordable for the future, reducing its generosity. Beyond the 2030s, the new state pension will be lower than the old system for most people and the lowest paid, predominantly women, will lose significantly from the new system.

'Despite this, the Government has been advised that the costs of paying state pensions will soar so much over the next 20 years and beyond that further cuts could be required.'

From later this year the state pension age for women will rise from 63 to match men at 65, and will reach 66 for both by 2020.

Baroness Ros Altmann (pictured) warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it

The Government's economic forecasters, the Actuary's Department, believes it will become 70 in the 2050s and 71 in the 2060s.

This would mean that anyone aged 30 or below now will not get their state pension until they are 70, while those under 20 will have to wait until they are 71.

Baroness Altmann added: 'The Government actuary believes that just funding the UK's exceptionally low state pension will require reducing payments in future or dramatic tax rises. Policymakers face difficult decisions and are also likely to need to increase the state pension age further.'

The former pensions minister called on the Government to do more to address the crisis, including making private pensions more attractive so that more people are willing to pay a portion of their wages into their own fund.

'To avoid burdening younger generations with significant tax rises, it is vital that more is done to boost private pension saving,' she added. 'Auto-enrolment is a good start, but the pensions industry needs to attract more customers to pay more into their pensions.' 
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5379521/Britain-pays-retirees-worst-state-pension.html#ixzz56thYQdgc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

February 12, 2018

[IT IS IRONIC THAT IT WAS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHICH INTRODUCED THE STATE PENSION  OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO BY WINSTON CHURCHILL YET AS SHOWN ABOVE IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY BOTH THE MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES TO THE PRESENT LEVEL AS THE POOREST PENSIONERS OF THE 24 DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH A PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE WAGE OF 29PER CENT-WHEREAS THE TOP NATION NETHERLANDS PAYS 100.6 %. WITH THE CITY MILE BEING BAILED OUT WITH 45 BILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.]

-A GREEDY SQUARE MILE AND PARSIMONIOUS STATE PENSION YET OUR OVERSEAS AID IS SQUANDERED AND WASTED WITH THE CHARITIES IN THE MAIN GAUGING THEMSELVES WITH HIGH LIVING-AND NOW WE HEAR EVEN PROSTITUTION IS CONSIDERED A PERK OF THE JOB.  THERE APPEARS NO ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT OF CHARITIES TO ENSURE THAT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE FOR THE TRUE NEEDY NOT FOR FUN AND GAMES AND TERRORISTS OR HIGH LIVING OF THOSE RECEIVING THE TAXPAYERS HARD EARNED REMUNERATION WHILE MANY OF THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE IN GREAT PAIN AND MANY DYING WHICH COULD BE GREATLY REDUCED IF CHARITY BEGAN AT HOME.  TO BOAST OF BEING THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO OVERSEAS AID WHILE A GREAT NUMBER OF OUR CITIZENS PARTICULARLY THE POOR AND A NUMBER OF THE ELDERLY  ARE SUFFERING IN ORDER THAT THE TOP OF THE FOREIGN AID LIST IS MAINTAINED.

HOW IS IT THAT THE OTHER 23 NATIONS CAN PROVIDE A HIGHER STATE PENSION? WHAT IS PREVENTING WESTMINSTER FROM BRINGING OUR STATE PENSION UP TO AT LEAST THE AVERAGE OF THOSE ON THE LIST BELOW WHICH CONTAINS MANY NATIONS WHICH CAN HARDLY BE  CONSIDERED RICH COMPARED TO THE UK. IS IT THAT IN THOSE COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE ARE

 PUT FIRST! - NOT LAST?

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC PURSE WITH THEIR OBSCENE RATES OF SALARY AND GOLDEN PENSION-POSSIBLY SO LONG AS THEY ARE COMFORTABLE THEY HAVE NO THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO PAID FOR THEIR LAVISH LIFESTYLE?

PAYOUT AS PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE WAGE
Netherlands   -  100.6%

Portugal        -   94.9%

Italy             -  93.2%

Austria         -  91.8%

Spain             -  81.8%

Denmark        -  80.2%

France            -  74.5%

Belgium          -  66.1%

Finland         -  65%

Czech Republic-60%

Sweden         -  54.9%

Canada          -  53.4%

OECD average=62.9

 

 Germany    -    50.5%

USA            -    49.1%

Norway      -    48.8%

 Switzerland    -    44.9%

New Zealand   -  43.2%

Australia     -    42.6%

Ireland        -   42.3%

Chile         -     40.1%

Japan           -  40%

Poland       -      38.6%

Mexico         -     29.6%

UK  -  29%

Source-OECD

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

February 12, 2018

 

H.F.1478

 
 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2017

 

Tax burden to hit worst level for three decades: HMRC will take 37 per cent of national income - and we could face years more austerity 

  • Experts have warned that businesses face the heaviest tax burden for 30 years
  • It will be the highest level since 1986-87, when Margaret Thatcher was in power
  • However, it seems Britain will still be running a deficit of £21.9billion at that time 

By Hugo Duncan, Deputy Finance Editor For The Daily Mail

Published: 00:24, 8 February 8,2017

 

Families and businesses face the heaviest tax burden for more than 30 years as austerity extends into the next decade, experts warned yesterday.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said tax revenues will reach 37 per cent of national income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher was in power.

But Britain will still be running a deficit of £21.9billion at that time as the Government spends even more on public services, welfare and other projects than it earns in tax. Describing the outlook as 'awful', IFS director Paul Johnson said: 'Another parliament of austerity is the sad prospect.'

The bleak prognosis undermines hopes of tax cuts or spending giveaways in next month's Budget. It also makes clear the huge challenge ministers face in getting Britain back into the black.
 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said tax revenues will reach 37 per cent of national income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher (pictured) was in power

Chancellor Philip Hammond has pledged to balance the books 'as early as possible in the next Parliament'.

The IFS expects the age of austerity to extend well into the next decade but it said a surplus – which would be the first since 2000-01 – was unlikely before 2024-25.

 

'I wouldn't put a lot of money on achieving that,' said Mr Johnson. 'It will be very difficult to get there.'

The comments came as the IFS published its annual Green Budget, an independent analysis of the state of the economy and the public finances ahead of the Chancellor's Budget next month.

It showed borrowing this year of £68.2billion will be higher than in all but 13 of the 60 years before the financial crisis struck in 2008 and the fourth highest of the world's 28 advanced economies. The national debt is at its highest level as a share of national income since 1965-66 and higher than that faced by all but five other advanced economies.

This is despite a string of painful tax rises and 'by far the longest and biggest fall in public service spending on record', the IFS said.

The report added: 'After six years of 'austerity' the deficit this year will still be higher than it was 80 per cent of the time in the 60 years before the financial crisis while debt is now at its highest level as a proportion of national income since 1965-66. And there is probably more uncertainty now over the future prospects than at any point in the last 60 years.'

The IFS warned that the UK faces 'relatively disappointing' economic growth rates in the coming years – making it even harder to balance the books. Oxford Economics, which compiles the economic forecasts for the IFS in the Green Budget, has pencilled in growth of just 1.6 per cent this year and 1.3 per cent next year.

Andrew Goodwin, one of its economists, said: 'The economy is proving to be far more resilient than many economists had feared after the vote to leave the EU.

 

Chancellor Philip Hammond (pictured) has pledged to balance the books 'as early as possible in the next Parliament'

 

'However, we expect it to endure a softer patch over the next few years. Of late, growth has been heavily reliant on the consumer, but this looks unsustainable given that the sharp depreciation of the pound is likely to result in a period of much higher inflation, squeezing household spending power.'

He warned that the economy would be 3 per cent smaller in 2030 than it would have been had Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'This study points to a serious problem. For all the talk of austerity and killing off the budget deficit, the Government has made precious little progress. The problem is not that we tax too little but spend too much.'

A Treasury spokesman said: 'The Government is committed to repairing the public finances. That has required some difficult decisions on spending, but we are determined to deliver efficient public services which provide maximum value for every pound of taxpayers' money.' 

 

RELATED ARTICLES.Here!

 

Tax burden facing British families is the highest it's been for 20 years ...2018.

By Hugo Duncan, Deputy Finance Editor For The Daily Mail ... cent of national
income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher
was in power. ... IFS director warns tax will rise to highest level for 30 years .....
she's 'selling out' her sibling in her first post-Royal Wedding interview
 

HOW FAMILIES ARE CLOBBERED

 
4.7m People pay income tax of 40% or more, up from 3.1 million in 2010

 

 

 

£1,671 The average Band D council tax bill after a 5.1% increase in April 2018

 

 

 

  

 

 

28% Proportion of the income tax take that comes from the top 1% of taxpayers

 

 

 

 

£9.5bn Amount that home buyers paid in stamp duty last year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

READ MORE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4201974/Tax-burden-hit-worst-level-three-decades.html#ixzz5H7bi6nMi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

MAY 29,2018

H.F.1560

*  *  *

WE ASK THE QUESTION : WHY HAVE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS PERMITTED MASS IMMIGRATION KNOWING POSSIBLY FOR YEARS THAT THE ROBOT WILL EVENTUALLY BE REPLACING WORKERS ACROSS THE EMPLOYMENT SECTOR AND EVEN INVADING HOMES AND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES REDUCING THE HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE HOME. 

*  *  *

 

 

 

    800 million workers will be replaced by robots by 2030 | Daily Mail ...

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../800-MILLION-workers-replaced-robots-2030.html
    29 Nov 2017 ... The report, by New York based firm, McKinsey, claims that as many as 800
    million workers could be replaced by machines in just 13 years ...
     

    Robots taking human jobs is causing a 'hellish dystopia' | Daily Mail ...

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Robots-taking-human-jobs-causing-hellish-dystopia.html
    15 Jan 2018 ... Humanity will live in a 'hellish dystopia' as robots takes over billions of jobs ... that
    800 million workers could be replaced by machines by 2030.
     

    Plumbers and nurses will be last to lose jobs to robots | Daily Mail ...

    www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article.../Plumbers-nurses-lose-jobs-robots.html
    15 Dec 2017 ... Plumbers and electricians are the workers who will be last to lose their ... All
    human jobs will be replaced by robots in the future, but plumbers, ...
     

    Robots 'could take 4m UK private sector jobs within 10 years ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/.../robots-could-take-4m-private-sector-jobs-within-10-years
    19 Sep 2017 ... Four million jobs in the British private sector could be replaced by ... and “allow
    workers to concentrate on more human-centric roles that are beyond the reach of
    machines”. ... One in Lincoln plans to use one to help residents remember daily ...
    The prediction that millions of jobs will be lost to robots led the ...
     

    Robots threaten 15m UK jobs, says Bank of England's chief ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/.../robots-threaten-low-paid-jobs-says-bank-of-england-chief-economist
    ‎
    12 Nov 2015 ... The Bank of England has warned that up to 15m jobs in Britain are at ... you are
    to be replaced by a robot... pic.twitter.com/uHvutoe5wz ... on the UK labour
    market and its more than 30 million employees. ...... Would make the world less
    annoying though and get rid of most of the Daily Mail website's content.
     

    It's impossible for robots to steal your job - no matter what the Daily ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/.../its-impossible-for-robots-to-steal-your-job-no-matter-what-the-daily-mail-says
    ‎
    6 Dec 2016 ... The Daily Mail has reported that robots could 'steal' 15 million UK jobs. ... A co-
    worker unfairly takes credit for your efforts and gets a promotion ... to you, or
    someone in line to replace you spreads malicious rumours about you ...
     

    Millions of UK workers at risk of being replaced by robots, study says ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/.../millions-uk-workers-risk-replaced-robots-study-warns
    ‎
    24 Mar 2017 ... The PwC report said inequality would result from robots increasingly ... More than
    10 million UK workers are at high risk of being replaced by ...
     

    If 1 In 5 Jobs Is 'Displaced' Due To Automation, What Does That ...

    https://www.forbes.com/.../if-1-in-5-jobs-is-displaced-due-to-automation-what-does-that-mean-for-hr/
    ‎
    20 Apr 2018 ... And according to the Daily Mail, 'Robots taking human jobs is causing ... in 5, or
    3.6 million, British jobs will probably be 'displaced' by 2030 due to ... Therefore,
    new jobs, job we can't even imagine yet, will arise to replace those that ... vital
    need for employees who don't have easy access to HR colleagues.
     

    Will you be replaced by a robot? Jobs study reveals ... - This is Money

    www.thisismoney.co.uk/.../Table-700-jobs-reveals-professions-likely-replaced-robots.html
    ‎
    31 May 2014 ... Millions of workers in the UK are in danger of being replaced by ... for post-
    graduation occupations – which could lead to streamlining of human ...
     

    Robot automation will 'take 800 million jobs by 2030' - report - BBC ...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42170100
    ‎
    29 Nov 2017 ... Up to 800 million global workers will lose their jobs by 2030 and be replaced by
    robotic automation, a new report from a consultancy has found.
     

[WE ASK THOSE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED MASS IMMIGRATION  FOR DECADES ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST MAD?-YOU WILL SOON BE MADE AWARE OF YOUR ERROR WHEN YOU AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS ARE UNEMPLOYED-POSSIBLY THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT ANYWAY -WHO KNOWS?]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 4-2018

H.F.1643

*  *  *

 
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 
 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 
THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

A REMINDER!

WHAT YOU ARE ESCAPING FROM SINCE TRAITORS IN YOUR PARLIAMENT SIGNED YOUR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND

AWAY IN

1972

AND IN LATER TREATIES UNTIL YOU SPOKE YOUR MIND ON

 JUNE 23-2016

 A DATE IN HISTORY WHICH WILL BE ALWAYS REMEMBERED

BY ALL TRUE ENGLISHMEN.

 

*  *  *

HOW IT CAME ABOUT!

Mr Macmillan and 1961

Mr Heath and 1970

Mrs Thatcher and 1985

From Major to Blair, Maastricht to Nice

The Price We Have PAid

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1100 FREEDOM AWAITS
 
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS almost BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/ ****    REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****    THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****       FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/  ****   A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?     **** GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/  ****    A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/  ****   THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/  ****   GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/ ****   50 YEARS OF SURRENDER***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY / ****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS
 
 
 

 
 

 

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 5-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 6-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-2018

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012