ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

*

SEPT FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2017 - (1994 -Official Website - SEPT-PT3- 2017 )-- SEPT FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2017

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

AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE BEAST!

 IN BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

*

ENGLAND'S

GREAT ESCAPE

 FROM

HITLER'S  FOURTH REICH

See also : eutruth.org.uk-Why we are leaving!-if you need a reminder?

*

 

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017

 

 

 

[A TIMELY REMINDER!-A CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER BETRAYED THE PEOPLE IN 1972-IS THIS TO BE OUR FATE IN MARCH 2019?]

 

 

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-09-08 - Tory MPs' written warning to Mrs May...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170908/281724089704872
 EUROSCEPTIC Tories last night warned Theresa May against backsliding on
Brexit. A leaked letter, signed by up to 40 MPs, said it would be a 'historic mistake' to keep Britain in the SINGLE MARKET or CUSTOMS UNION during the transition phase.

When we leave in [MARCH]-1919-we need to make sure we are well and truly

OUT,

The letter said.

Tory MP Suella Fernandes , chairman of the group of MPs that circulated the letter, said last night that it was designed to show

 'support for the Governments position'...

It goes on: ' Continued membership of the single market, even as part of a transitional arrangement, would simply mean EU membership by another name-and we cannot alow our country to be kept in the EU by stealth.

'The Government must respect the will of the British people, and that means

LEAVING THE SINGLE MARKET AT THE SAME TIME AS WE LEAVE THE EU.'...

Full article

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS]..

 

*  *  *

[A REMINDER FROM 1972 OF THE TREASONABLE PLOT OF A SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER WHO GAVE AWAY THE SACRED

'RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

OF ENGLISHMEN.'

WHICH ONLY A

HARD BREXIT

IN MARCH 2019 OR EARLIER

WILL

ASSUAGE.

*

TREASON

Conservative skulduggery

BACK in 1972 -Tories desert to EU camp

SHORT-TERM SELF-INTEREST EXPLOITED

The UK Accession Bill passed its Third reading on 13th July 1972 by a majority of 17.

Earlier, the debate on the Second reading had lasted for four days (16-19 February), with the Labour Party then officially committed to opposing the legislation. BUT, as happened with the Maastricht Bill two decades later, as Christopher Booker and Richard North observe, 'faced with the possible collapse of their Government, most of the Conservative 'anti-marketeers gritted their teeth' (treacherously, short-sighted and very foolishly -Ed.) 'and walked through the 'aye' lobby. Despite that, 15 Tories voted with the Opposition. TRAITOR

Edward Heath

 got his vote, but only by a water-thin margin:

309 to 301'.

 

 

Tony Benn MP commented after the passage of the Third Reading that

 ‘it was a coup d’etat by a political class who did not believe in popular sovereignty’.

 

Actually, it was worse than that .\It was the start of a coup d’etat by installments’ by a corrupted political class initially led by two operatives-Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon,

 both of whom were recruited German agents  (like Lenin, Rasputin and Lavrentii Beria in the Soviet context, before them) who signed the UK Accession Treaty in exchange for corrupt payments.  Both lied to the British people; and the authors specifically identified one of Geoffrey Rippon’ s worst lies, associated with the alienation of Britain’s fishing waters, the richest in the world.  Here it is worth citing the whole of the authors’ relevant paragraph:

 ‘Desperate to hide how much had been conceded[over fisheries], Geoffrey Rippon…said:

 ‘I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements [in the relevant context, allegedly beneficial to the British fisheries-Ed.]

 which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period’.  This claim drew fierce challenge from Dennis Healey and Peter Shore[later Lord Shore –further details on EDP bulletin board] both of whom suspected he was lying. 

 What neither had yet seen was the wording of the UK Accession Treaty, which MP’s would not be allowed to examine until after the treaty was signed a month later.  Only when this became available [and Heath and Rippon had accepted their bribes-Ed.]  was it clear that Rippon had told a blatant lie’. [Booker and North, op.cit., page 155]

 International Currency Review

 October 10-2005

 Notes and References:

 ‘Obituary of Sir Edward Heath, the Prime Minister who took Britain into the EEC and presided over constant turmoil at home’,

1. The Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2005.

This was probably the rudest obituary of a prominent UK statesman ever to have appeared in print.  Even so, it omitted any reference to Heath’s recruitment by German (Nazi) intelligence.   However , there are many [coded] references in this obituary, not least the three telling words:

‘He never married’, which observers accurately interpret as meaning that he was homosexual, and therefore an obvious recruitment/blackmail target.

 

2. The Daily Telegraph, 24th July 2005,

 

Christopher Booker (Column),

 

International Currency Review

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 A PATRIOT AND TRUTH-SEEKER

The EDP received in 2005 vital information on the EU from Mr Christopher Story which enabled the EDP to mount a continuing offensive to spread the TRUTH of the EVILS of such a BEAST! which came into existence through LIES! and DECEIT! and as Mr Story has stated in VOLUME 30 NUMBER 4 -the TWIN EVILS of the EU are:-

COLLECTIVISATION AND CORRUPTION.

[What the REMAINERS failed to understand]

These two evils always go together: they did so under overt Communism, when the whole world saw how corrupt the Communist nomenclature was: and they go together under covert communism, notably the version manifested by the

 

 THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE [ 26 ]  .

 

EACH LETTER ABOVE HAS A CHRISTOPHER STORY BULLETIN-TOTAL 26

which the top Soviet intelligence operative Mikhail Gorbachev described on 23rd March 2000, as 'the new European Soviet' It is accordingly a conspicuous waste of time for well-meaning national policymakers, and for the rapidly dwindling class of Euro-ideologues to recommend 'reform' of the EU INSTITUTIONS. They are incapable of reform, because, as we reveal exclusively in this issue, they are born of CORRUPTION- and because the TREATIES that 'sustain' them were procured by means of CORRUPT 'BLack' payments.'

*

More!

 

 

H.F.1150 FREEDOM NOW

[WHEN A TRUE PATRIOT- ONE NATION - ONE PEOPLE- CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS IN BEING-THE 'FAR RIGHT' LOOSES IT'S FIRE!

With the present Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May-a vicar's daughter we know that 'Her word is her sacred bond' but should the House of Commons ignore the voice of the People of June 23,2016

TO LEAVE THE EU

 then our once democratic system of government will no longer be in being.

In May, 1928 the Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin in a speech to the British and Foreign Bible Society his last words were:

'Before I close, I would say for myself, that if I did not feel that our work-and the work of all of us who hold the same faith and ideal, whether in politics or in vcivil work, wherever it may be-If I did not believe that the work was done in the faith and hope that at some day, it may be a Million years hence, the Kingdom of God would spread over the world, I could have no hope, I could do no work, and I would give my office over this morning to anyone who would take it.'

My Father-The True Story

A.W.BALDWIN

1955

George  Allen & Unwin Ltd.

*  *  *

  A MESSAGE FROM 1938 AS TRUE TODAY IN SEPTEMBER 2017

ENGLAND

EPILOGUE

WILLIAM RALPH INGE - DEAN of ST PAULS

1938

Christianity is the generic name of a number of different religions, some of which have only an adventitious connexion with the Gospel of Christ.  Genuine religious revivals occur from time to time, and have a starting, but short-lived, popular success. They are difficult to predict, and they seem more congenial to the so-called Celtic temperament, for example in Wales, than  to the more stolid character of the English. There are no signs at all that any outburst of religious enthusiasm is likely to occur in England in the twentieth century.  Superficially, the organized religious  bodies seem to be slowly losing ground.  The emancipation of women, and the education which they now receive, have assimilated their mental outlook to that of men, and this has been injurious to the interests of institutional religion, much more in the north of Europe than in the Latin countries, where the position of women has changed less.  These tendencies have led many  to expect a gradual disappearance of religion from its age-long position as one of the most potent factors in social life.  In much of our most modern literature it is simply left out of account.  But a serious thinker, whatever his personal convictions, will be slow to believe in such a rapid and subversive change in human nature.   He may even doubt whether the decay of Christianity has not been much more apparent than real.  The essence of Christianity is, as Nietzsche said, a "transvaluation of all values," a conviction about the position of man in relation to the unseen Divine Power who made and governs the universe.  It is essentially a religious idealism, which traces its origins to a historical revelation. It appeals very strongly to those who are susceptible to such a call, but, as its Founder repeatedly warned his disciples, it is never likely to be acceptable to the majority.   The Believers were to be the salt of the earth, or like leaven hid in three measures of meal.

 "The Spirit of Truth" is a Spirit whom "the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not neither knoweth him."

The Church, however, was not long content to appeal to the anima naturaliter Christiana, or to the penitent sinner who often has the makings of a saint.   It issued irreligious appeals, in the form of lurid threats and gorgeous promises, to the irreligious, and by a means of unholy alliances with the secular arm became, at least nominally, the creed of everybody.   But it is the law that a religion which gains power by non-religious methods [ As do Muslim Fundamentalists in Mosques in England in 2017 with their aim of a ISLAMIC STATE] invariably uses it for non-religious ends.  Church history in the so-called ages of faith presents a most unedifying spectacle.  What  has happened in our day (1938)  is  that these non-religious appeals have lost their cogency.   Partly from discoveries in natural science, but still more from the growth of the scientific attitude in weighing evidence, the materialistic pictures of bliss and torment, which once produced a certain effect, are now either rejected or interpreted in a very symbolical sense.   Deprived of these weapons, the Church has proceeded to secularize itself, and to present the Gospel as ca prophecy of " a good time coming" in this world. 

 But this is quite obviously not Christianity, and the laity do not like  the priest in politics.

So the Churches against their will, are thrown back upon their real message and their own business.

There  is no reason to think that the strictly religious appeal of

CHRISTIANITY

is less powerful than it ever was; but , as always, it is an appeal which does not attract the majority.

The proper attitude of the Church is frankly to accept this position, which is that of the Founder himself, and to find its usefulness in steadily holding before the nation a heroic and noble ideal of belief and conduct, in contrast with the secularity, greed, and hypocrisy of society in general.  So purified from extraneous accretions, Christianity may in the future exercise an incalculably beneficent influence upon the life of the nation, and may win the allegiance of many who at present stand aloof from it.

(Pages 299/300.)

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

H.F.1304 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT -NO LONGER A POODLE OF THE EU ELITE!

 
Quentin Letts 

-Yesterday in Parliament.

[1295 - December 1972- A  FREE PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

   From January 1973

(CAPTIVITY WITHIN THE NAZI PLANNED FOURTH REICH)-

March 16 - 2017 ...]

 

Dear EU,

DAILY MAIL-Quentin Letts-Dear EU, we're off now, love from the people of the UK

LACKLUSTRE exchanges between the Leader of the House and his Shadow were interupted by the Speaker, John Bercow. He had an announcement to savour.

The hour, by the Commons digital clock, was 10.46 and 16 seconds.

'Order, Just before we proceed with the Business Question I have to notify the house, in accordance with the

ROYAL ASSENT ACT 1967

that Her Majesty has signified

HER ROYAL ASSENT

to the following Acts...

The Remain-voting Speaker continued, with apparent boredom:

'Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2017;

EUROPEAN UNION

(NOTIFICATION OF WITHDRAWAL) ACT 2017.

 

Full article

 

[COMMENT S IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1149 FREEDOM -FULL STEAM AHEAD!

 were off now, love from the people of the UK.

*  *  *

 

WHERE DID SHE GET THE HAT?

A DAY TO REMEMBER

We saw MRS May in her new head apparel we became aware that the spirit of an IRON LADY was again alive in our Brittanic land.

As in the past, when it was necessay to protect her own, in PEACE and WAR

then Britania would again Rule the Waves to protect HER OWN wherever THEY MAY BE.

AS in the recent past we are again in a BATTLE to recover our PAST.

WE face a time of UNCERTAINTY yet our HISTORY has shown on many occasions that even a TEMPORY SET-BACK leads inevitably to VICTORY.

We have been many times in our LONG HISTORY experienced the THREAT from across the soon to be returned ENGLISH CHANNEL which has as in the days when we had a WOODEN WALL protecting our then FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the days of ALFRED the GREAT through the ELISABETHAN TIME and from a number of attempted INVASIONS since.

But we must REMEMBER that our OWN PARLIAMENT allowed our GREATEST ENEMY GERMANY who after we had suffered TWO WORLD WARS from HER HANDS permitted our FREE NATION STATE in 1972 to sign an ACT of SURRENDER we would call it TREASON which will be finally ERADICATED from our COMMONS JOURNAL within the NEXT FEW DAYS.

At this crucial time in our NATIONS HISTORY we  must remember WHO WE ARE and WHAT WE ARE as a PEOPLE and the message from the past from the TIME of the HEROIC ALFRED the GREAT to the REIGN of our QUEEN BESS- ELISABETH THE FIRST of ENGLAND  who at the sign of an INVADER spoke the words that inspired HER PEOPLE:

 

Elizabeth reviewed her troops at Tilbury.

'My loving people,' she said, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety to take head how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people

LET TYRANTS FEAR!

I have always so behaved myself that , under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects; and therefore am I come amongst you, as you see,

AT THIS TIME

-to lay down my life for my God

AND FOR MY KINGDOM

and for

MY PEOPLE

MY HONOUR

and

MY BLOOD

even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble women;

BUT I HAVE A HEART OF A KING

and of a

KING of ENGLAND

too, and I think foul scorn that Parma or Spain,

or any

PRINCE of EUROPE

SHOULD DARE TO INVADE THE BORDERS OF MY REALM.'

[S.R. Gardiner-Outline of English History

 to more recent times when a VOICE of DETERMINATION from our greatest WAR LEADER -WINSTON CHURCHILL inspired the NATION with his momentous stirring SPEECH:

You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory-victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. May 1940 .

*

FREEDOM

All we have of freedom-all we use and know-This our Fathers bought for us, long and long ago

Kipling. The Old Issue

*

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spoke; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held.

Wordsworth. Sonnets

*

MARCH 14 - 2017

TREASON

Conservative skulduggery

BACK in 1972 -Tories desert to EU camp

SHORT-TERM SELF-INTEREST EXPLOITED

The UK Accession Bill passed its Third reading on 13th July 1972 by a majority of 17.

Earlier, the debate on the Second reading had lasted for four days (16-19 February), with the Labour Party then officially committed to opposing the legislation. BUT, as happened with the Maastricht Bill two decades later, as Christopher Booker and Richard North observe, 'faced with the possible collapse of their Government, most of the Conservative 'anti-marketeers gritted their teeth' (treacherously, short-sighted and very foolishly -Ed.) 'and walked through the 'aye' lobby. Despite that, 15 Tories voted with the Opposition. TRAITOR

Edward Heath

 got his vote, but only by a water-thin margin:

309 to 301'.

 

 

Tony Benn MP commented after the passage of the Third Reading that

 ‘it was a coup d’etat by a political class who did not believe in popular sovereignty’.

 

Actually, it was worse than that .\It was the start of a coup d’etat by installments’ by a corrupted political class initially led by two operatives-Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon,

 both of whom were recruited German agents  (like Lenin, Rasputin and Lavrentii Beria in the Soviet context, before them) who signed the UK Accession Treaty in exchange for corrupt payments.  Both lied to the British people; and the authors specifically identified one of Geoffrey Rippon’ s worst lies, associated with the alienation of Britain’s fishing waters, the richest in the world.  Here it is worth citing the whole of the authors’ relevant paragraph:

 ‘Desperate to hide how much had been conceded[over fisheries], Geoffrey Rippon…said:

 ‘I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements [in the relevant context, allegedly beneficial to the British fisheries-Ed.]

 which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period’.  This claim drew fierce challenge from Dennis Healey and Peter Shore[later Lord Shore –further details on EDP bulletin board] both of whom suspected he was lying. 

 What neither had yet seen was the wording of the UK Accession Treaty, which MP’s would not be allowed to examine until after the treaty was signed a month later.  Only when this became available [and Heath and Rippon had accepted their bribes-Ed.]  was it clear that Rippon had told a blatant lie’. [Booker and North, op.cit., page 155]

 International Currency Review

 October 10-2005

 Notes and References:

 ‘Obituary of Sir Edward Heath, the Prime Minister who took Britain into the EEC and presided over constant turmoil at home’,

1. The Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2005.

This was probably the rudest obituary of a prominent UK statesman ever to have appeared in print.  Even so, it omitted any reference to Heath’s recruitment by German (Nazi) intelligence.   However , there are many [coded] references in this obituary, not least the three telling words:

‘He never married’, which observers accurately interpret as meaning that he was homosexual, and therefore an obvious recruitment/blackmail target.

 

2. The Daily Telegraph, 24th July 2005,

 

Christopher Booker (Column),

 

International Currency Review

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 A PATRIOT AND TRUTH-SEEKER

The EDP received in 2005 vital information on the EU from Mr Christopher Story which enabled the EDP to mount a continuing offensive to spread the TRUTH of the EVILS of such a BEAST! which came into existence through LIES! and DECEIT! and as Mr Story has stated in VOLUME 30 NUMBER 4 -the TWIN EVILS of the EU are:-

COLLECTIVISATION AND CORRUPTION.

[What the REMAINERS failed to understand]

These two evils always go together: they did so under overt Communism, when the whole world saw how corrupt the Communist nomenclature was: and they go together under covert communism, notably the version manifested by the

 

 THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE [ 26 ]  .

 

EACH LETTER ABOVE HAS A CHRISTOPHER STORY BULLETIN-TOTAL 26

which the top Soviet intelligence operative Mikhail Gorbachev described on 23rd March 2000, as 'the new European Soviet' It is accordingly a conspicuous waste of time for well-meaning national policymakers, and for the rapidly dwindling class of Euro-ideologues to recommend 'reform' of the EU INSTITUTIONS. They are incapable of reform, because, as we reveal exclusively in this issue, they are born of CORRUPTION- and because the TREATIES that 'sustain' them were procured by means of CORRUPT 'BLack' payments.'

*

More!

 

 

H.F.1150 FREEDOM NOW

H.F.1144 FREEDOM NOW

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

SEPT FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2017 - (1994 -Official Website - SEPT- 2017 )-- SEPT FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2017

SEPTEMBER- FREEDOM NOW PART 3

 

BACK TO:

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-  PART 1 -2017

 

The Balfour Declaration [1916] : Time to say sorry. Time we made amends.

by Stuart Littlewood

 

In a letter to a local newspaper about Brexit and the way prime minister Theresa May is handling it, I happened to mention in passing the Balfour Declaration, criticising her plans to celebrate the centenary “with pride” and invite Israel’s PM Netanyahu to the fun. This drew a sharp response from someone spouting the usual Israeli propaganda ‘facts’ and saying my attitude harmed the Jewish community worldwide.

The Balfour Declaration is a deadly serious subject. It is a cause of great horror and grief, of justifiable international anger, and a matter for profound regret. This is a right time and proper time for debate. Let’s focus on it for the next few months because justice groups are urging the British Government to mark the Balfour Declaration centenary by saying sorry.

Mrs May could do some real good here. She could, at a stroke, help quell the destructive turmoil in the Middle East and begin repair to Britain’s tattered prestige. She could even open new trade routes into Islamic markets, vitally important as we leave the EU.

By eating a little humble pie and apologising on our behalf for 100 years of agony inflicted on lovely people in a lovely part of the world Mrs May could take a giant step for mankind on the world stage. She has between now and November to do it. Will she?

No, she’ll be celebrating Balfour in style with the Israeli prime minister and not giving a toss about the people Britain wronged.

Which is shocking when a UN report recently branded Israel an apartheid regime. It’s even more regrettable considering the desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine in an open letter to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement, signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Here’s an extract: “We are still suffering from 100 years of injustice and oppression that were inflicted on the Palestinian people beginning with the unlawful Balfour declaration… followed by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza and the fragmentation of our people and our land through policies of isolation and confiscation, and the building of Jewish-only settlements and the Apartheid Wall…”

Mrs May needs a jolt.

When I enquired whether the Balfour Declaration is taught in our schools I was told ‘no’. So what exactly is it?

Arthur Balfour, British foreign secretary in 1917, penned a letter to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledging the Government’s “best endeavours” to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Balfour also wrote: “We do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.”

It amounted to a betrayal of our Arab allies in WW1. Many in Parliament objected, including Lord Sydenham who remarked: “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 when the Great Powers carved up the territorial spoils of war a Zionist delegation produced Balfour’s promissory note. It planted a powder-keg in the Middle East and the fuse was now lit. Britain accepted the mandate responsibility for Palestine and eventually in 1947 the Great Powers pushed the United Nations into partitioning the territory, again without consulting those who lived there.

So what made Balfour do it? The more you delve, the more incredible the answers to those unaware of the growing influence of worldwide Zionism. Support for the movement and its ambition to create a New Israel was quite fashionable in the corridors of power around the time of WW1. The story I find compelling is that, while Britain struggled desperately against German U-boat successes and ammunition shortages, the Zionist power-brokers of Germany and Eastern Europe consulted with their opposite numbers in America and decided, given their grip on money and media, they could bring the US into the war against Germany and its Ottoman ally if Britain were to promise them Palestine for a Jewish homeland afterwards.

Balfour was a Zionist convert (as were many others including prime minister David Lloyd-George) and in the right position. The proposition was put to Britain in 1916. The Zionists delivered. The US entered the war. In the meantime immigrant Polish-Zionist chemist Chaim Weizmann offered a solution to the production of enough acetone, a critical ingredient in cordite for artillery shells, to satisfy the war effort. He demanded the same promise. Balfour handed them their ‘receipt’ in November 1917 even though Palestine was not, and never could be, Britain’s to give away.

‘Name of the game: erasing Palestine’

Balfour had inserted into his ‘declaration’ that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities….” on the insistence of the only Jew in the British Cabinet, Lord Montague, who was anti-Zionist and opposed the deal. But this safeguard was jettisoned as soon as Britain lost control of events.

Not content with the territory allocated to them under the UN Partition Plan the Israelis declared statehood ignoring all boundaries. Their ‘Plan Dalet’ offensive, begun beforehand, had seized much Arab-designated land at gunpoint.  Jewish militia – the Irgun, Haganah, Palmach and Lehi – raided towns and villages forcing inhabitants to flee. Numerous attrocities were committed including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (headquarters of the British administration) in 1946 murdering 91, and the massacres at Deir Yassin and Lydda in 1948.

Today Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, and has Gaza in a stranglehold so pitiless as to have caused a long-term humanitarian crisis and irreparable environmental damage. For nearly 70 years millions of dispossessed Palestinians and their families have languished in refugee camps, and those who remain in their homeland – Christian and Muslim alike – live a miserable life under brutal military occupation.

The situation stands as a monumental stain on the flag of the United Nations, which hasn’t the backbone to take action. And the continuing repercussions throughout the Holy Land should concern all true Christians and Muslims especially regular churchgoers like Mrs May.

Miko Peled, the son of an Israeli general and a former soldier in the Israeli army – and now an important figure in the struggle for justice – confirms what many have been saying for years: “The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabizing the country… By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible…. That is when Israel said, OK, we’ll begin negotiations…”

My critic in the local newspaper called Hamas terrorists. Peled describes the Israeli army, in which he served, as “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world.” Take your pick. But Hamas’ political wing is not proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK.

The accusation that criticising the Israeli regime harms Jewish communities is unacceptable. There are many admirable Jewish groups vehemently campaigning against Israel’s crimes. One-time Israeli Military Intelligence chief Yehoshafat Harkabi warned that Jews throughout the world would pay the price of Israel’s misconduct. So the problem appears to be ‘family’ matter between Jews everywhere.

Related Posts:



 
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

 
Posted by on July 22, 2017, With 1416 Reads Filed under Government & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

JULY 22-2017

FaceBook Comments

H.F.1261.-JULY 22,2017

 

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

 13 MONTHS

 

AUG-2017- AUG-2019 (?)

 

AUG 23-2017.

 

 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-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.

 

SHORT CUT TO EXIT EU NEWS

eu latest news on brexit

latest news eu

eu latest immigration news

eu news now

eu news today

europe news headlines

eu germany latest

eu news germany

 

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.

DAILY MAIL

COMMENT:

April 20, 2017

Why the saboteurs should simmer down

Like the mating dance of the warthog, a must-see ritual of the natural world is the British Left throwing a fit of the vapours over a headline in the Mail. The latest to provoke hysteria was our front-page summary of why Theresa May called for a snap election: 'Crush the saboteurs.'

'Nasty and divisive!' tweeted Labour's IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah-sympathising John McDonnell (look who's talking!). 'This kind of hate and aggression is the last thing the country needs,' whimpered the ever-smug tax avoider Gary Lineker.

'Fascist!' said a Guardianista. 'Stalinist!' opined another, with some halfwit tweeting: 'Stalin killed millions by labelling people saboteurs and enemies of the people. Literally the same words as the Mail. Chilling.' Not for the first time, this paper advises: calm down, dears.

For the avoidance of doubt, neither the PM nor this peace-loving paper proposes genocide. All that Mrs May plans, with our support, is an election to establish her mandate for pressing on with

BREXIT

(backed by 52 per cent)

without further frustration from 'game-playing' Remoaners and an unelected second chamber.

As for the word 'saboteurs', how else to describe a Labour Party which has threatened to vote against a final agreement with the EU? Or Lib Dems who say they want to grind government to a standstill? Or Scots Nats who say they'll vote against legislation repealing our EU membership?

If they don't like being called saboteurs, shouldn't they give up the sabotage?

And how striking that many who criticised the Mail were the very same people who likened Mrs May's call for an election to the move by Turkey's human rights-violating dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to increase his powers. What a contemptibly stupid and offensive comparison.

We have long known the Left demonises anyone with whom it disagrees. But this is getting ridiculous.



Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4427192/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-saboteurs-simmer-down.html#ixzz4eo141qsw
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 
[A PROCLAMATION

FOR

 ENGLAND'S

 FREEDOM AND FUTURE.

 

COUNTDOWN TO SUCCESS

ON

JUNE 8-2017

WE REMIND REMOANERS-PARTICULARLY MPs THAT BREXIT IS ABOUT FREEDOM-CULTURE AND COUNTRY-AND PROSPERITY WITHIN A WIDER WORLD OF OPPORTUNITY

NOT ABOUT IF YOU COULD LOSE YOUR JOB OR BUSINESS OR EU HANDOUTS-

PAID FOR BY ENGLISH TAXPAYERS MAINLY IN THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAND.]

*

     

    Tory manifesto will guarantee end

     

     

     

    of

     

     

     

     

    free movement

     

     

     

     

    ++

     

     

     

     

     

     UK to leave Single Market

     

     

     

     

     ++

     

     

     

     

     

     No more

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    meddling by Euro Judges

     

     

     

     

     

     

    by

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Jason Groves-Political Editor | Daily

     

     

    Mail Online

     

     

    THERESA'S CAST-IRON

    BREXIT

    PLEDGES

     

     

     

     

     

    THERESA MAY will place a triple lock on Brexit  in the Tory manifesto to STOP OBSTRUCTION

     

     

    by

     

     

    DIEHARD REMAINERS

     

    Tory sources say she is set to include specific pledges to overcome opposition within her party and in the Lords.

    The manifesto is expected to commit the Conservatives to ending

     

    EU FREE MOVEMENT

     

    and pulling out of both the

    SINGLE MARKET

    and

    EUROPEAN COURT of JUSTICE

    Senior Tories see these three measures as essential in delivering last year's referendum result

    [Mrs May's Pledge that

    BREXIT means BREXIT

     is MET!]

     

    Full article

     

    [COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

     

    April 20-2017

     

     

     

    Brexit boost as US Speaker backs

     

     

     

     

    free trade deal with

     

     

     

    UK

     

     

     

     

    ... - Daily Mail

     

     

     

    by Jack Doyle Executive Political Editorl

     

     

     

    THERESA MAY received a major boost last night after a

     

    leading US politician backed a swift free

     

    trade deal with the UK

     

    Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House of

     

    Representatives and a senior member of

     

    Donald Trump's Republican party, said

     

     

    Washington wanted to strike a free trade

     

     

     

    deal with BRITAIN as soon as possible.

     

     

     

    In a speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank

     

    in Central London, Mr Ryan said such

     

     

    a deal would 'further tap into the great

     

    potential between our

     

    TWO PEOPLE...

     

     

    Full article

     

     

    April 20-2017

     

     

     

    QUENTIN LETTS: Mrs May enjoying

     

     

     

    power for first time | Daily Mail ...

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/news/.../QUENTIN-LETTS-Mrs May-enjoying-power-

    time.html

    18 hours ago ... It's not just the new hairstyle. Mrs May is glowing. For the

    first time, she's is really enjoying power, writes QUENTIN LETTS.

    By Quentin Letts for ...
     

     

    Full article

     

    April 20-2017

*

H.F. 1175 FREEDOM AND A FUTURE LINKED TO THE PAST!

 

 ["ENGLAND'S GREEN

 AND PLEASANT LAND."]

*

Letter from Daily Mail, Wednesday, September 20,2017

Houses on land like this will just force prices up.

 [and DESTROY more GREEN BELT- a SACRILEGE and BETRAYAL of a PROMISE not only to the present population but to future generations. It is past and present politicians to BLAME because of the massive INCREASE in POPULATION into our small and once spacious island home. This grievous mistake can be corrected by controlled immigration and finding the financial resources to ensure that those millions of elderly pensions -many alone in their 3/4 bed-roomed homes can downsize to  more suitable properties which will enhance their remaining days in calm comfort and security.]

 Below: Letter from David Brown, Stonesfield,Oxon

'CALLS for thousands of homes to be built in the leafiest areas 9Mail) show our politicians are out of touch. They concentrate on the number of houses with no regard to type, style, mix, location and infrastructure .'

[Evidence of this practice is everywhere to be seen-it is an abomination to view the collectivist trend of design which instead of enhancing the neighbourhood is an imposing eyesore of an affront to the individualistic nature and particular character of the existing locality with many centuries of history in its making.]

'In West Oxfordshire, half of any development above ten houses has to be social and affordable housing. As developers receive only the cost price  for building these homes, they have to make their profit from the other 50 per cent and so build only four and five-bedroom houses.

In my village, such new homes cost between £695,000 and £1.2 million. This means that the only two and three bedroom houses being built are SOCIAL or affordable housing, but not all young couples or families meet this criteria.

There are no bungalows suitable for downsizing or to meet the needs of the elderly or disabled people [Theresa May in her incoming speech as PM gave an undertaking to look after the PEOPLE! and this issue is a perfect example how to look after-'ALL THE PEOPLE!' and at the same time to protect our beautiful COUNTRYSIDE  and COUNTRY for future generations-a  sacred TRUST! And for millions of elderly pensioners trapped in three/four bedroom properties to allow them to downsize to BUNGALOWS will release family properties-always in short supply-and bring CALM. COMFORT and SECURITY to those in the winter of their days. The issue can no longer be burked!]

Developers will build anywhere they can get land, so some new estates will not have PUBLIC TRANSPORT and the residents will have to rely solely on their cars using OVERCROWDED roads.

Despite representations to local planners are soley driven by Government quotas. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid's proposal to force more UNSUITABLE HOUSING onto areas such as WEST OXFORDSHIRE will have the unintended consequences of not only DESTROYING AREAS of OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY but will force up PRICES.

Rather than have more pointless consultations to promote the Government's desired outcome, Mr Javid should visit the places where he wants to impose development and TALK to LOCAL PEOPLE and PARISH COUNCILLORS loke me. He would learn more in a couple of hours that from countless papers presented by his researchers.

DAVID BROWN, Stonesfield ,Oxon.

DAILY MAIL-SEPTEMBER 20,2017

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

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 BRITAIN 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


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

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! 

 

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

 

 

 

WHY

 DOESN'T

 the

House of  Lords

move

to

BRUSSELS?

RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-

March 3, 2017

Why doesn't the House of Lords move to

BRUSSELS?

 
 

EXTRACT

NOT for the FIRST TIME, it fell to Norman Tebbit to speak for Britain.

Why was it, he asked his fellow members of the Lords, that they were elevating the

RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS

over those of the

BRITISH PEOPLE.

'It seems to me the

FIRST DUTY of PARLIAMENT

of the

UNITED KINGDOM

is to care for the

INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS KINGDOM'

he  said.

'If we are to be concerned about the rights of anybody after

BREXIT

to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, it should be concern for the

RIGHTS  OF BRITISH PEOPLE

to live freely and peacefully in those other parts of Europe.

WHY

is everybody here today so excited about an amendment which looks after

FOREIGNERS

and

 NOT

THE BRITISH

Fair point. But judging by the reaction in the chamber, you'd have thought Norman had advocated rounding up all foreign nationals living in Britain and deporting them en masse, preferably by gunpoint. His perfectly accurate use of the word

'FOREIGNERS'

had some sensitive Lords and Ladies gasping for their breath and hissing their disapproval at this ghastly racist in their midst.

 Lord Skinhead of Chingford was, of course. merely questioning the demand that before triggering

ARTICLE 50

[ March 15 -2017?]

Theresa May gives a cast iron guarantee that

ALL

EU CITIZENS living in Britain will be allowed to stay after Brexit.

Actually, she's already tried to do that in exchange for a reciprocal assurance that the same will apply to UK citizens living in Europe.

BUT

she was knocked back by

ANGELA MERKEL

who refuses to enter any kind of negotiation until  the Brexit process is under way.

It has become almost compulsory for everyone to agree that those EU nationals who have settled here-keep the

RIGHT TO STAY.

AND it,s true that the majority of EU citizens who have arrived legally over the past few years make a valuable contribution to our economy.

BUT

could the same be said of some of the less desirable elements who have moved to Britain?

The Eastern European beggars and pickpockets littering the streets of our cities for instance, or the assorted criminals we can't deport because of the

EUROPEAN YUMAN RITES RACKET.

The Remoaners don't want to talk about

THEM

naturally.

And frankly, the Lords aren't really bothered about the RIGHTS of EU citizens living in Britain.

It  is merely a convenient device to try to

DISRUPT and IDEALLY PREVENT BRITAIN'S DEPARTURE from THE

[UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-SO-CALLED]

EUROPEAN UNION...

They hold the democratically expressed wishes of more than 17 million voters in contempt and will do everything they can to frustrate the result of the

 REFERENDUM.

Why else would they want to force Mother Theresa to declare her negotiating position in advance?

No one in their right mind shows their cards before bidding in a poker game. Not unless that want to get taken to the cleaners.

No self-respecting union leader or businessman would offer up one-sided concessions before negotiations had ever begun.

What the Remoaners refuse to accept is that Britain holds the winning hand. We buy more from the EU than they buy from us.

The Europeans realise that, which is why they are going to bluff for as long as possible. Can you imagine any politician in Europe behaving like the

REMAIN CAMP in BRITAIN?

Where's the European equivalent of

PROJECT FEAR, warning of the dire consequences of losing access to the lucrative BRITISH MARKET?

Where are the apocalyptic warning from the EUROPEAN BANK that millions of jobs will be lost and the EU will go into FINANCIAL MELTDOWN unless BRUSSELS can strike a favourable DEAL WITH THE UK?

Where are the demands in Britain that Mrs Merkel offers

BRITISH MANUFACTURERS FREE TRADE

for BMW, Mercedes and Audi being allowed to continue to selling

TARIFF-FREE in BRITAIN.

WHERE'S Holland's answer to Anna Soubry touring the TV and radio studios in the Netherlands, complaining tearfully that the Dutch economy is doomed unless they give Britain everything she wants?

Why aren't French hardliners marching down the Champs Elysees, smashing windows and setting fire to police cars, demanding that Paris must agree unconditionally to BRITAIN'S TERMS so they can carry on exporting thie

CHEESES, WINES and MEAT? I don't recall the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT passing a MOTION forcing Jean-Claude Drunker to make any concessions to BRITAIN before the FORMAL BREXIT TALKS START.

And unless I've missed something, how many former

 GERMAN CHANCELLORS-FRENCH PRESIDENTS and ITALIAN PRIME MINISTERS have OPENLY SIDED WITH BRITAIN, in the same way that

 BLAIR and MAJOR

HAVE BACKED EUROPE AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE?

NO,

all we've heard from across the CHANNEL are THREATS to PUNISH US, to CRIPPLE US ECONOMICALLY, to MAKE OUR LIVES HELL ONCE WE ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO LEAVE THE EU.

YET

the overwhelming instinct of our

TRAITOROUS

POLITICAL CLASS

is to bind the hands of our negotiators, to

APPEASE, COMPROMISE and ultimately SURRENDER-with the UNELECTED HOUSE OF LORDS acting as a PRO-BRUSSELS FIFTH COLUMN,

determined to

BETRAY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE PAID TO REPRESENT..

Are they setting themselves up as

EU's VICHY GOVERNMENT?

MAYBE THEY SHOULD MOVE TO BRUSSELS.

IN wartime, they'd have been put up against a wall and shot

[AND THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF VOLUNTEERS TO DO JUST THIS TODAY IN MARCH 2017.]

It's a pity Norman Tebbit isn't a few years younger. We could have put him in charge of the Brexit negotiations.

AT LEAST HE'D SPEAK FOR BRITAIN.

*  *  *

 

 

Full article

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

MARCH 3 -2017

H. F.1126 FREEDOM NOW

 
 

A soft Brexit means no Brexit:

The truth is that the term ‘soft Brexit’ is endlessly and lazily repeated without it ever being properly examined. As soon as it is, it disintegrates into dust. Theresa May should call the bluff of these myopic Tory Remainers.

Don’t they realise their antics give comfort to Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker in Brussels? Mrs May has been weakened by losing her overall majority. Barnier even had the gall yesterday to tell the British Government to hurry up. How overjoyed the Eurocrats will be if they see her under attack by her own party.

And then what? A Tory split can only have one outcome — which is Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-Left clique ruling this country. We came far too close for comfort last week. It wouldn’t take much to put this unsavoury extremist in No 10.

A soft Brexit is no Brexit.

 It’s not an option for this country. It certainly isn’t worth splitting the Tory Party by fighting over it, and giving cheer to EU negotiators in Brussels.

And despite what Mr Hammond and others may claim, despite all the disappointments of last Thursday, there isn’t a shred of evidence that the British people have changed their minds about wanting

 BREXIT.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4601626/A-soft-Brexit-means-no-Brexit-STEPHEN-GLOVER.html#ixzz4kH5M4a1d
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

[A reminder to Philip Hammond]

INDEPENDENCE

'The word independence is united to ideas of dignity and virtue; the word dependence, to ideas of inferiority and corruption.'

J.BENTHAM (1748-1832) -Eng.philosopher.

[The main attraction for a politician is the power and profit within the bureaucracy of the EU-:Mandleson-Kinnock and Family and many-many others.]

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

JUNE 13-2017

H.F.1227-BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 

Searches related to eu latest news on brexit

brexit what is it

brexit news today

brexit news immigration

brexit eu citizens

brexit news live

brexit latest poll

brexit news latest

grexit and brexit

KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST NEWS

ON ENGLAND LEAVING HITLER'S 194O's PLAN

 FOR GERMAN DOMINATION IN THE PEACE.

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

AS WE ALL NOW KNOW DAVID CAMERON ONLY CALLED FOR A REFERENDUM ON JUNE 23-2016 ON THE EU BECAUSE HE WAS SO CONFIDENT THAT' HE HAD IT IN THE BAG'.

[JUST A FEW OF THE OVER 1000 BULLETINS ON OUR WEBSITE OVER 14 YEARS OF THE

COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNACCOUNTABLE-UNDEMOCRATIC-WASTEFUL-EXPENSIVE-DESTROYER OF FREEDOM AND SERVANT OF BABEL.]

[MUCH OF OUR WORK REVEALING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE EU SINCE 2005 HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A NUMBER OF PATRIOTS  SUCH AS THE

TRUE PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

CHRISTOPHER+STORY

ON THE

THE+EUROPEAN+UNION+COLLECTIVE-ENEMY+OF+ITS+MEMBER+STATES+BY+PATRIOT-CHRISTOPHER+STORY

*

JUNE 19-2017

THE LINKS BELOW  ARE TO OTHER

TRUTHSEEKERS AND PATRIOTS

H.F1228-BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

EU QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

There are over 1000 Bulletins on the EU in our

BULLETIN FILE and EU FILE

 CLICK FOR TOP TOPICS

JUNE -2009

1]  EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]   WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU ?

3]   THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]   THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[    THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]    COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]   OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]   MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]   OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10]    VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]  THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]  PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14] THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]  A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

16]   WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-£4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]    100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT1          100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT2

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007] -NOT MUCH LUCK HERE!

33]    ALMOST 50% OF EU BUDGET SPENT ON CAP FATCATS

34] SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU

35] WHY BRITISH BUSINESS IS TURNING AGAINST THE EU

36] BRITISH CONSTITUTION-IDENTITY AND VALUES

37] MODERN DILEMA IN POLITICS-TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUM.

38] LETTER FROM LORD KILMUIR TO TED HEATH WITH TRUE FACTS OF EU

39] INTERVIEW WITH RUSSIAN DISSIDENT WHO WARNED OF EU DICTATORSHIP

40]   The Truth About A Federal Europe - Part I

41]   Cost of EU to UK - £4,811 million in 2003= 40 District Hospitals equipped and staffed and funded.

42]  CAN THE 1972 ACCESSION TREATY TO THE EU BE REPEALED?

43]  Neil Kinnock in glover - but failed to stop the Shadow of graft over EU’s £68bn spending.

44]  Now the EU wants a single Foreign Office to replace Nation-States Embassies.

45]   How the EU takes over Nation-States.

46]  A Fabian Europhile of 1947 supported Independent Nation-States and the Rule of Law

47]       The New European Constitution - Part 1

48]  12-Point Summary of EU Constitution continued - Part 2

49]  The New European Constitution - Part 1

50]  An Englishman’s checklist to how Pro-EU faction in ALL Parties is overturning our Ancient Constitution.

51]   Britain takes over as biggest contributor to the EU Budget

52]  Neil Kinnock sacked honest Auditor because of refusal to sign off questionable EU Accounts.

53]  General De Gaulle acclaims British national institutions back in 1960.

54]  Brussels scams can let an MEP fiddle £60,000 a year.

55]  The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 1

56]  The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 2

57]  Europe and a conspiracy of Silence.

58]  Ninety-nine countries will soon have Free Trade with EU -without paying a cent to Brussels.

59]   Britain must leave the EU as UN show best area for expansion will be USA-Anglo.Saxon sphere.

60]  82 million Germans have no say as MP’s back EU Constitution.

61]  The EU big brother policy reaches back over two millennium.

62]   Europe: It’s the modern version of the white man’s burden.

63]   E U COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

64]  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

65] German - Nazi - Geopolitical Centre established in Madrid in 1943 by Heinrich Himmler.

66]  What were the Dark Actors Playing Games, which the patriot Dr David Kelly referred?

67]  DEMOCRACY IS A DIALECTICAL FARCE BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES CALL THE SHOTS NOT SO-CALLED DEMOCRACIES.

68]  Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

69]  EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE.

70]  NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

71]   WHY NO TREATY LIMITING EU POWERS

72]   THE E.U.’S VERY OWN AESOPIAN LANGUAGE.

73]    WHAT IF ENGLAND HADN'T JOINED THE EU

74]   67% WANT POWERS RETURNED FROM EU

75]   WILL IRELAND SAVE EUROPE FROM ITSELF?

76]   WHY EU REGIONAL POLICY WILL DESTROY THE NATION STATE

77]   EMPIRES HAVE GONE AND MOST PEOPLE LIVE IN NATION STATES.

78 THE FINAL BETRAYAL- WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 2008 

79]  WHY THE QUEEN MUST STAND UP TO BLAIR-NOW BROWN-SHE DIDN'T - BUT SOLD US TO THE EU80] 

80]  Almost everything ,which is precious in our civilisation, has come from small States

81]  THE EU BIG BROTHER POLICY REACHES BACK OVER TWO MILLENNIUM

82]   THE EURO A DOOMED CURRENCY

83]  GERMANY AS STRONG MAN OF EUROPE

84]  BRITAIN AND EUROPE-THE CULTURE OF DECEIT

85]  NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007

86]  A BETTER WAY FORWARD TOGETHER IN EUROPE-OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNIOn

87]   A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND

88]   TO CONTROL OUR COURTS AND BORDERS IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL EUROSCEPTIC STRATEGY.

89] BLACK OPERATIONS AND TRICKERY BIND UK TO EU
90]  HITLER-HAUSHOFER AND GEORGE KENNON-PENTAGON PLANS IDENTICAL
91]  Oh Boyo - Family on Brussels gravy train cost TAXPAYER £34 million and RISING!
92]   NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

93]    WHY DID THEY WANT BRITAIN IN EUROPE -  IN 1963

94]   Lies and The Betrayal of Britain
95]    Be Warned - The lies of 1975 still haunt us
96]   THe Strange Case of the Werner Report
97]   1972 EU Communities Act
98]   Further 200 Reasons why to Reject the Euro and E
99]  New elite threatens EU project admits Lib-Dem Peer
100]     The secretive Bilderberger Group will destroy True Democracy
101] BBC EUROPHILE BIAS-UPDATE-by LORD PEARSON

102]   How ‘a good European’ turned into a eurosceptic whistle-blower

103]   HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007

104]    IF Gordon Brown forces this EU TREATY on us, you can kiss goodbye to DEMOCRACY  -HE DID!
105]   FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE THE FUTURE OF WORLD TRADE
106]   Twelve Mighty Reasons why you must say 'No' to the EU

107]        How much does it cost the UK in the EU

108]   THE FREEDOM TAKING EU MONSTER MAY YET FALL
109]   IF MONETARY UNION GOES-EUROPEAN PROJECT IS UNDERMINED
 
 
 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE-2009

H. F .11 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 

 

EU DICTATORSHIP EXPOSED

                        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 BRITIAN 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 Frech 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

 

At 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 suspened 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 d

‘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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE BEAST!

 IN BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

 

*

ENGLISHMEN AMONGST OTHERS BROUGHT INTO BEING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

TO

THE MEMORY OF

THOSE WHO DIED

in the great wars

THAT WE MIGHT LIVE

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birthright of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

-Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg,

19th November, 1863.

*

"All our past proclaims our future; Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand.

Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in this our chosen and [soon] chainless land.

Bear us witness; come the world against her,

England yet shall stand."

Swinbourne. England

*

 

H.F.1285/3-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

 

Daily Mail

 

 

 

Who has the biggest pension in the civil service? -

 

 

[SORRY! THERE IS NO REWARD FOR GUESSING! - AS THE ANSWER IS TOO OBVIOUS TO ANYONE!]

 

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../The-head-pensions-department-retire-1-8m.html
 

 ... By DANIEL MARTIN  Policy Editor

For

 

The Daily Mail ... The civil servant with the
 

biggest pension pot in Whitehall is the

 

mandarin responsible for ...
 

Full article!

*

All in public service who receive exorbitant salaries and pensions far in excess of those of the prime minister of the day should be reviewed by a PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE to reduce those payments to reflect that those who decide to to be paid from the PUBLIC PURSE understand that ECONOMY will allow  MORE RESOURCES for the NECESSARY and VITAL SERVICES that the PUBLIC REQUIRE.

When members of the GENERAL PUBLIC hear about the 'LOTTERY PAYMENTS' given to those PUBLIC SERVANTS

The expression:- 'Feather one's nest' - comes to mind!

 

AUGUST 28-2017

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1289-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

 

 
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

A REMINDER!-IF YOU NEED IT!

101 REASONS FOR LEAVING THE EU

 

PART 1

 

We wish to express our indebtedness and gratitude to those who in books and articles have sought to alert the Nation to its Danger, and whose observations are reflected or summarised here: in particular,

 

Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter

for Treason at Maastricht

 

Adrian Hilton for The Principality and Power of Europe

 

Lindsay Jenkins for The Last Days of Britain

And

 

For the late Lord Shore of Stepney’s

Separate Ways

 

Copies of this booklet can be obtained from the Publishers -Priced £1.20 incl p&p

 

St Mathew Publishing Ltd

24 Geldart St.

Cambridge

Tel: 01223 504871 Fax: 01223 512304

 

*

 

1. hush up

 

Cabinet papers pre - 1970 show the Heath government to have had full knowledge of the EEC being a long -term plan for the unitary European State with its own Currency; but the facts were suppressed by this and succeeding governments with the Deliberate intention of keeping the Nation in the dark

 

1.         ‘surrenders of sovereignty’’

 

On 14th December 1960 the Lord Chancellor,

Lord Kilmuir,

Britain’s senior legal officer, warned Edward Heath of the implications of signing the Treaty of Rome:

‘’ To satisfy the requirements of the treaty, Parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of Law to any existing or future regulations made by… the Community…It is clear that the Council of Ministers could make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes… It is the first step on the road, which leads… to the federal state… I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones…these objections ought to be brought out into the open.

 

2.         ‘end of Britain’’

 

That the consequences of membership had been realised by some at Westminster about this time is apparent from a speech in 1962 by Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour party, who rightly identifying ‘’ the desire of those, who created the European Community, for a political federation. That is what they mean, that is what they offer’’, added that this would bring about the end of Britain as an independent [Nation State]…the end of a thousand years of history.

 

3.         the big lie

 

Edward Heath’s 1971 White Paper on joining the EEC deceived Parliament and the People with its false statements that’’ there is no question of any erosion of essential sovereignty’’, and that Britain’s Sovereignty would somehow be ‘’enlarged’’ by ‘sharing’’

 

4.         ministry of propaganda

 

Between 1970 and 1972 the Heath Government directed a secret propaganda offensive, known as the Connaught Breakfasts, in which Cabinet Ministers, Foreign Heads of Department, civil servants, media managers and journalists, in conjunction with the European Movement, carried on TV, radio and newspaper campaign to swing round strongly opposed public opinion to acceptance of the EEC, public money being used in the process.

 

5.         unconstitutional…1

 

The 1972 Act which took Britain into the EEC was in breach of the Constitution, in that the Government allowed no prior consultation of the electorate by special General Election or Referendum, as is required under the Constitution for Parliamentary measures involving Constitutional Change, the precedents being those of 1831/2 and 1910.

 

 

7. unconstitutional…2

 

By passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament unconstitutionally attempted to renounce its legal Sovereignty, so as to make the British People subject to enactments of outside agencies, and ending its own ability to put into effect the expressed wishes of the Electorate.

 

8. unconstitutional…3

 

In doing so, it deliberately and wrongfully denied the, ultimate Sovereignty of the People, of which Parliament is Constitutionally both Servant and Defender and which at the end of each Parliament’s term is returned to its Possessors.

 

9.                     unconstitutional…4

 

It is the Corner Stone of the Constitution that no Parliament is or can be bound by enactments of its predecessors; but the Act of 1972 unconstitutionally purported (Section 2.4) to be mandatory upon all succeeding Parliaments.

   

10.               unconstitutional…5

  

The Act of 1972 is unconstitutional in the wider respect that falsehood and deception was employed to secure its enactment, contrary not only to the spirit of the Constitution but of all procedure whatsoever.

 

11. test case

 

The Metric Martyrs’ appeal against their conviction is based on the fact that the 1985 Imperial Weights &Measures Act, which permits trading in pounds and ounces, constitutionally takes precedence over the earlier Act of 1972 which made us members of the EU; and it is thus a test case not only between British and EU law, but of whether the 1972 Act can have abrogated the Constitution.

 

12.indestructible

 

Any supposition that the Act in some sense annulled the Constitution is untenable, since (apart from the 1972 Act itself being unconstitutional both in its content and process of enactment) the unique unwritten British Constitution is not law, but essentially an honoured undertaking and consensus in those who have created and live under it as to the proper conduct of Parliamentary affairs, and thus incapable of being set aside by legal means.

 

13. … twilight hour?

 

By subjecting the British people to decrees other than the laws enacted by their own legislature, the Act contravened the undertaking in the Coronation Oath ‘’ to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs’’; the provisions of the treason Act 1795, against engaging in actions ‘’tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution’’ of the United Kingdom, and those of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 condemning ant who attempt to ‘’ deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom’’; and the Privy Councillor's Oath ‘’ To bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and defend its jurisdiction and power against all foreign…persons…or states.’’

 

14. royal commoner

 

Allegiance to H.M. the Queen is in effect allegiance to Brussels, since through the Queen’s EU citizenship and accountability in her own courts to superior EU law, Her Majesty has vassal status, and an Oath of Allegiance to her now stands’ subject to the Commission’s tolerance’’ so long as she and her Nation do not show themselves disloyal to the sovereignty of the European Union.

 

 

15. unconstitutionality

 

The chief reason for the Labour government’s calling a Referendum in 1975 was the unconstitutionality of the European Communities

 

16. bizarre

A retrospective Referendum upon an Act of Parliament was without precedent in British history, and partook of the nature of inertia salesmanship, especially since accompanied by the dispatching of government literature to every household with the disinformation that the Act had been purely a free trade agreement, and urging a ‘Yes’ vote; a species of official activity also without precedent, and just as questionable.

 

17. the great divide

Britain’s becoming and remaining a member of the EU, and the methods employed to his end, resulted from the emergence of what Lord Goodhart memorably described as ‘’ a political establishment’’ with purposes disturbingly opposed to the wish of the electorate; his book ‘Full-Hearted Consent (1976) ironically gaining its title from Mr Heath’s assurance during the 1970 General Election campaign that, if there were a future possibility of entering the EEC, no government would take their nation into it’’ without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the People.

 

18. vote as EU please

 

The political establishment’s continuing activities have brought about a new situation, new to British politics, in which the widespread public hostility to the EU’s increasing encroachments is denied party political expression, the policies of the major parties all being favourable to membership.

 

19. polling days

 

In a nationwide MORI opinion poll carried out on behalf of the British Democracy Campaign 15-21 March, 2001, in which 1805 adult respondents were questioned face to face in their homes, 52% of these offered an opinion declared themselves in favour of leaving the EU now, 71% wanted a Referendum on continued membership, and 75% considered that the British people had not received sufficient information on the implications of the EU.

 

20. mobile goalposts

 

Through the deeper irregularity of its plan to proceed by stealth through a series of treaties until the European State was a fait accompli before its populations had come to realise what was going on, the EU has developed into a concept and institution far other than what was voted on in 1975 Referendum, and so without democratic validation in this as in other countries.

 

 

21. undemocratic

 

The European Union is an unrepresentative and authoritarian institution, by virtue of the fact that the members of the legislative (Council of Ministers) and its executive (Commission) are not directly elected by and responsible to the voters of a EU constituency.

 

22. non-accountable

 

The EU Council of Ministers is composed of the non-dismissible nominees of the governments of member states, who are thus removed from democratic accountability.

 

23. horse-trading

 

Britain’s voice in the Council is one amongst many; and policy decisions, as the outcome of conflict of interests and pressures resolved by bargaining, by no means necessarily correspond to Britain’s needs and the wishes of its electorate.

 

24. cabal

 

The Council, more strictly the legislative body, and the Commission, which with its executive roll also issues legislative proposals, both meet in secret; and since the fifty or so persons who compose the two have not been elected to European government functions, and in carrying them out are accountable to no-one, they constitutes, not a legislative, but a ruling oligarchy.

 

25. big brothers

 

Though the EU Commission are unelected appointees without democratic mandate or accountability, they have power to impose directives and regulations by by-passing the legislatures of democratic states.

 

26. the parliament: authority

 

Whereas the British Cabinet is constitutionally answerable to Parliament in Westminster, where a government defeat on a motion of no confidence involves a Dissolution and General Election, the European Union’s Parliament, so called, is entirely without such control over the Commission, which is effectively the EU Cabinet.

 

27. the parliament: finance

 

From its earlier days to the present, what has been confirmed the Westminster Parliament’s power has been its direction of finance; but the EU Parliament is without a corresponding capacity?

 

28. the parliament: legislation

 

Unlike all the other parliaments in the Western tradition, the EU Parliament is unable to legislate, its functions being merely to review and agree measures drawn up by the Commission, and thereby to have virtually no legislative role.

 

29 the parliament veto

 

Nor does the Parliament have a final veto over Commission regulations and directives, since through the procedure euphemistically named ‘’Conciliation’’, the Commission can at its will override any negative vote.

 

30. façade

 

The word ‘’Parliament’’ is thus a misnomer for what is little more than a rubber-stamp or puppet agency; but the democratic election of its members creates the dangerous illusion of democracy being at work, in what is in essence an authoritarian regime.

 

31.      inferior government

 

Through its membership of the EU, Britain is being subjected to a species of non-representative, non-democratic, authoritarian government far inferior to that which prevailed at Westminster until 1973, and having features reminiscent of the dictatorial systems which flourished on the continent of Europe in the not very distant past.

 

32.      12-star chamber?

 

The European Court of Justice, whose members are appointed by the various governments, is the supreme arbiter on EU law, with power to overrule the laws of member states; but being charged under the Treaty of Rome with ensuring that provisions of all the EU treaties, and the principle of ‘’ever closer union’’, are observed, and in its own words devoted to ‘’overcoming the resistance of national governments to European integration’’, it is politically predisposed and active in a manner incompatible with judicial impartiality.

 

33.      moot points

 

EU treaties and regulations are generally cast in such obscure language that all wishing to be sure where they stand will be forced to go to the European Court of Justice: so that it will become an absolute source of political authority, and the European State be unassailably dominant over the former nations now its provinces.

 

34.      EU rules OK

 

EU law, as conveyed by the treaties, regulations and directives, and decrees and rulings of the European Court, are accepted by British courts as taking precedence over national law, the ECJ having declared that ‘’Every national court must apply Community law in its entirety and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior or subsequent to this Community rule’’ (ECR 629 at 643,644).

 

35.      ‘’tidal wave’’

 

The result is that the British Statute and Common law are being superseded, and law-making has become primarily the prerogative of the European Union, which has been described by a British judge as ‘’a bold new source of law’’, and whose legislation, according to the late Lord Denning, a former Master of the Rolls, is no longer’’ an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England’’, but’’ now like a tidal wave bringing down sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses, to the dismay of us all’’ (quoted in the Times, 1st April 1996).

 

 

 

36. corpus juris

 

In place of existing laws in the member countries, there will have been instituted under the European State the Corpus Juris, a body of law largely in accordance with continental legal systems, deriving from three main sources: the Corpus Juris Civilis of the Roman Emperor Justinian, Inquisition law, and the Code Napoleon

 

37. euro state prosecutor

 

Corpus Juris is to be administered by the European State Prosecutor, and operate through European courts and trans-national police and the courts and police forces of member states, so combining police and prosecution into one entity

 

38. continental menu

 

Judicial procedure is to be as already in practice on the Continent, the European State Prosecutor having responsibility for investigation, arrest, committal to trial, presentation of the prosecution case in court, judgment and imposition of sentence, trial taking place before an inquisitorial judge and two professional assessors: the State, in effect, both judge and jury.

 

39. … innocent? Prove it!

 

Also as on the Continent, the concept of presumed innocence will disappear, and it will become the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence to the court, contrary to the position under English law, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and the accused is innocent unless and until proved guilty.

 

40.                   goodbye, Habeas Corpus

 

Corpus Juris will quash the right of Habeas Corpus, instituted in 1215 by Magna Carta  (article 39), by which it is granted in perpetuity to all subjects of the monarch that no-one should suffer the loss of liberty without evidence warranting his further detention being established in a court hearing, normally within 48 hours of his arrest.

 

41. farewell, trial by jury

 

Corpus Juris will similarly abolish the right of trial by jury, whose beginnings date from as early as 1166 in the reign of Henry 11, through which the question of a person’s innocence or guilt is determined by twelve of his peers, not by the judiciary, a practice which, because of a jury’s freedom to acquit a person technically guilty under an unjust decree, ensures that laws made by the state are always acceptable to the people, and that government pressure upon, or corruption of, the judiciary shall never be able to affect the impartial administration of justice.

 

42. ‘ the test of civilisation’’

 

In a Minute to the Home Secretary of 21st November, 1943, Winston Churchill observed: ‘’The great principles of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury… are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the State… The power of the executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to law for an indefinite period, is in the highest decree odious, and is the foundation for all totalitarian governments… Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy. This is really the test of civilisation.’’

 

 

* * *

 

 

43. above the law

 

The European State’s judicial system involves the introduction of forces of armed police, whether members of Europol or of the paramilitary European border police in process of formation, enjoying diplomatic immunity from arrest, and thus above the law; unlike British police, who, while charged with enforcement of the, remain ordinary members of the public, themselves subject to the laws they uphold

 

44. clear enough

 

The reasons for the European State police’s immunity from the law have never been explained, though the parallel with the police forces of authoritarian regimes is manifest

 

45. just the start

 

Eurojust, the provisional EU public prosecution agency, which is closely linked to Europol, already has autonomous, non-accountable power to initiate investigations in every state of the European Union, Europol being able to order surveillance of any British person by letters, E-mail or ‘phone tapping, and to acquire upon demand secret intelligence from British security agencies M15 and M16.

 

46. affront

 

The concepts, provisions and methods of the judicial system of the emerging European State are legally and ethically inferior to the system of British justice admired throughout the world for its humanity and impartiality: and if ever instituted in Britain, would be a regressive and affronting imposition.

 

47. Euro Army

 

The future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), founded upon the predominant military power of the United States, which has for more than half a century secured and maintained Europe’s peace, is now threatened by the European State’s establishing an Army of its own, dubbed the Rapid Reaction Force, upon the pretext that it will facilitate military operations in which NATO does not wish to take part.

48. pretext

 

Since arrangements already exist within NATO for the EU to take military action without NATO’s participation, but using its facilities, assets, transport and intelligence, the reasons for setting up a European Army can only be to confirm the emerging Statehood of the EU, and lessen the commitment of the United States to Europe’s security: so jeopardising NATO’s continuing role, and thereby the peace of Europe.

 

 

49. escape of cat

 

Helmut Kohl’s statement that ‘’ a united Europe without a common defence is, in the long run, not feasible’’ (Independence, CIB, January 2000,p1) would seem to apply regarding the first; and that of Jacques Chirac, ‘’The object of a European defence identity is to contain the United States’’ (cited by Michael Fabricant, MP, House of Commons, 29th March 2000), with respect to the second.

* *

 

DESPOTISM is:

 

[‘ Everything by the EU- but nothing by YOU ’]

 * * *

 (50 - More Reasons in Part 2.)

 Or you may order a booklet from:

 

St Mathew Publishing Ltd

24 Geldart St. Cambridge

CB1 2lX

 

Tel: 01223 504871 or Fax: 01223 512304

2004

CLICK FOR PART 2

 

H.F.1288-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT!

[THE GREAT BETRAYAL]

*

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

The Culture of Deceit

by

Christopher Booker

 

*

PART  4

MRS THATCHER and 1985

[The Great Conspiracy]

Ten years later, when Britain's economy  had begun to make historic recovery which had nothing directly to do with being part of 'Europe' It was Mrs Thatcher curiously enough who was put in the position of the British people, in believing that the Common market's chief purpose was to promote and liberate trade. It was this which led her to fall  for the proposal that there should now be a further big push to turn it into something more like a genuine free-trading area.

Since, as she imagined, this was the Common Market's real aim it could surely be achieved without any need for another treaty. But at the Milan summit in May 1985 she was rudely disabused. The powerful new troika at the head of what had become 'the European Community'. President Mitterand, Chancellor Kohl and Jacques Delors, now President of the Commission, were keen to see another major leap forward to European integration. With  the aid of the Italian Prime Minister, they set a clever ambush, insisting that what she was after could be achieved by only a new treaty, and calling a snap vote.  The reason they wanted this was because it could give Brussels a raft of new centralising powers not allowed in the original treaty, significantly extending both the areas of lawmaking to be handed over to Brussels and restrictions on national veto powers.

By the end of the year their treaty had been already signed and they had got all they wanted.

Mrs Thatcher had been hoodwinked

And to disguise her frustration, she now felt she had to sell the Single European Act back home as if its main purpose really had been just to set up a

'SINGLE MARKET',

as she had told everyone, rather than move towards a 'SINGLE EUROPE' as its name implied. This confusion, alas, only helped to compound the deceit of her predecessors.

In fact one of the significant points agreed at that same Milan summit had been the adoption of a document known as the Addenino Report, which in its own way was to do as much for European integration as any of the treaties. Pietro Addenino was an Italian MEP who had been commissioned after the so-called "Solemn Declaration on European Union" at Stuttgart in 1983, to draw up a whole range of measures specifically designed to create what was called

"A EUROPEAN IDENTITY".

These included giving the Community its own emblem and flag, the "ring of stars" and its anthem, Beethoven's "Ode To joy2, all of which were ceremonially unveiled. Other recommendations ranged from adopting a Community driving licence to sponsoring its own sports teams and cultural organisations. These were deliberately intended to give 'Europe' the symbolic appurtenances of a

NATION STATE

through at that Milan summit by a roomful of people including Margaret Thatcher, whose officials, one may suspect, had no more given her a proper briefing on the real intentions of the Addenino Report than they had on the

SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT.

But it was Mrs Thatcher's growing alarm at just how far and how fast the integrationist tide was now running which led her in 1988 to give that Cassandra-like warning speech in whose memory the Bruges Group was founded. Mr Delors was now speaking openly of how the President and his Commission would soon be the new

"GOVERNMENT of EUROPE"

the

Council of Ministers - its "SENATE",

the

 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

its

"HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES"

which within ten years would be enacting

80 percent

of

EUROPE'S LEGISLATION:

to all of which in

1989

Mrs Thatcher famously responded.

"no, no. no".

Only a year later she was bundled out of the way, soon after she had in effect been blackmailed by her Chancellor Nigel Lawson and her Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe into accepting Britain's catastrophic entry into the ERM. This of course involved precisely that freezing of exchange  rates which the British People had been promised in the 1975 referendum would never happen. We  then saw Mrs Thatcher's successor going off to Maastricht to face another treaty which was now quite unashamedly designed to transform the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

by another giant step into the

EUROPEAN UNION.

*

100 REASONS  TO LEAVE THE EU

*

.H.F.1265 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003CLICK HERE
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/

Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967  DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

SITSSHOW.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Jeff )RENCE.COM  TRUTHCONTROL.COM/  

WHATDOESIT MEAN.COM

 

 

HUMANS ARE FREE

CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX-TRUMP KNOWS IT-NOW YOU KNOW IT!

LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 

UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 

 

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

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

 

BACK TO:

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-  PART 1 -2017