A Pilot Scheme, which does not prove itself, should not be
offered elsewhere.
*
A Pilot Scheme which got too big for its boots
It
is a common usage by politicians to test their theories in pilot schemes before
they are considered for general use. In discussing this matter we have in mind
the original concept of the European Community, which as we now was in truth a
step to a United States of Europe.
The
founder members of the EU were so taken in with their own lies that they failed to test
their convictions in an open unbiased way.
Their goal of having other nations join their bogus club was the most
important objective and not the rigorous testing of the credibility of their
undertaking.
The
actions of the British government joining the EU was in one word ‘PANIC’
freely encouraged by those throughout the political spectre who placed their
mistaken idealism before their duty to their country. The facts behind this betrayal are now in the public domain -and
dirty tricks there were in spades to convince a sceptical public to take a bite
of the infected fruit.
The
project might have had a chance if the original members had spent their efforts
in convincing their own populations of the so-called benefits of their scheme
and had taken steps to change direction when needed in order to prove the
worthiness of the scheme to other interested potential entrants.
But
as we all know the decision to take the particular road was decided by those
misguided individuals in the 30’s and the poisoned chalice was passed on in the
early 50’s, and has been continually been passed on up to today - as we all
know.
The
secret organisation, which gave impetuous to the project, was the Bilderbergers (details on our bulletin
board).
From the British government perspective and
their allies in other parties the whole
case for entry to the EEC had to hide the threat to the loss of
sovereignty, which was achieved by the actions
of Harold Macmillan and many others particularly Ted Heath and his compatriots
and in our time-Tony Blair and his cronies.
The latest developments over the last few weeks with the
French giving their ‘non’ and the Dutch their ‘nen’ has
illustrated the great discontent for many reasons of their respective peoples
and of the EU project in general.
What
is clear is that France has always followed its own unique way-of-life
with no need for change, as its senior position in the EU gave it the
protection it desired. The French
people have not changed -they have always put their passion into their politics
to protect what they consider worthwhile to their life styles. It is not for us
to say they are mistaken.
As
all Frenchman know that a culinary dish must have the correct increments to be
a success and it is so with the mixture of the characteristics of each nation
state in a particular cultural political union.
The
ethos of a People makes the nation-state within its universe subject to their own
moral code and culture. To subject
different universes in a whole has brought conflict and much anger. The leaders of the nation-states have
exceeded their mandate by not taking account of the true feelings of their
People’s.
Greater prosperity comes at a cost in many ways as we have
now all become aware with our own small island having one of the densest
populations in the world. We are now
becoming also one of the most obese peoples in the western world, which is in many
instances, a usual sign of growing depression.
Our
countryside is being disfigured in the name of the protection of the environment
against global warming whereas we now know that many areas of the world will in
fact be able to grow crops where previously there had been none - because there
was so little rain or sun. ‘In every cloud there is a silver lining rain’ if
we look for it?
The People of each nation-state must decide whether the increasing
population and the drive for an even greater prosperity must be balanced in
order to protect the very countryside and, for an upper limit beyond which they
must expect their countryside and way-of-life will be destroyed for ever.
The ironical result of keeping population and prosperity in
check is that the fewer the people the less infrastructure is required -schools;
hospitals and other capital projects and less use of energy is
required. If waste is held in
check then further gains will be made.
Soon if there is no dramatic measures taken to curb the unnecessary
frantic alterations to our infrastructure the numbers of the population who rely
on their visits to our countryside to give themselves relief from the traumatic
effects of modern life will soon find that their beloved countryside has been destroyed
in the name of Progress.
WE NEED a smaller but adequate adaptable
population with controlled immigration and a greater protection of our
environment in city; town; village and hamlet. It is often said you can only really enjoy one meal at a time
and it is a sign of the dissatisfaction of many people with their present
lives which requires the timely reminder by the American statesman Benjamin
Franklin (1706-90) ‘One should eat to live, not live to eat’ if
it means that everyone slows down on consumption in order to protect his or her
health and way-of-life then surely that is worthwhile.
We can hear many people say but if everyone consumes less
more could lose their jobs. Well, as
with everything there will be a price to pay but it should be borne by the
whole community by ensuring that alternative employment is found and more
emphasis on leisure.
To continue on our present road we are on will soon be a
living hell for the majority of the people -those who govern us the EU Elite
will be able to fly away scot free - to enjoy quiet sunspots WORLD-WIDE - while
we live in a busy polluted environment with so many people around us that the
pursuit to the countryside is curtailed because of road gridlock and even if
you were one of the lucky ones who did reach the so-called countryside what
would you find?
If you arrive you would see very little through the forests
of gigantic wind turbines and mobile phone masts and other new fangled blots on
the landscape which they say have become a necessary evil because we did not
control our borders and energy needs - therefore we will have a painful price to pay.
Finally,
returning to the subject of the nation-state and the right of each of
their people’s to decide what suits their particular needs and adjust their
economies in order to maintain their own culture and way-of-life.
At present some of the
smallest countries with populations of a few millions are some of the richest
countries in the world.
Everyone
has a decision to make:
Do you want a country with space to move about it?
Do you want a country with your present green belt
left in place?
Do you want a country with one of the best service
providers in the world -Hospitals; Schools; local Government etc?
Do you want a country with its culture, customs and
way-of-life protected by a Constitution?
Do you want a Law and Justice system, which
provides the protection of the subject in the home and community?
Do you want your country to lead the world in
guarding our values of fair play and right of ALL other cultures to exist
within their own spheres of influence?
A FREE ENGLAND CAN DO THIS -our close
neighbours in our island home have the right to make their decision but it is
for each of us in the end to decide. But time is running out and if we wish to
pass onto future generations our Legacy we must make our commitment not in a
decade not in year but NOW?
There is a balance to be
achieved in our own small island which has one of the loveliest landscapes and is
one of the richest economies on the planet but with a land mass which is now
incapable of bearing its present population which must be reduced in the years
ahead in order to ensure there is left in place a country worth living in.
Will You Do It?
* * *
JUNE/05
*
*
The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138
*
Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the
absolute necessity of a
REFERENDUM
HEAR HIM ON
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
*
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER
08]
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION
to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE
FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home
Rule for
Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a
separate bulletin