WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON IN 1996 -EURO DOOMED TO FAILURE

 

*

 

Peter Jay, the most distinguished of all contributors to the International Currency Review, the former British Ambassador to Washington, explained in the ICR columns in 1996 why participation in the then proposed single (= collective) currency would be disastrous for almost all the intended participants.

 

We reproduce the timely and prescient arguments that he put forward.

 

*

 

WE TOLD YOU SO

PETER JAY’S WARNING IN

 

International Currency Review

Volume 23- 3 -August 1996

www.worldreports.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

AN AUTHORITATIVE 1996 WARNING ABOUT THE EURO

 

by

 

Peter Jay

 

Before we commence with the brilliant and authoritative lecture of the author Peter Jay we feel those who may not be acquainted with the man and his works will appreciate the following details expressed in the ICR volume 30, 4. of October 10 -2005.

 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

 

Peter Jay, the son of the late politician and former Cabinet Minister Douglas Jay, is acknowledged to be the most fiercely intelligent among the generation to which the Editor and Publisher of the service belongs. He was one of the earliest contributors to International Currency Review, in 1969 and early in 1970’s.

 

Born on 7^th February 1937, he was educated at Winchester College and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he gained a First Class Honours degree in Philosophy, politics and Economics [PPE]. He was elected President of the Oxford Union in 1960. The Editor of this service [ICR] was Jay’s exact contemporary at Christ Church.

 

Between 1961 and 1967, Peter Jay served at the British treasury, in 1967, he became Economics Editor of The Times a post he held until 1977, and during which time (from 1872 to 1977), he was the founder-presenter of TV’s ‘Weekend World’.

 

From 1975 to 1976, he also fronted his own programme for ITV, ‘ The Jay Interview’

He was appointed to be Ambassador to the United States in 1977, and he remained in Washington until the end of the Callaghan Labour Government in 1979.

 

At a Christ church Gaudy, Peter Jay quipped to your correspondent [Christopher Story - Editor of ICR] that he thought he was ‘the only member of his generation whose career was going backwards’. This typically and amusingly modest understatement could not be taken seriously, in the intervening years he has contributed immeasurably to economic analysis, as his Darlington Economics Lecture confirms.

 

In January 1990, he was appointed the BBC’s Economics Editor. The specialist unit he headed, a part of the News and Current Affairs Directorate, provided economics, business and financial coverage to all News and Current Affairs outlets across television and radio. He presented ‘The Money Programme’ when it was studio-based.

 

When he was appointed, the then Director of BBC News and Current Affairs, Ian Hargreaves, observed that ‘Peter is one of the outstanding economic journalists of his generation’.

 

But he is much more: all agree that he is the outstanding economic and financial thinker -presenter of our time.

 

*

[Lecture by Peter Jay]

 

 

 

DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

 

This is an opportunity for me to get off my chest an idea which has been going round my head for 25 years, which I believe, of great importance and which has been given new and great contemporary relevance by the proposal to create a Single European Currency [Written in 1996].

 

The world I want to talk about is pretty much the world we actually live in, but simplified enough to make it possible to talk about it within the compass of a lecture. The world itself is a closed economy, which is to say that it does not trade with the moon or outer space. It is made up of economies, which for tonight’s purpose I will define as geographical areas containing significant concentrations of economic activity separated from each other by evident political and natural frontiers.

 

We assume that goods and services are fairly freely traded between these economies - or more precisely between players in these economies - that capital may or may not be free to move between these economies according to political decisions made by the appropriate authorities in each case, and that labour faces large political and practical obstacles in mitigating en masse between economies.

 

THE COMPETITION FACTOR

 

 

These economies are, in a sense, in competition with each other. It is most important, however, to be clear about what that sense is-and what it is not.

 

Economies do not compete with each other as business do; and attempts to portray the successes and failures of economics as though they were a form of competition between great enterprises -Great Britain Ltd and France SA -entirely misrepresent the reality, for all the reasons which were powerfully explained by Professor Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] in his polemic published last year [1995], entitled ‘Peddling Prosperity’

 

Fundamentally - and this is not the place to spell it out at length - the difference is that for an enterprise, the success or proficiency of a competitor is bad news, essentially because it threatens market share and profitability; whereas for an economy, the success or proficiency of a trading partner (sometimes thought of as a competitor) is good news, essentially because it offers better value for money and so higher living standards to the home consumers and probably bigger markets to the home producers.

 

Nonetheless, there is a sense in which an economy can become uncompetitive with the outside world; and, if it does, that can have enormously serious consequences for employment in that economy. This has nothing to do with whether it is a rich or poor economy, or whether that economy has absolutely high or low levels of productivity.

 

It has entirely to do with the relationship between the labour costs of a unit of outlook in the home economy and the labour costs of a unit of output elsewhere. We are speaking here not of a specific product, but of the general structure of labour costs per unit of output across the board in the economy in question.

 

UNCOMPETITIVENESS

 

In an economy where the unit costs across the board are significantly out of line and above the general level in the outside world, a chain reaction of consequences begins to flow unless and until this imbalance is corrected.

 

Such an economy may accurately and instructively be said to be so, as in the Articles of the International Monetary Fund, in ‘fundamental disequilibrium’, which we express more colloquially by saying it is ‘uncompetitive’. It will be an important question how far and under what conditions this affliction is self-correcting.

 

I want to emphasise at this point the central importance in this analysis of this idea, the notion of an economy, which is uncompetitive in the sense defined. For it is from that condition that the consequences I shall discuss all flow; and it is that condition, I shall contend, which explains those consequences.

 

So, please take note, because, if you nod off [or if readers allow their concentration to lapse here-Ed] at this point, the whole of what follows will be completely mystifying.

 

An uncompetitive economy is I repeat, a geographical area of substantial concentrations of economic activity where the general level of labour costs per unit of output is significantly higher than in the world outside.

 

DEPRESSED ECONOMIES AND AREAS.

 

Now we turn to the consequences of such an imbalance. An employer whose production activities are located in such an economy will tend to find that similar products -goods and services -supplied to the home and overseas markets by other employers whose production is located outside that economy are either cheaper and more profitable than his own.

 

His lower profitability, if he initially adopts that route, will in due course weaken his will and/or his capacity to invest in new processes in the home location, and to match the technical and managerial advances made by his competitors located elsewhere. His competitiveness deficit increases; and his business will stagnate and dwindle.

 

If he takes the other route, of trying to pass on his higher unit costs in the form of higher prices to his customers, whether at home or abroad, his business will dwindle through a loss of sales, probably even faster than it will through lack of investment. As business dwindles under the conditions described, so employment will fall and unemployment will rise. Incomes will also fall; and so will living standards, at least relative to what they would have been, had the initial lose of competitiveness not occurred.

 

PAY AND UNEMPLOYMENT

 

Indeed, this process suggests the first way in which the imbalance from which we started this analysis might become self-correcting. Classically, economists have thought that the involuntary unemployment of those willing and able to work was impossible because an unemployed person would always be willing to offer for less than those currently employed, thereby driving pay and labour costs down to the point where the labour market cleared and everyone was employed.

 

There clearly had to be something wrong with this theory, since large -scale involuntary unemployment was an evident fact of historical and modern experience, not least in the most advanced industrialised economies.

 

The very best explanation for this phenomenon is known to economists in short-hand as the fact that “pay is sticky downwards”, in other words that people are immensely reluctant and slow to reduce money pay levels even when they are under economic pressure.

 

This may partly be a matter of their personal attitudes to pay which, understandably enough, they are liable not to think of as being a price, namely the price of labour, or therefore, as being subject to the same kind of supply -and-demand logic as the price of cabbages.

 

 

NO SCOPE TO BID WAGE LEVELS DOWN

 

 

It may partly also be that the way in which the labour market works makes it in practice impossible for the individual or even groups of individuals to present themselves to employers and to offer to bid down the level of pay in order to get work for themselves to employers and to bid down the level of pay in order to get work for themselves.

 

Strong social sanctions may well discourage such behaviour. Existing trade union agreements and bargaining power may prevent it. More to the point, employers may be reluctant to upset their existing employees by lowering remuneration levels.

And in certain cases, social security incomes paid only to people who are not at work, or not in possession of earned incomes, may make it uneconomic for unemployed people to work for less than a certain weekly figure, which may itself be above the level which would interest a possible employer.

 

For all the reasons, in modern societies money pay is adjustable only very slowly and painfully to adverse economic conditions; and in consequence, it is perfectly possible in practice for an economy to be and to remain uncompetitive in the sense that I have defined for long periods of time.

 

RECAPITULATION

 

At this stage in the argument, certain points need to be emphasised before we proceed:

 

·     First, it is not suggested here that uncompetitiveness in the sense that I have defined is the only or necessarily most important cause of unemployment;

·     Secondly, it should be obvious that uncompetitiveness is a relative condition, and cannot therefore afflict every economy simultaneously, and:

·     Thirdly, since the world is a closed economy, global unemployment cannot be caused by global uncompetitiveness, though, if substantial parts of the world are uncompetitive with other parts and suffer unemployment in consequence, they can thereby contribute to the global unemployment total which will not sum to zero, since negative unemployment is not, except by some artificial statistical manoeuvre, a recognisable phenomenon.

 

SOVEREIGN ECONOMIES

&

REGIONAL ECONOMIES

 

Next we need to introduce a distinction between two different kinds of economy as a concept separating the world into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (oceans and poles apart) geographical areas.

 

Some economics coincide with politically defined areas, governed by a single sovereign authority. Commonly in practice, though perhaps not theoretically necessarily, such areas also employ single common money or currency, which in its turn is commonly managed by the sovereign government or by the Central Bank so empowered by that government.

 

Such economies we will here call “sovereign economies” to distinguish them from the second type of economy in which we are interested.

 

These are again geographical areas containing significant concentrations of economic activity. And they commonly suggest themselves as naturally coherent units with a discernable identity. But they are only parts of sovereign economies in the sense we have defined the term. Economies which are actually component parts of sovereign economies we will call here “regional economies”, or just “regions”.

 

We shall disregard the two other theoretical possibilities, namely:

 

·     Economies containing more than one sovereign economy, in the sense in which one might talk about the Caribbean economy or the Oceanic economy in the Pacific.

·     Economies which contain parts but not all of more than one sovereign economy, as for example one might want to talk of the Mediterranean economy or great lakes economy.

 

I an happy to anticipate en passant the question- what is the status of the economy or economies of the

 

EUROPEAN UNION?

 

by saying, that in my view,

 

it is an area whose political leaders are debating a mooted transition from being a plurality of sovereign economies

To Being A Sovereign Economy That Contains Regions.

 

There is in my view no need to develop some extra or special definition of categories of economy to cover the European case.

 

SOVEREIGN ECONOMIES

AND

REGIONAL UNCOMPETITIVENESS

 

Sovereign economies and regional economies are both susceptible to becoming uncompetitive in the sense, which I have defined. But at a certain point the stream of consequences of being thus uncompetitive diverge from each other in the two cases.

 

A sovereign economy, experiencing uncompetitiveness, will face rising unemployment just like an uncompetitive regional economy. But then the problem, takes different forms for each case.

 

The uncompetitive sovereign economy will experience either a deteriorating trade balance, or a deepening recession, or some combination of the two.

 

The uncompetitive regional economy will have no recorded trade balance, though the net flow of goods and services in and out of it may certainly alter adversely just as for sovereign economy.

Its main overt symptom will be a deepening recession, or indeed depression.

 

*

UNCOMPETITIVENESS AND CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES

 

But, whereas the sovereign economy’s deteriorating external balance may force the government and Central bank to intervene by drawing on official reserves to finance the external deficit, the regional economy’s imbalance will automatically be financed by the ordinary flow of payments within the single currency area to which it belongs.

 

A regional economy cannot therefore have an overt balance of payments problem or, what is the same thing in other words, a currency crisis of the rest of the sovereign economy to which it belongs, there is no possibility of normal trading, let alone capital flows and speculation, causing its money to be sold short against the money of the rest of that sovereign economy.

 

A pound is a pound, whether it be in Devon - Dover- Dyfed- Derby- Darlington or Dundee.

 

This may sound like a mercy for the regional economy, and it does contain some merciful elements.

 

For example, the regional economy cannot suffer from the consequences of speculation that the value of its money may decline on the foreign exchange markets against the value of other currencies.

 

It cannot therefore be subject to capital flight inspired by such a fear, though of course, if the sovereign economy to which it belonged suffered such a fate, the region could suffer along with the rest of the sovereign economy.

 

UNCOMPETITIVENESSS AND FISCAL TRANSFERS

 

·     Secondly, by being a part of a sovereign economy, a regional economy may - I emphasise ‘may’, not by any means necessarily ‘will’ - benefit from some fiscal transfers from the government of the sovereign economy. These are in two kinds:

·     Automatic transfers which flow directly as a result of the depression of the economy activity in the uncompetitive region, through for example reduced liabilitities to income, corporation, value added tax (VAT) and other taxation, and increased receipts of unemployment and other social security payments financed from the centre, and:

·     Discretionary further help directed from the centre in order to ease the pain of the affected region.

 

UNCOMPETITIVENESS AND ITS REMEDIES

 

However, it is the central contention of this analysis that these advantages are outweighed by one massive disadvantage, which makes the position of the uncompetitive region far worse, economically and politically, than the position of an uncompetitive sovereign economy.

 

What an uncompetitive economy needs above all is to restore its competitiveness. If it fails to do that, then it is doomed to economic depression, high unemployment and falling or depressed living standards over an indefinite period.

 

Everything that it does, or tries to do, will tend to be anaemic, unsustainable, against the grain of the marketplace and discouraging to those animal spirits which Adam Smith saw as the driving force of all economic activity.

 

In the end the population, which the uncompetitive economy can no longer sustain, will face an ugly choice-to remain and be destitute, or to leave. The old and the weak will probably stay in poverty. The young and the strong will leave, not because they want to leave, though some may, but because the alternative is worse.

 

Generations later it may all seem to have ended well; but that will not diminish the pain at the time; nor the waste of the social capital that is left behind, nor the sufferings of those migrants for whom the move does not work out. But how can competitiveness be restored?

 

A sudden burst of faster productivity growth could certainly contribute to lower relative unit labour costs.

 

But what would bring about such a spurt? Market forces will be pointing in precisely the opposite direction. High unit costs mean low profitability. Low profitability triggers the outflow of capital, not inflows, and discouragement for enterprise and for overall economic growth.

 

The public sector can theoretically try to fill the breach. But then the public sector may, indeed should, already have been doing all that it judged it could and should do - and could afford -before the problem arose.

 

If it lies within the power of the public sector to bring about a discretionary great leap forward in productivity now, why had it not done so before [Written in 1996], since gains in productivity must always contribute to economic welfare in general, at least as conventionally measured?

 

Moreover, governments have their own imperfections. The categories of regional aid which commend themselves to the politicians in charge are not necessarily the forms of aid, which go furthest to the roots of the problem.

 

A few millions of pounds sterling on a conspicuous white elephant which the politician can be photographed [There have been many such examples in the reign of King Tony since 1997] and better still a filmed-opening, may have stronger appeal to him than the money used to address the underlying competitive imbalance.

 

WHY, you may answer, do development projects funded from Brussels always seem to be accompanied by enormous notices informing the passer-by that this great blessing comes to him by courtesy of the generosity and largesse of the European Union?

 

The harsh reality is that it is normally extremely improbable that a serious competitive problem of a whole economy, be it sovereign or regional, will be solved by engineering a sharp rise in productivity over and above the natural gains being made in the ordinary course of business.

 

Somehow or other lower pay, relative to the outside world has to be part of the story; and it is typically the only part of the story that policymakers have any hope of influencing - and then only in the case of a sovereign economy.

 

And it is here that we come to the real crux and the central message of this analysis.

THE ROLL OF THE EXCHANGE RATE

 

The sovereign economy, precisely because it has an overt external payments balance which it may be financed by changes in official reserves and which, if not so financed, may stimulate a change in the value of its currency against other currencies in the foreign exchange market, has an option which the regional economy does not - even though both may be confronted by identically the same difficulty, namely uncompetitiveness as I have already defined it.

 

·     The sovereign economy can experience a change in the value of ITS currency. At this stage in the argument, we are not concerned with such tactical questions as whether this comes about as a result of:

·     Some direct command decision by the government, for example to declare a new parity under some fixed but adjustable exchange rate regime, or:

·     Whether it comes about spontaneously as a result of market forces, the changing external balance and the effects of that on sentiment in the foreign exchange markets, or:

·     As in the case of Britain’s ignominious exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European monetary System, first one or the other.

 

The point IS that the exchange rate can change.

 

 

For a regional economy, that cannot happen because there is no currency unique to that economy whose price is registered in foreign exchange transactions.

Such a change in the exchange rate of the home currency there and then changes all values in the home economy in terms of the currencies of the rest of the world, except and unless, and only to the degree that home currency prices move to nullify this effect.

 

Such an offsetting movement in home currency prices is of course quite probable for those imports whose market price is cost determined.

 

But there is no reason why other domestic prices should nullify the effects of currency devaluation, unless either or both of two conditions obtain.

·     The home economy is operating under such overall pressure of demand that prices, measured in terms of foreign currency, quickly return to their pre-devaluation levels, and:

·     Labour is supplied to the market under such monopolistic conditions that the suppliers, mainly trade unions, can post more or less any price they like for labour and choose to restore the pre-devaluation purchasing power of pay.

 

There came a time in the 1980’s, conspicuously represented at the bank of England, in arguing that the effects of devaluations are normally nullified within four years; and there was even produced a little rule of thumb equation to describe the rate at which this happened, mainly in the second and third years.

 

The best that can be said for this work is that it may have looked like this to anyone who looked narrowly at British post-war experience.

 

But any claims to general theoretical validity are entirely specious; and the experience of the 1990’s demonstrates that a devaluation can, not merely restore, but actually transform the competitiveness of a sovereign economy to a point where neighbouring nations complain so bitterly that they take to muttering darkly about administrative retaliation against what they denounce as unfair competition, up to and including threats to invoke obscure clauses of the Treaty of Rome under which (British) exports to the rest of the European single market could allegedly be subject to restrictions or punitive imposts [Again to remind the viewer that these words were written in 1996]

 

DEVALUATION AS A SAFETY VALVE

 

The fact is that devaluation can work, if conditions are right, and that nothing else will - not fiscal transfers from some supposedly benevolent central government, not automatic fiscal transfers, not sudden productivity leaps forward, not smoothly adjusting reductions in nominal wages, not spontaneous migrations of cheerful job-seekers.

 

NOBODY. Of course, should be deceived. We are not speaking here of some magic wand that painlessly accomplishes huge economic benefits.

 

Devaluation of the currency works, when it does, precisely because IT LOWERS PAY AND IS ACCOMPANIED BY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH PREVENT IT FROM BEING INCREASED AGAIN, unless and until, real gains in productivity earn such increases in the world marketplace. Clearly, such any such remedy is logically, though not chronologically, a last resort.

 

It would be better not to be uncompetitive in the first place.

 

It would be better, were it not impossible, to accomplish the restoration of competitiveness by compensating forward leaps in productivity or even by smoothly adjusting nominal pay levels.

 

In the case of regional economies, it might even be better, were it not everywhere contradicted by the disappointing lessons of experience, to be able to rely on successfully operating regional policies, transferring fiscal resources and otherwise engendering the required new regional dynamism.

 

But as a logical last resort, devaluation is therefore the only resort.

 

If the other better resorts were available, they would have been used. And a last resort is nevertheless vital for being the last resort.

 

The safety valve that can blow on a pressure vessel, the aircraft emergency exit that will open under enough pressure, the ejector seat that can save the pilot, are all last resorts, but we sneer at them at our or somebody else’s-peril.

 

FURTHER RECAPITULATION

 

Let us summarise where we have got to here and examine the implications.

 

Both sovereign and regional economies can be uncompetitive.

 

A regional economy can be in theory can in theory hope for succour from the fiscal action of the government of the sovereign economy to which it belongs, or from a smooth adjustment of money wages, or from nature’s remedy -the outward migration of its able-bodied working population.

 

Such remedies are unlikely, unpleasant or both.

 

A sovereign economy can also in theory look to cuts in money pay and to outward migration of its population, no less improbable in the one case and unpleasant in the other - perhaps more so - than for the regional economy.

 

But it can also devalue, and, if it is prepared to pay the price, it will find that that can work and that though unpleasant, it is far less so than the long slow agonies of being a depressed region with no control over its own fate.

 

SO WHAT?

 

This conclusion, if accepted, of course raises a whole host of supplementary questions:

 

·     Are all regional problems simply suppressed exchange rate problems?

·     If it is so much the better to be a sovereign economy than a regional economy, should all regions aspire to become sovereign, i.e. have their own currencies?

·     What is the minimum size of a sovereign economy or currency area?

·     Why did East Germany ‘aspire’ to become a region of the sovereign German economy?

·     Why is the sovereign US economy so large?

·     Is Europe simply wrong to intend to convert a plurality of sovereign economies into one sovereign economy with many regions?

 

[Again to remind the viewer that this essay was written in 1996 by Peter Jay -details above]

 

I will attempt brief answers to these questions:

 

1.Are most regional problems simply suppressed exchange rate problems?

 

In so far as regional problems are essentially competitiveness problems, which means that at the present general level of employment costs the natural market -driven level of economic activity does not employ all of those willing and able to work, and that there is a pay level above subsistence at which all could be economically employed, given the natural endowments and general structural features of the local economy, then I say ‘Yes’:

 

Regional problems can correctly and helpfully be seen as suppressed exchange rate problems, that is: problems which could and would be amenable to exchange rate adjustments, subject to what was said above about the general conditions required for successful devaluation and subject to what is also said below about minimum currency areas.

 

2.If it is so much better to be a sovereign economy than a regional economy, should all regions aspire to become sovereign, i.e. to have their own currencies?

 

·     All regional economies should aspire to be sovereign economies unless:

·     The character and record of the economy is such that there is no serious prospect of it ever having a competitiveness problem;

·     Becoming a sovereign economy would infringe what is said below about minimum currency areas; or:

·     There are such huge fiscal or other uncovenanted benefits associated with regional status that they outweigh both the effectiveness and the self-reliance arguments for economic sovereignty.

 

3.What is the minimum size of a sovereign economy or currency area? The minimum size for a currency area and therefore for a sovereign economy in the sense defined in this analysis is one that satisfies the following two conditions:

·     That the administration and transaction costs do not exceed the benefits; and:

1.That the area must be large enough for prices, including (perhaps especially) pay, to be genuinely fixed in local currency units without automatic or continuous comparison back to external reference standards. It follows that there would be no benefit in establishing a sovereign economy in an area where pay was set by some wider agreement in which pay levels were expressed and determined in the units of the wider area. The more local the bargaining, the more local the scope for a separate currency-though with a floor in size, where in reality the pay and price setters would be looking at external reference values.

 

4.Why was East Germany prepared to become a region of the sovereign German economy? People in East Germany wanted to become part of an all-German sovereign economy partly because they saw this simply as an extension of the overriding imperative for German unification, partly because they wanted their savings validated in a money which the outside world would honour (which was not much different from just wanting to receive large cash gifts from their richer cousins in the west) and, partly because they believed that the West German taxpayer would be willing to transfer large enough sums to the east for the sake of unity to outweigh the consequences of the huge competitiveness deficit, which they were likely to face, if one ostmark became one deutschemark, which of course what happened. [It is said that the major cost of this hugely expensive exercise was eventually paid for by the other main contributors of the EU?]

 

In my judgment, at the time both they and Germany as a whole would have done better to have reformed the ostmark and allowed it to find its own value against the deutschemark, although it may be that such an arrangement would have been so imperfectly understood that an unmanageable migration of able-bodied labour to the West would have forced the hands of the authorities.

 

5. Why is the sovereign US economy so large?

 

The sovereign American economy is so large because the sovereign United States is so big. Whether or not this arrangement has been in the economic interests of the regional economies of the United States, i.e. of the people who live in those places, is a different matter.

 

There is in my opinion a case for saying that an historical error was made at the end of the Civil war when the Confederate Dollar in the Southern States was abolished in favour of the federal Dollar by a political fiat from Washington.

The South remained economically depressed for a century; and its recovery only began in the 1970’s

 

With President Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights programme, which for the first time ever made it practical for the labour force in the Southern States, which was predominantly Black, to migrate north and west in search of better living standards.

 

The political and social consequences for them and for the areas to which they moved in the northeast, the mid-west and the west coast were painful and profound.

 

If the southern regional economy had been able to overcome its competitiveness difficulties in some less crude and insensitive way so that a much bigger proportion of working people had been able to find work nearer to where they wanted to live, much waste and suffering might have been avoided; and if a separate Southern currency freely adjusting against the Federal Dollar could have contributed to such an outcome, it would have been well worth it.

 

AND EUROPE?

 

6. Is Europe simply wrong to wish to convert a plurality of sovereign economies into one sovereign economy with many regions?

 

So, now, lastly, we come to the question of

 

‘EUROPE’.

 

It is fashionable to look at the question of Europe’s future [since 1999, of course, current-Ed.] currency arrangements and Britain’s place in them as though the questions were whether Britain in particular is either ready or willing to join the arrangements, which at least the hard core of the rest are expected to make by 1999…and whether or not Britain should make the sacrifice of some political sovereignty for the sake of a great economic good.

 

All of this is comprehensively

back to front:

 

·     The BIG questions should be:

·     What are the best long-term economic arrangements for Europe? and: Should Europe’s economic interests be sacrificed for a political gesture?

·     Secondly, What is in the best long-term economic interests of Britain? and: Would the economic sacrifice entailed by joining be justified by the political advantages of first -class membership?

·     Thirdly, even if the EMU is the wrong long-term economic arrangement for Europe and Britain are there short-term or political reasons for establishing a temporary monetary union?

 

I will now briefly answer the questions:

·    The best long-term economic arrangements for Europe (on its own terms) are those that will enable it to fulfil its goal of becoming a large country with global influence, social harmony and economic success.

· It will fail in all or most of these objectives if the regional economies, of which it aims to be composed, are in such a state of competitive imbalance that political cohesion and social harmony are destroyed.

·    They will be in such a state of competitive imbalance if there is no mechanism for adjusting such imbalances, which tend to occur normally and naturally in the ordinary course of economic events.

·    The prevailing abject plight of France in consequence of its 12-year struggle to uphold the symbol of a strong franc (le franc fort) in defiance of all normal laws of economic gravity, illustrates the point.

·    If there is only one currency-whether or not the notes and coins are identical is trivially irrelevant-then the mechanism of exchange rate adjustment will not be available. As we have already seen in this analysis, no other mechanism can be relied upon instead.

 

The provisions in the Maastricht treaty for convergence are empty and irrelevant. They do not deal with convergence of competitiveness, but merely of nominal and monetary variables that are only partially related to the crucial question of competitiveness. They only even pretend to aim for convergence before monetary union begins-with no mechanism for promoting it, let alone, guaranteeing it, thereafter.

 

[It is in the nature of our people to have seen the impracticable nature of the Single Currency whereas our neighbours beyond our shores are easily taken in by bogus schemes of grandeur]

 

 

 

We may suspect that the European Commission is happy enough to engineer massive regional competitiveness imbalances by promoting monetary union and thus frustrating the normal workings of the exchange rate mechanism to promote balance, because it foresees that strong political demands will soon arise for vigorous regional policies to be devised and implemented from the centre, thus providing a wholly new political pretext for increasing both the budget and the power of the Commission.

 

But as we have seen, however much money and power that the European Commission posses, it is improbable that they will be able to have any significant impact upon the competitiveness imbalance problem which a single currency will pose.

 

This will leave the problem to nature’s remedy- namely, the migration of population.

 

It seems hard to believe that the political, economic and social success of Europe, whether one may approve or disapprove of the EU objective, will be promoted by establishing at the heart of its economic functioning a mechanism, which depends for equilibrium upon the enforced migration, on pain of destitution, of its populations in the tens of millions.

·     Away from the places to which they are tied by natural affection, by family relationships, by social capital and individual will:

·     Across frontiers of language, culture, historical experience and law;

·     To places of which they know little, which they like less and where they are so far from welcome that they are likely on arrival to be violently assaulted.

·    If this is the true character of monetary union, conceived by politicians who saw it as little more than trite gesture of nationhood, to go with a blue flag and a jolly anthem, then we say that it is not in the long-term interests of Europe and very far from being a sensible economic sacrifice even for the sake of a large political objective.

 

Indeed, one may wonder that anyone who professes to hope for the success of the political union of Europe could desire to implant at its foundations such an engine of destruction

It cannot be in the long-term economic interests of Britain to be strapped to such a device, however much the UK Foreign Office may lament the supposed losses of caste of being outside the inner core. Being at the inner core of a nuclear explosion just means you die a few spilt seconds earlier.

 

Britain has no interest whatever in destroying for ever its ability to correct fundamental competitiveness deficits by the only method that has a chance of working, nor of seeing other countries of Europe impose this economic catastrophe on themselves, if there be any way of preventing it happening.

 

·     Furthermore:

·     A temporary monetary union would indeed be less damaging to Europe than a permanent one, but only because it is temporary

·     Short -term fixing of exchange rates does much less harm, except to the reputations of the foolish politicians who attempt it, than long-term fixing, because fundamental competitive imbalance is a long-term problem, which normally arises gradually over a prolonged period-as in the United Kingdom between 1950 and 1965 - and which the exerts its terrible economic price over an even longer term, as in the Southern States of America for perhaps a century.

·     A short-term monetary union might also have an attraction for France, which is [was in 1996-Ed] caught between the rock of the immovable object of a political commitment to a hard franc and the hard place of an absolutely irresistible imbalance.

·     A monetary union of Germany and France - and such other hangers - on from the rest of Greater Germany as wished to join -might provide a convenient camouflage for a devaluation of the French franc, which would give the present leaders the political breathing space they need to alleviate France’s economic plight.

 

Of course, if any such monetary union continued for long, the present competitiveness problem would in due course resurface as France’s costs gradually moved out of line with Germany’s, as is almost inevitable for long historical reasons. But as a piece of short -term theatre to cover a much needed economic adjustment, it just might appeal [again to remind the viewer that this essay written in 1996].

 

It is as a long-term measure that the attractions of monetary union are weakest and not, as is glibly supposed, in MUCH current discussion, strongest.

 

· Note- The relevance and accuracy of Peter Jay’s warning [those many years ago] should be apparent to ALL except Jean-Claude Trichet

 

*

 

WHY HAVE WE REPUBLISHED THIS ANALYSIS?

 

Following the death of Sir Edward Heath at the age of 89 in July 2005, it has emerged, as discussed elsewhere in this issue [International Currency Review -Vol 30,4] that this former British prime Minister, who coaxed Britain into the EU Collective on a false prospective, took German bribes as did the other signatory to the [1972] accession document, Geoffrey Rippon.

 

Heath was the longest-serving penetration agent of the German Abwehr and the secret Nazi International intelligence service, DVD, based at Dachau, which controlled and controls the IRA [Irish Republican Army], intelligence sources have further informed us [International Currency Review - the sole independent currency journal -established since 1969-Full details on EDP bulletin board] as also reviewed elsewhere, that huge sums of ‘Black Ops’funds are routinely disbursed every time an EU treaty comes up for signing, with :

 

John Major and Tony Blair

 

Having both allegedly accepted ‘facility payments’ remitted in exchange for their signatures from the ‘Black Ops’ fund maintained in Switzerland for this purpose.

 

Given the sordid facts as stark as these

 

It is unsurprising that rational argument such as the careful analysis of Peter Jay, have had no effect [our man -British Ambassador to the United States in Washington in 1965] set out in the [Oct 10-2005 -ICR publication-Vol 30,4 -detailed on EDP bulletin board]

 

Those of us, who, in Britain, have opposed EU membership from the outset, know that we have long since ‘ won the argument’-but to no avail. No amount of rational analysis and warning makes any difference and many of us have for years been puzzled as to why this should have been so.

 

NOW AT LAST,

 

THE REASON HAS SURFACED

 

Surprise! Surprise! These idiotic and reckless policies are being pursued NOT because they have any merit, but because policy makers and high office-holders are bribed for geopolitical reasons, to sign up. The filthy secret did not emerge into the public domain until the death of Edward Heath -July 2005

 

Which prompted intelligence operatives to spill the beans to International Currency Review. [Edward Heath had for over 60 years been an agent of the Nazi Intelligence since being enrolled at Balliol College, Oxford in the early 1940’s-full details on EDP bulletin board]

 

[Whose last wish to have his burial service in Salisbury Cathedral with all the pomp and ceremony was granted by his co-conspirator Tony Blair and others about him who have yet to be revealed]

 

For confirmation of the above contact:

 

International Currency Review

World reports Limited

108 Horseferry Road

Westminster

London SW1P 2EF

Editor: Christopher Story FRSA

Veteran UK financial and intelligence analyst

E-mail: cstory@worldreports.org

Website: www.worldreports.org

 

* * *

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

OCTOBER-2005

 

*

 

LIFE AND TIMES OF Christopher Story  A PATRIOT AND MAN OF TRUTH

 

 

 

 

 FINALLY REMEMBER!!!

 

*DID YOU KNOW? The City of London is governed by the Illuminati-Freemasons and they are governed by their god Lucifer/Satan. The Bank of England owns the Central Banks established around the world, and this is the real power of the modern British Empire. One example is the United States Federal Reserve Bank , which is wholly owned by the Bank of England and her subsidiaries. Thus the world has been enslaved by the Illuminati-Free-Mason conspiracy which exacts her tribute through interest on their various currencies. "Historically all British military colonies with white populations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were under the authority of the Queen and her Government. Whereas all other brown 'slave' colonies such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the African nations were the private property of the Crown, which is the separate board of the City of London. These colonies were exploited for slave labor and trade, to make the cartels richer and more powerful." "The Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen. It is a private corporation led by the Illuminati. (See: +(1)+(1)+(1) AUGUST - 2010

 

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING? * Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION SAY VOTERS by Daniel Martin Political Reporter [Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008] MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last week's IRISH REFERENDUM' The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in the HOUSE of LORDS today to delay the RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY. And 10,000 people have signed a PETITION on the DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE within the past few days JUNE16-2008 , calling on the GOVERNMENT NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL [WHY DON'T YOU?]   Downing Street website is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/ * JUNE 18-2008

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public 1. The leaderships of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties have been taken over by pro-Europeans. These leaderships implement the EU's policy, and ignore the wishes of their voters. That's why your vote doesn't make a difference.   2. The European Union has the Constitution of a dictatorship, and the laws of a police state. Dictatorships lead to oppression and poverty. The EU Constitution is similar to the old Soviet Union's.   3. Once the Queen has signed the sixth and final EU Treaty in June, the very much alive EU Constitution makes it clear the EU will abolish the nations of Britain and England (and our Lib, Lab and Con parties, Reform Treaty clause 8A-4).   4. The EU is illegal under British law. Four Prime Ministers and the Queen have committed five acts of Treason by signing five EU treaties which will abolish our nation and replace it with the EU; they had to secretly repeal two of the laws of treason in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (s36.3) to escape prosecution.   5. The police state growing around you, and reported on by some national newspapers, is the EU police state. We've been in the EU for 34 years, we are harmonising our laws with the EU, the emerging police state is the result.   6. Political correctness, the undermining of parents, the family and teachers, the teaching of sex and homosexuality to under tens, the promotion of single parent families etc. is subversion by the EU or its Common Purpose organisation over the last 34 years, using the plans of the German Frankfurt School.   7. The EU will be an economic disaster. We now lose £30 billion a year trading with Europe; before we joined we broke even. The EU's 111,000 regulations cost us £100 billion a year (Better Regulation Commission Annual Report 2005); they will bring us a soviet style command economy and poverty. Our politicians lied to us.   8. If you have voted Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem over the last 34 years you have voted for the EU police state, and for the abolition of your own party.   9. German Chancellor Angela Merkel ensured our government signed the “Reform Treaty;” which will abolish the British Constitution and enforce the EU’s from 1st January 2009. The EU treaties don’t allow for a British General Election, which isn't due until 5th May 2010, so it is unlikely another will be permitted. You will by then be imprisoned inside the EU police state, where you will be ruled by unelected EU dictators, who will control the nuclear weapons of what used to be Britain and France.   10. Britain is the fifth largest economy amongst the world's 200 nations. Forget elections and parties, whose leaderships are controlled by the EU. Fight the direct anti EU campaigns on eutruth to get Britain back before its too late. Start by visiting your MP in his local surgery and warn him he will lose his £240,000 salary and expenses when the EU closes Westminster on 5th May 2010.   David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk 07974 437 097   The abolition of Britain by The Reform Treaty - Passed by majority of 138 The abolition of Britain by The Reform Treaty - Passed by majority of 138 MPs voted by 362 - 224 for the Reform Treaty in its Second Reading on Monday 21st January. This sixth and final treaty, now renamed the Lisbon Treaty, formally replaces Britain with the European Union on 1st January 2009. This is a year before the deadline set by the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. The Treaty will abolish the British Constitution, and therefore the nations of Britain and England, sweeping away our Westminster Parliament, and giving the EU the power to close it. The Treaty sets up an unelected three tier politburo executive in Brussels with absolute power, a dictatorship on the soviet model. The EU parliament has no power and is a sham. Read the Reform Treaty one page summary on the left. Gordon Brown was lying: the Treaty is worse than the constitution. This sixth treaty is the fastest moving and most secret the EU has drafted; opposition to and recognition of the EU as a police state is growing, and they know speed is vital. This Commons vote, one of the most important in our history, was largely unreported by our controlled press and media.   The Queen and Parliament to complete ratification this spring, 2008 Parliament has allocated 29 days to discuss this treaty in February (not much for its own abolition). They will probably have the final ratification vote in March. The Queen, the EU's most loyal supporter, plans to give her Royal Assent in June 2008. This means Westminster and the Queen will ratify it behind our backs, as they have the other five treaties.   No referendum German Chancellor Merkel chose this sixth Treaty instead of pushing it through as a constitution to avoid referendums in its member nations. She twice visited 10 Downing Street and forced Gordon Brown to cancel both his promised referendum, and his General Election. "Anti-EU" groups have encouraged us to call for a referendum precisely because the EU has already prohibited it. They know we are wasting our efforts: our four party leaderships take their orders from the EU, not from the voters.   How to fight The real course of action is to change the minds of 70 MP's and get a majority against. MP's have been selected on the Party list system over the last 20 years to ensure an obedient majority of pro-EU MPs. These MPs now need to understand the EU has the constitution (the six treaties) of a dictatorship, the laws of a police state, and when enforced, its 111,000 regulations will create a government command economy, soviet style: dictatorships cause poverty. They also need to realise that MPs are the people who put this dictatorship in power. If they put it in power, they are the greatest threat to take it out of power. All dictatorships in the past have eliminated that threat. Inside the EU, the lives of MPs will be even worse than our own; at best, they are likely to be institutionalised and held against their will. (This is the only good bit - these hated traitors will suffer severely.) Visit your MP in his surgery NOW and explain this. (Instructions top left)     The EU remains illegal Each of these six treaties are completely illegal under the British Constitution, our 1689 Bill of Rights, our treason laws, and under our common law. It is unforgivable that the Queen, her Ministers and our Parliament have committed the criminal act of treason by signing these treaties, and broken our laws to abolish our nation. The EU will always be illegal in Britain; but once the EU has complete power and control here, we can no more get rid of it than we could Germany, had their planned illegal occupation of Britain in 1940 been successful.   The Countdown to abolition Whereas the 465 page EU Constitution would have abolished the five treaties and replaced them with a single document conferring absolute power, the Reform Treaty adds to the existing five treaties, bringing them up to the powers of the EU Constitution. All six treaties with appendices add up to nearly 10,000 complex and unreadable pages. Tony Blair agreed to it on 23rd June 2007 as his final stab in Britain’s back. On the 23rd July there was an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), when we should have seen a first draft of the Treaty. Foreign ministers agreed its terms on 7-8th September at the resort of Viana de Castelo, Portugal. There was a summit in Lisbon on the 18th and 19th October, where they hoped to sign the Treaty, but Gordon Brown signed it on December 13th 2007, committing treason, the most criminal act on the statute book. The EU has decided to act now as if the Treaty were already in force; they are consolidating their power each day. On 1.1.2009 the Reform Treaty and the other five seize all remaining power from our Westminster Parliament, which becomes defunct on that day; it has no remaining powers whatsoever. (The Treaties do allow Brussels to return minor powers, but that is very unlikely.) On 11th June 2009 we have bogus elections to the sham Brussels Parliament, the only elections we will get in the future. Westminster's five year term expires on 5th May 2010 and a British General Election is due. The six treaties make no provision for an election to our Parliament. By that time the EU will have consolidated its absolute power, and it will almost certainly use it cancel that election and to close Westminster. The EU has always planned to rule what was Britain directly through its 12 nominated Regional capitals, by passing Westminster, from which every function will be removed. Its founders knew the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong and freedom loving Britain on its doorstep. They tried twice before in 1914 and 1939. Britain has to be utterly destroyed for the EU to succeed. The success of the EU's Frankfurt School subversion techniques on Britain (see left) has been astonishing; the abolition of Westminster is one of their final remaining goals.   You have 11 months left Treason is the most serious of all Britain’s crimes. You have just 11 months left to bring these vile British traitors to justice, and get us out of the EU dictatorship. Around 45 million British people are against the abolition of our nation, and with the little European voting that has been allowed, it seems clear over 200 million of its victims don’t want the EU. But we will never be given the choice. YOU have to decide to act yourself. There are ways to stop the EU - see "Your Campaigns" on the left. Then we will need a mass blockade of Westminster to stop our criminal MP's and Queen breaking our constitution and laws for the last time. Copy of the EU's Timetable at the BBC. Original 2009 article from German Parliament -.pdf for download Then check it at the German Parliament here         Campaigns: Print these .pdf's: One or two pages each.    Your Campaigns    Ten EU truths    Reform Treaty one page    50 reasons to leave    EUtruth flier    Common Purpose    Abolition of Councillors    Abolition of 48 Counties    Map: the 9 EU regions    Transnational regions    Reform Treaty full text    EU Constitution, one page pdf    EU Constitution: one page html    Signs of EU police state    The EU's degraded our lives    What will the EU be like?    List of British traitors    Beef up the British Constitution    Lib Lab Con: One Party State    The Queen    The EU's Hitler    The EU costs £200 billion pa    The dictatorship: Quotes    UK > EU handover of power.    EU subversion diagram.    Subversion: Common Purpose    Frankfurt subversion.    The terrorism deception    Abolition of our 48 counties    Abolition of Parliament.    Church flier    Some revolutionary lyrics    drjn.co.uk - copy of this site    The Westminster News    The Devonport Column    The Cornish Free Press    The British Free Press    Government disinformation    Mobilisation talk    Blueprint to get out    SS child snatching    Wood's rigged elections    Stood for the leadership       Where we are now: 1. Since 1972 The Queen has illegally signed five of the six EU Treaties. 2. The five treaties define and build the EU as an unelected dictatorship. 3. The EU's laws, passed by Westminster, give it the powers of a police state. 4. The sixth EU treaty will complete the abolition of Britain as a nation     - the Queen is due to sign it this year. A foreign power, the EU, will then rule us, and enforce the laws of a police state. Shouldn't we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act now before we are imprisoned permanently inside? We've only got till July 2008. Please fight the campaigns at the top of the menu on the left.   The leaderships of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties have been controlled by the European Union for two decades. It is the EU agenda they implement in Parliament, not your wishes, which is why your vote doesn't count. Our controlled press and media haven't reported it, but Britain would have been abolished in November 2006 if the French and Dutch hadn't voted down the EU Constitution. Instead a sixth and final Treaty will now be signed; after which EU Commissioners will have the power to impose the Constitution (and the Euro) on us, and enforce the laws of a police state.   5. Thirty three years inside the EU - have you noticed how our democracy is being withdrawn? The EU has already denied us that most basic of human rights - the right to vote against the EU and to keep our own nation. A majority of us don't want to be in the EU. We are being forced in against our will. Do you feel you've become powerless, unable to influence events, or your vote is worth less? The six treaties have been gradually removing our democracy; for thirty years our laws have been "harmonised" with the EU; 80% of the laws now passed by our Parliament are EU laws, not ours. Isn't the real reason people have lost interest in politics precisely because the EU has taken away our ability to change things? Common law, where the government was our servant, is now largely replaced by the EU's Corpus Juris, which puts the government above the law, and we don't participate. We have already lost most of our rights (including habeas corpus). The power of government grows unchecked, as does that of large corporations. Politicians continuously lie about the EU, pretending its not significant. 6. Massive EU corruption The EU's auditors have found the fraud is so widespread they've refused to sign off the EU's accounts for each of the last ten years. Whistleblowers like Marta Andreason, the EU Budget Director, who in 2005 found the EU couldn't account for 95% of its £66 billion budget, are simply fired for telling the truth. 7.The bribing of our Politicians by the EU Europe works by bribing politicians with huge salaries and expenses to vote for Europe, against the best interests of their own voters. As a result all three parties are in favour of the EU - Westminster acts like a one party state of politicians: the Lib-Lab-Con. The parties are run top down and implement the policy of their leaderships, not that of their members. (unfortunately UKIP is run in the same way). If you have voted for the Labs, Cons or Lib-Dems since 1969, you have voted for the EU dictatorship. 8. EU corruption is now exploding through our Civil Service, our local government, and our 7,000 QUANGOS. A shadow EU government lives inside our bureaucracy, headquartered in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM.) It includes many parts of government including the RDA and the Regional Assemblies. Common Purpose, an EU organisation, the UK branch also headquartered in the ODPM, has members across many government organisations including some city and county councils, the Land Registry, the police and the NHS, which it is destroying from within. Common Purpose is the glue that enables fraud to be committed across these government departments, most of it lining the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats. It often involves the sale of public assets such as land to friends of politicians or their businesses. (The RDA -The EU Regional Development Agency, is a major player in this type of fraud.) And the handing out of plum government non jobs with big salaries and expenses to members of Common Purpose, all of it involving the theft of our money as taxpayers. The Chief Executive Officer of Common Purpose is Julia Middleton of the ODPM. 9. Businesses closing under EU regulation The EU's 111,000 regulations, when fully enforced, will transform Britain from a free market economy into a Soviet style command economy, closing hundreds of thousands more businesses. They will also control our personal lives far more closely than were those of Soviet citizens. (In a Parliamentary answer to Lord Stoddart in January 2003, the government admitted there were 101,811 EU regulations, growing at 3,500 pa). The cost of Britain's 8,500 QUANGOS is £124 billion a year, and they raise an additional £40 billion from us in charges, according to the Cabinet Office. The Public Bodies Directory 2006 describes only 882 of them. Most exist to enforce EU regulations; nearly all should be closed. 10. The EU costs us £200 billion pa, 20% of our economy According to the government's Better Regulation Task Force Annual Report 2005 (Introduction written by Tony Blair,) complying with EU regulations now costs our economy over £100 billion a year. By far the largest treasury expense is now the £167 billion spent on the EU's 8,500 QUANGOS, (Cabinet Office figures) most of which enforce EU regulation. This is patronage, bribery, putting thousands of officials and influential businessmen on £100,000 - £300,000 a year salaries. That's why the Exchequer is so desperate for cash and can't pay for the navy, nurses, students etc. Economists say we lose £80 billion pa by associating with the EU's inferior economies. The EU took our fishing industry, which costs us £5 billion pa. EU damage to other industries (like forcing us to close the Rover Car Co) a further £20 billion. Our EU contribution is a relatively minor £10 billion, the only bit the Press discuss. Before we joined the EU we had an even balance of trade with them. Now EU regulations have fixed it so we lose £30 billion year trading with the EU on our balance of payments. We'd be enormously more wealthy if we left. The main use of taxes is now to finance government and its greedy whirlpool of waste; they've doubled in real terms in the 33 years we've been in the EU. There's less money in the economy left for wages, creating a growing underclass who can't make ends meet. 11. Our counties to be abolished The Queen signed the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which adopts the EU Regionalisation Plan. This will abolish England's 48 counties and replace them with 9 European regions, each with their own Regional Capital, which reports directly to Brussels, not to Westminster. This effectively obliterates the country of England. For example the County of Cornwall is replaced by the South West Region, which stretches from Lands End and includes Gloucestershire and Wiltshire; its regional capital is Exeter. As this move is unpopular it is being kept low-key and will not be implemented until the sixth treaty is signed, when we lose our right to object. 12. The deliberate destruction of our standards and way of life, From Sunday trading, where large stores force staff to work Sundays for derisory pay - or they don't get a job, to the deliberate undermining of the family and teachers, to sex education for the under 13's, to children being given obscene homework, its all traceable via our compliant government back to the EU over the last 34 years, as it successfully implemented the subversion of the Frankfurt School. While inside atheist Europe, British Christianity has almost died out; safety on our streets and a great chunk of civilised life has left with it. 13. The EU has controlled our immigration since 1997 In January 2007 on the front page of The Westminster News we forecast 1.5 million immigrants for the year, and people laughed at us. On January 24th 2008 the Daily Express published government figures of 1.3 million Polish immigrants alone for 2007. With Romania and Hungary joining in that year the total was probably double that. The Amsterdam Treaty handed control of our immigration to the EU. 30,000 a year used to arrive - the EU's increased it by 60 times That's why house prices have been screaming up, even though the population of original British people is falling. Politicians and huge corporations like immigration - with thousands of immigrants available on low pay, they can impose the minimum wage on millions. Politicians then lie that they can't get British workers to do dirty jobs. The truth is they won't offer a decent wage, and cynically use immigrants to drive wages down, adding to the huge underclass. The Government pretends there are a maximum of 145,000 immigrants annually, and 1.5 million new houses will be needed to house them. But then Jack Straw admits that 2.6 million immigrants applied to stay here last year. Our infrastructure and services can't stand such huge numbers and is breaking down in some cities, where English people are becoming a 10% minority. But the EU controls it, not the Foreign secretary, and he has no power, no options but to do as EU policy dictates, and accept it. Michael Howard was lying on the 24th January 2005 when he said he'd fix immigration - as Prime Minister, he'd have had no control over it whatsoever. Immigration hurts our existing immigrants first - new immigrants move into their areas, decreasing the wages and increasing the pressure on housing. If the sixth Treaty is signed, we lose our right to withdraw and Britain ceases to be a nation. Like the other six, it only requires two signatures: the Prime Ministers, and the Queen's             Examples of how our lives have degraded since we've been in the EU: In the EU, (which means in Britain) government is above the law. The EU's corpus juris now pervades right through our legal system. A policeman was let off by magistrates this year (2005) for driving his private car at 159 mph in Ludlow, Shrops. Under Corpus Juris the government are above the law and cannot be prosecuted The judge ruled correctly under EU law. 45,000 police officers got off speed cameras in this way in 2004, although their speeding killed 44 innocent people. (Daily Mail 27.12.05.) EU "monitoring Officers" have the right to dismiss our Councillors. The Local Government Act of 2000 empowered the head of the EU government in England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (ODPM) to appoint a monitoring officer to spy on every council. If an elected councillor disagrees with the EU or government line, the unelected "Standards Board for England" can suspend him for up to five years. An example is in Cambridgeshire, where the ODPM has threatened cllr Alex Riley with suspension if he attends any debate discussing the ODPM's plans to build a new town of 20,000 people called Nothstowe on his ward. The ODPM has the conflict of interest here; but its powers are becoming absolute. We have lost the right to freedom The EU arrest warrant (signed by the Queen on 18th November 2003) allows us to be arrested without charge and held indefinitely with no right to see a solicitor, make a phone call, or even a right to a trial. You can simply disappear. Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) 2005, we can now be arrested and held in the cells by any police officer for any petty offence, like dropping litter. Before it had to be an offense that carried a 5 year jail term. This also applies to all of the EU's 107,000 regulations. Do you know them all? The Civil Contingences Act 2004 allows government to confiscate anything you possess permanently; you have no right to object. This includes your house. It also gives government the right to forcibly move its population around to different locations; you can be left with no place to call your own and live like a refugee. The only check and balance here is a Minister just needs to utter the words "This is a national emergency." If a demonstration or strike government doesn't like is being organised, they can cut off all communications in a town - phones, mobiles, the internet, TV, and block all access to that town including closing roads and railways. It has all the powers and more of Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933. We have lost the right to free speech At the Labour Party conference the police held an 82 year old man, Walter Wolfgang, and denied him access to the conference under the EU's "anti terrorist" legislation because he had shouted the word "nonsense" at Jack Straw, who was speaking about Iraq. Terrified the true nature of the laws they have passed on behalf of the EU was escaping too early, the Labour Party stopped the police and begged the man to return to conference. On October 25th 2005 Miss Maya Evans was arrested under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, for a lone protest at the Cenotaph by reading out the names of the 97 British soldiers killed in the Iraq war. She was arrested by no less than 14 police officers and found guilty at Bow Street Magistrates Court on the 8th December 2005. Would you hand over our nation, to be ruled by a foreign power, with oppressive laws like these, ? That's what's happening. We have lost the right to protest These laws make protest very difficult; if we did hold a General Strike and blockade Westminster it would now require some bravery: the powers the EU has demanded from our government enable it to respond in a way similar to the Chinese government's in Tiananmen Square should it so wish. It is no coincidence that since 2004, all MP's offices in Westminster are guarded by police with machine guns, inside and out. The Governments "terrorism" deception All these new EU laws, including massive "anti terrorism" acts (recently 2000, 2001, 2005) were passed with the pretence they were only directed at terrorists, or in the case of Asbos, ruffians who terrorise the streets. In each case they are used far more often against ordinary law abiding people, particularly to suppress dissent. (91% of those detained under Terrorism Acts are innocent and have been improperly arrested. Most of the remainder are charged with offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, but cover up over zealous arrests). We have lost the right to life Under EU law the "Shoot to kill" policy did not need democratic authorisation. Just two senior police officers authorised the police to kill British people. A democratic vote by Parliament was not required, but even that would not have legalised the killing under British common law. A recent victim was an innocent Brazilian, Jean de Menezes, shot dead in Stockwell underground station, even though he was being held down by police officers at the time of the execution. The police used dum-dum bullets, outlawed under the Geneva Convention because they blow a man to pieces inside. The police can no longer be convicted for killing innocent people - Philip Prout shot at Lewannick in East Cornwall is just one of 30 people shot dead by police since 1992 when corpus juris crept in. At least one was shot in the back; most were no threat to anyone. Not once since 1992 has a policeman been convicted of any crime for these murders.   Have you noticed this growing police state? In addition to many more laws than those above, add the 107,000 regulations, and whole bureaucracies such as VOSA building up networks of cameras and databases to record our movements and criminalise us when we can't comply. Persecution is no longer confined to motorists; under EU Corpus Juris our courts have become extensions of government power instead of independent arbiters of justice. Westminster had passed sufficient of the EU's oppressive laws (the "harmonisation" in the Treaties) by the end of 2004 that we have been living in what is legally a police state since then. But at the moment, its only one per cent enforced. After the Queen signs the sixth Treaty, the EU has the absolute power to enforce 100% of its regulations and laws.     On the basis of the laws and treaties already signed by our Queen and Prime Ministers, What will life be like in the EU after the 6th Treaty is signed? Our Westminster Parliament immediately becomes pointless as its remaining powers are transferred to Europe. It is the formal end of Britain and England as nations. Britain's 153 embassies around the world will be closed as the ink from the Queen's signature dries. (As Tony Blair refused to admit this has been agreed to, Jose Zapatero, the Prime Minister of Spain, confirmed it in a February 2005 radio broadcast.) After the EU abolishes our 48 counties your address will change from 4 High St, Taunton, Somerset, Great Britain, to 4 High St, Taunton, Area K, European Union. (The glorious EU county "The South West Region" has had the postal address "Area K" assigned for over a decade.) The Official National Anthem of the EU, which you should have known since 1971 is based on the melody "Ode to Joy" by Beethoven, formally replaces God save the Queen. The EU flag replaces the Union Jack, the red, blue and white nautical ensigns etc. (The EU Commission has already ordered (24.11.2005) our Merchant Navy to fly the EU flag in place of the red Ensign.) The EU takes ownership and command of our Police, Army, Royal Navy, RAF, nuclear weapons, currency reserves, North Sea Oil. (See the EU Constitution below) Serving officers in our police, army, navy and air force already know they will have to take an oath to the EU instead of to the Queen. If they don't many have been told they will be dismissed. The EU will have complete military control of the UK. The UK Independence Party will be banned under the 1999 ruling of the European court of Justice case c274/99, where it was held that it is illegal to criticise the EU. The Conservative, Labour and Lib-dem parties will be abolished (only pan EU parties like the EPP or PES are allowed -see clause I.46.4 of the EU Constitution). It will then be blindingly obvious to even the dumbest politician there is no reason to keep Westminster open, and that the EU has the legal right to close it. Many people will be excluded from the jobs they know best, as the EU's demand that you must pay to be re-taught the job, and pay for a certificate before you can be employed, becomes universal. Hundreds of thousands more small businesses will close on the enforcement of the remaining 100,000 EU regulations our government has already passed. Several million will be permanently unemployed as a result. We will all be criminalised by the 107,000 regulations. Its impossible to know or understand 107,000 regulations, and the poor can't possibly afford to comply. We will all be subject to frequent fines and arrest as a result. Here are just 4 examples: Under EU regulations it is now illegal for you to repair your plumbing, electrics or your car (from 1st January 2006). If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after the EU Recreational Craft Directive of 1999, and don't pay the EU £4,000 to "measure" the boat, you get 6 months imprisonment. We will live under permanent threat of arrest and fear of the knock at the door that takes us away. Massive corporations will do well, but with huge immigration allowed from the EU, they'll be able to pay minimum wage everywhere, not just in the provinces as they do now. If you don't accept the minimum they'll employ a Pole or a Czechoslovakian. Big corporations will also have a near monopoly (with the government) on employment and will be able to dictate unfavorable terms to staff without fear of contradiction. Plum government jobs and corruption will ensure the wealth of politicians, bureaucrats, their businesses and associates at all levels of government, including local government and amongst our 7000+ QUANGOS. Society will divide into two: the remaining 60% of us will be either unemployed or treated abysmally on minimum wage. Taxes will rise more steeply to pay for the even larger explosion in government growth and corruption There will be no redress through local democracy because there won't be any. The nine UK regional governments, which replace our 48 counties and councillors, will be unelected (see the European Regionisation plan). Our only vote is to the powerless EU parliament. We will be ruled by the 25 unelected Commissioners, and have no redress at any level; we will be as poor but have less freedom than Soviet Citizens. If we demonstrate or protest we can be seized and relocated to another region. The EU Arrest Warrant and Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with 20 other oppressive Acts the Queen has signed between 1972 and 2005, give the government absolute power over us. They can shoot us if they wish with no legal comeback - the shootings of innocents Philip Prout and Jean de Menezes were entirely legal under EU law. The tendency to pick on Muslims, as Germany used to pick on Jews, has already begun. Europe will be a very nasty place. How long will the EU last? Eventually, perhaps 15 years down the track, Europe will collapse under the weight of its own corruption, bureaucracy, and regulations. There will be so few productive businesses that even at 100% tax rates we will not be able to support the massive, corrupt and wasteful government. Many of us will be starving in the lead up to the collapse. After the collapse we may be able to leave the EU, if a dictator has not taken advantage of the complete absence of democratic checks and balances by seizing power. The Constitution of the EU is similar to the Soviet Union's. That dictator is free to choose between a Soviet or Nazi style government. Then it could take 70 years to break free.     Fifty years ago our greatest threat might have been violence or mugging. Now the greatest threat to our economic well being, our way of life, our freedom and the very existence of our nation, is our own government.     .      What do we want? After the repeal of the EU treaties we want a change to our British Constitution so politicians can never hijack our nation again. Every Parliamentary Bill, after its Second Reading, should come down to us, the people, to vote yes or no as to whether the Queen should give it Royal Assent. This will take power away from our destructive politicians and return it to the people, where it belongs. (They do this in Switzerland - they, not us, are the most democratic nation on earth.) We can then return to being a peaceable, just, honest, prosperous and fully democratic society where everyone's rights, no matter how high or low are respected, and the disadvantaged properly looked after. And where neither governments, corporations nor individuals have obscene wealth and power.   David Noakes 07974 437 097 ; drjnoakes@yahoo.co.uk   Campaign to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and get clean out.   What can you do to help? 1. Find out when your local MP holds their surgery and attend with a printout of this, and the one page summary of the EU constitution below. Ask that MP to cross the floor to be the leader of the first Anti EU Parliamentary Party (representing 65% of our nation). The publicity would be stunning, and might force an in/out vote. 2. Make appointments with your local journalists, give them the same two print outs and ask them to write about the truth about the EU. 3. Do you know anyone famous? Persuade them in the same way to join our cause and get the truth known. 4. Print little stickers: "We didn't vote for this - it has no mandate," and stick them on everything that represents the police state and rip off government. 5. Tell your Town, District and County councillors they are about to be abolished. See below. 6. Do anything you can to get the truth about the EU published. Or print and hand out this flier (a .pdf), or flier (as a word document). It can be photocopied double sided on to one page. .         Our Councillors abolished Our 20,000 Councillors will be permanently abolished after the EU Regionalisation Plan has established the nine EU Regions. Point out they were elected to serve the public, not the government, and the public has not agreed to their abolition. Try to persuade them to stand up for the people who voted for them, (which is only doing their duty) by holding a yes/no local ballot on whether the public agree with the abolition of our counties, councillors and nation. If the public vote no, they should declare, for their Town or county, UDI from Europe and the illegal actions of our government since 1971, particularly the abolition of our British Constitution, common law, our nation and counties. The press coverage this would generate would force the truth into the open nationally, leading to a national in/out ballot on the EU. Just one council could achieve this fabulous result alone. Download: A summary of the loss of our 48 counties (a WP file) Download: A map of the nine EU regions (.pdf) The Devonport Column, exposing Common Purpose nationally, and corruption in Plymouth. The six treaties are: 1. The European Communities Act 1972. 2. The Single European Act, 1986. 3. The Maastricht Treaty, 1992. 4. The Amsterdam Treaty, 1997. 5. The Nice Treaty 2001.   The sixth will be called something equally innocuous, like the Treaty of Lille. Then the loss of our nation, way of life and freedom will be complete.   The best summary of the six treaties is the Constitution It reveals the true nature of the EU. Some British politicians were horrified when they saw the EU's absolute power revealed in its new constitution, and falsely accused the EU of much more than a tidying up exercise. It wasn't, it was a re-statement of the 6 treaties in almost readable English. Our politicians simply hadn't read the six treaties before they voted for them. The French and Dutch "No" votes are being ignored as usual; the EU Constitution is 2/3rds implemented and still being implemented. Dan Hannan of the Brussels EU Constitutional Committee, confirms it will be fully implemented in two years. Brussels can enforce it fully after the Queen signs the sixth EU treaty. Here's a one page summary with Article numbers: One page summary of the Constitution - pdf for download UKIP is way understating the costs of the EU. Even the British and EU governments admit to four times the UKIP figure. The EU is costing us 200 billion pa, 20% of our economy Quotes from our leaders revealing they know they built the EU as a dictatorship. EU treaties and publications abolishing our 48 counties   The Conservative Con trick Many people have been fooled by the Conservative Party into believing the party is anti EU. It was the Conservatives, under Ted Heath, who took us in to the EU, and then he lied that his 1972 EU Treaty wouldn't affect our sovereignty. Three out of the four Prime Ministers who signed the 6 EU treaties were Conservatives, every one af them legally a traitor under the British laws of their time. Do you see a pattern here? In 2005 Party Leader Michael Howard could have won the election for the Conservatives by making one simple statement: "We will repeal the 1972 EU Communities Act and leave Europe". Millions of Conservative voters would have rejoined the fold. A million Lib-Dems and Labour voters would have joined him. But he didn't. Because the Conservative leadership would rather be in Europe than be in power. Instead Howard continued betraying Conservative voters, so he lost. (And to be fair, why should Conservative leaders miss out on the EU corruption gravy train?) The Conservative leadership is completely dedicated to joining Europe, none more so than David Cameron, who is using the language and methods of Common Purpose against the Conservative Party. Conservative policy is to reform the EU from the inside (renegotiation). We've been in it 34 years and failed to reform this dictatorship one jot. Their policy is to continue this complete failure, and they know this pretence is wholly dishonest. You either submit to 100% of the EU or don't join it at all; that is the only choice open to us. Half a cheer for the Lib-Dems They realise we're now living in what is legally a police state, and speak out against it. We've been forced to harmonise our laws with the EU during the 34 years we've been inside, and the police state we're living in is the EU's. The Lib-Dems tell us with stunning naivety its Labour's police state, don't seem to realise the EU is behind it, and are still madly in favour of the EU. Its no comfort that they will suffer for their stupidity. Lately some Lib-Dem MP's have been talking about the Tories pathetic "reform the EU" idea. Will they never learn? With the Labour and Lib-Dem parties openly for Europe, and the Conservative leadership secretly for it, its clear the three parties will never give us a vote to leave the EU and keep our nation. Massive civil disobedience, a permanent General Strike, or a blockade of Westminster until MP's resign might be effective.   The abolition of the Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem parties. So sloppy have our politicians been in their reading of the EU treaties, most haven't noticed that the EU will abolish our Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem parties. It was clear in the Madrid 1999 party financing document, and it was re-stated in the Constitution, clause I-46-4. Only pan European parties like the EPP will be allowed. Some politicians, like Heseltine and Ken Clarke, can't wait for this to happen. A date for the abolition of Westminster has tactfully not been given Once the 6th treaty is signed, Westminster's remaining powers are transferred to Brussels, and Westminster is left with the powers of a county council. Except it won't have a county, because they will be abolished under the Regionalisation plan. The 9 EU regions report direct to Brussels, so Westminster will be a county council without a county. Anyone with half a brain can see Brussels will abolish Westminster, as it's only potential use would be as a rallying point to challenge the power of Brussels.     The Queen, Treason and the Coronation oath  Together with Churchill, King George VI saved our nation; he was a Monarch to be proud of. But his daughter the Queen is the only monarch to have broken her coronation oath, by signing these five treaties that abolish our common law, the British Constitution, the British and English nations, and our sovereignty. She has also committed treason, together with co-signatories Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair. Realising they stood a good chance of spending the rest of their lives behind bars, Tony Blair and the Queen signed the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 (s36.3), which secretly abolished much of the crime of treason - they didn't tell the MP's what they had just voted for. 1.4 million British Servicemen gave their lives for our independence. The Queen has thrown their sacrifices away and made them worthless. At no physical risk to herself, she could have fulfilled her duty as a constitutional check and balance, by refusing to sign the five treaties until an in/out referendum had been held. In the unlikely event the vote went against her she might have lost her crown (not her life or a limb), and kept her £9 billion plus palaces. Those servicemen's lives would still have meant something. But she's dead keen to sign; she's already said she'll sign the last treaty. Princes Charles, William or Harry can then never be King. You can't have a King without a Kingdom: they can only be princes of a region (principality) within Europe. The Queen's aspirations are not ours; she clearly serves a higher and darker master; the faith she defends cannot be the one we think it is. King George VI must be turning over in his grave.     The new EU Hitler doesn't have to get elected Its worth noting that Adolf Hitler first had to get elected, if on a 35% minority vote, and then get his Enabling Act passed. An EU dictator has no such problems. Our EU rulers do not submit themselves for election now. And the Queen has already signed the Enabling Act (Civil Contingencies Act 2004). The EU's Hitler will have a much easier rise to power, and will have the formerly British and French nuclear weapons from day one. Adolf Hitler killed 54 million people. The EU's dictator could kill a billion at the touch of a button, with no democratic checks and balances to answer to. How could any aspiring dictator resist the EU opportunity?                   . Some revolutionary lyrics - We're being fooled again A diagram of the parallel EU Government in the UK. The wiring of the EU in Britain EU subversion of our Government. A link to ukip-plymouth.org.uk Our other site: drjn.co.uk Common Purpose, training 18,000 of our new EU rulers at all levels of our government now. As a word doc. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2006 - government doesn't need Parliament. Cromwell had something similar in the 1680's. Is there anyone out there who doesn't realise all the treaties and laws of a dictatorship, and more, are now enacted? And that all it takes is for a foreign power, the EU, to enforce them? Do we want to be in Europe? Do we want to lose democratic government, the nations of Britain and England, and all our counties? Do we want to put ourselves in the EU, where we will be at the mercy of any dictator who chooses to control us? Isn't the answer obviously "No" ? We can live again outside Europe Outside the EU we can be a free and properly democratic nation. Free from Europe we could stop half our government spending being wasted, could save the £200 billion a year it costs us to be in Europe, repeal all its 107,000 regulations, and stop losing the £22 billion a year to Europe on our balance of payments. With those vast savings we could easily pay all our people a good living wage. According to the OECD we are the 4th strongest economy amongst the world's 205 independent nations, and we will make it handsomely. We could leave the EU in 14 hours The fastest an Act of Parliament has been drafted, passed by Parliament and signed by the Monarch was the abdication of King Edward 8th. It was done in 13.5 hours. We could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and be out of Europe in just fourteen hours, if our traitorous MP's, Prime Minister and Queen so wished. So far they've illegally denied us the choice. We need to change that, but we may only have two years left before the final 6th treaty is signed. Thank you. Please choose one of the six actions above and complete it.   Questions? Call David Noakes: 07974 437 097 drjnoakesdel@yahoo.co.uk but delete the three letters "del" -this is to stop automated spam. The Westminster News   Please donate to help us spread the word:         Paypal accepts credit cards.   The EU dictatorship: Poverty under a brutal police state.   This is: http://eutruth.org.uk Questions for Bush. This site is © Copyright David Noakes 1997-2007, All Rights Reserved, but permission to copy and republish is granted. 07974 437 097.

 

 

*

 

FROM

A Prime Minister in 1848

to another

Gordon Brown in June 2007

 

Over a Hundred and Fifty Seven years ago a great patriotic Prime Minister -Foreign Secretary -Lord Palmerstone (Henry John Temple) -beloved by his People defined the principle of nationality as follows:

 

“ Providence meant mankind to be divided into separate nations, and for this purpose countries have been bounded by natural barriers, and races of men have been distinguished by separate languages, habits, manners, dispositions, and characters…” (1848)

 

“…We have in the first place to say that the Business of an English Government, is to pursue that course of Foreign Policy which on the whole they may think right; and not to attempt the impossible task of at all times and upon all subjects doing that which is agreeable to all Foreign Governments. A man who in private life attempts to please everyone, invariably fails; and the Government of a great country would not be more successful in such an endeavour…

. It must at times be an advantage to a foreign Prince…in the present state of the continent to visit England and to see with his own eyes, how Liberty may be combined with Loyalty, Freedom with public order, and how the Respect which is shown by the Crown for the Rights of the Subject and for the enactment of the Law produces corresponding Feelings on the Part of the People and inspires them with similar Respect for the Rights of the Crown and for the Laws which secure the Liberties and the Property of all , from the highest to the lowest in the Land. ”

 

For a full statement of his Principles:

 

“I hold with respect to alliances that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England-apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial-is to be the champions of justice and right, pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks wrong has been done…

 

It is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” [In 1848 Lord Palmerstone was Foreign Secretary at the age of sixty-three. He entered Parliament in 1807- Secretary at War in 1809; 1811-28 (most years) War Office; 1830- 1852 Foreign Office; 1852-55 -Home Office; 1855-65.

 

‘ Born 1784 in Park Street Westminster. Family home ‘Broadlands’ Hampshire. Died on the morning of October 18, 1865. And the last candle [last of his contempories] of the Eighteenth century was out.’

 

* *

 

[It is significant that the word ‘England’ was not a word despised in our House of Commons during the time of this great patriot of England and only closer to our own times has the word Britain taken its place though we do detect a slight revival now in existence. ]

 

* *

 

*

Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty-2008 Leaders of the European Union's 27 member states meet in Portugal this week to sign what will now become known as the Lisbon Treaty.   * 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 *

 

 

*

	TIME FOR DECISION-DECEMBER,2007   THE BRITISH LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY MATTER. * The Act of Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN -YOU! * The Common Law of ENGLAND is the LAW of THE COMMONWEALTH and AMERICA * The Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for Europe- 4-PARTS * MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN * YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.   WILL THIS CHRISTMAS  QUEEN'S SPEECH BE THE LAST IN A FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES? Will HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM BECOMING A PROVINCE OF EUROPE. OR WILL THE QUEEN MAKE IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS SACROSANCT BUT THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES -THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE. WE BELIEVE THAT NO ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER HE WISHES TO BE A SLAVE OR FREE!   THIS CHRISTMAS WE WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR OF THE 'Rights and Liberties' of Englishmen Will keep by HER SACRED OATH or the MONARCHY be nothing more than a  THEME PARK in the future THIS IS THE TIME FOR BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE NATION STATE IS IN DIRE PERIL. We are told on the BBC  (Brussels Broadcasting Service) at 11.30 pm on Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that the QUEEN now has a website which has footage of the Royal Family in the past and that the QUEEN is NOT 'Stuck in the past' Well! as far as many patriotic subjects are concerned we need to remain in the PAST when it concerns the protection of  our FREEDOM and COUNTRY.   Change we have had and will continue to have but it must not threaten our very WAY-OF-LIFE our Common Law of England and all which makes our country the most unique parliamentary democracy in the world. THERE CAN BE NO SURRENDER!   Should the Monarch fail to protect our inherited RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall have to fight for a REPUBLIC  as happened in the 17th century because the Monarch of the day ignored those very 'Rights and Liberties of Englishmen' which will still survive in the English Speaking World today in December 2007. How can the MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is already our and our children's  INHERITANCE which cannot be taken away by PARLIAMENT or the QUEEN.   If the above publicity exercise is to be used to soften the impact to the population of the BETRAYAL of their CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would be the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since James II who sold our COUNTRY to the FRENCH for MONEY and RELIGION. WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WORTH? THEY ARE PRICELESS! * A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAMED *   The Choice is Yours!-but time is running out FAST! 6 months to be EXACT! *   THE EU   WE-AND THEM!   WE are to join THEM THEY are not joining US WE have more to LOSE THEY have more to GAIN WE have been clear of dictators from EUROPE for most of our HISTORY THEY have been cursed with that abomination for most of their HISTORY and NOW! * Our Queen and the EU Constitution * The Spirit of England by Winston Churchill * THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE * MESSAGE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II * We now learn from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve that the Queen's Speech will cover the catastrophic fall in Values and Moral behaviour since the beginning of her 56 -year reign. This has been brought about by the actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater number of those in HER PARLIAMENT who have placed THEIR CONCERNS before the INTERESTS of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.    As for the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has been the direct result of the actions of HER SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS POLITICIANS including PRIME MINISTERS who have stealthily over the 56 years of HER MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their aim of ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN POWER.  The reason for the marked drop in the number viewing THE QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the mass of people have realised years ago that the MONARCH is powerless to PROTECT their WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have PROVED THEM CORRECT. There is a well know saying 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned' Is it the case on Christmas Day 2007 while the  Monarch talks  our Rights and Liberties are being taken from us under our very  noses? Of course the QUEEN under HER CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only 'Advise and Warn' HER MINISTERS but when the matter concerns the very LIFE of an INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as it would make a MOCKERY of the PRIME IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to protect our inherited Rights and Liberties which HER MINISTERS  are endeavouring TO GIVE AWAY. We as loyal subjects of the MONARCH who is the living embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES  ask at this late stage with only months to the eradication of a FREE NATION STATE some veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES. As for the MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTUTUTIONAL HISTORY this matter should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's responsibility it is to CARE for their FLOCKS particularly at this FESTIVAL of CHRISTMAS. IF HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded  we ask HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of HER subjects some hope that their PROTECTOR has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM. Should this APPEAL not be answered we can at last confirm that the MONARCHY is after all nothing more than a talking shop suitable for YouTube and therefore nothing more than a THEME PARK * Hear Tony Benn's comments about the despotic and corrupt EUROPEAN UNION and the need for a REFERENDUM http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o From a politician with INTEGRITY and love of country who has for decades witnessed the growth of the monstrous creature soon to be a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE. *   [All words/word underlined  have a separate bulletin]

 

 

*

*

*

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]

 

*

 

Let the people speak!

www.makeitanissue.org.uk

 

 

*

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

 

*

GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?

HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ

*

67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM

*

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

*  July 18-2007

ALSO

JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST

Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition

(http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/)

The  Petition reads as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature."

Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008

Eurofacts 27th July 2007.

*

'The Spirit of England'

by

Winston Churchill

In London on St.George's Day -1953

*

 

 

VOTE

 -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

 

‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’

 

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?

 

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

*

 

SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]