No Complacency And Paying Attention -MPs must NOT pass LAW giving Blair unlimited stay in No 10.

Law that could give Premier an unlimited stay in No 10

[Government’s legislation and Regulatory Reform Bill

Known as the:

‘ABOLITION

of PARLIAMENT BILL’]

[Quoted by David Howarth in QuentinLetts-Yesterday in Parliament-Friday, March 10-2006-

*

Daily Mail

Thursday, February 23, 2006-03-01

Jane Merrick

Political Correspondent.

SWEEPING powers would allow the Government to remain in office for years on end could become law within weeks, senior Tory Kenneth Clarke warned last night.

To the alarm of MPs and academics, ministers have drawn up legislation, which threatens to cast aside the five-year limit on a Parliamentary Term. -allowing the Prime Minister to remain in Downing Street for AS LONG AS HE WANTED.

Mr K.Clarke, chairman of the Conservatives’ Democracy Taskforce, said the law would sideline democracy and debate on an ‘astonishingly scale’

[So would having Britain in a United States of Europe -Mr Kenneth Clarke -if you had your way.]

Under the 1911 Parliament Act, the Government must call a General Election within five years of winning office.

-the little-publicised

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

- would give Tony Blair and his Ministers the power to change any law without scrutiny or approval of Parliament.

Ministers would be able to change divorce laws, introduce house arrest, curtail or abolish jury trial and give police powers to detain individuals with no vote or discussion by the House of Commons.

The Tories have also warned the powers could be used to introduce unpopular EU social and employment policies by the back door.

Mr K. Clarke told Radio 4’s Today Programme:

‘They have produced a Bill which could be used to sweep away parliamentary procedure and debate on an astonishing scale.’

He said that despite verbal assurances by the Government that it would NOT use the new law for politically-sensitive purposes there was nothing in the BILL to prevent the Parliament Act being overturned.

He added:

‘There should be some safeguards. The Government has so far promised in speeches

[Well! -Their promises are not worth the breath that they expire in their deliberation as the past has shown too well and with such catastrophic results. They are perjured and no longer believed-They should GO.]

-that it won’t use these powers to deliver highly political measures such as amendments to Terrorism Law and the Parliament Act.

[Mr K.Clarke continues:]

‘It is a great relief to know that ministers are promising that they won’t alter our Terrorism Laws or they would extend the life of the Parliament just by ministerial order.

But that isn’t in the Bill.

‘This needs to be done and the Government hasn’t taken the trouble to look at this Bill and write in absolutely clearly a process by which Parliament can insist a full process is gone through.’

[Well! -We have all been here before with the Opposition expecting the Government to play FAIR which has been shown to be a waste of time on so many occasions over the past nine years.

We have Mr Cameron saying he is going to support Mr Blair’s Foundation Hospitals because he believes in them but does he not realise that the greater danger is with us every day that Tony Blair in POWER- In case you have forgotten Mr Nice-Guy your job is to get Blair OUT of a job and as quickly as possible.

The rights and wrongs of legislation will be explored more profitably if ACTION is taken to challenge vigorously the Government’s stance on ALL the issues of the day.

Unless Mr Cameron you feel up to the job might it be time for you to stand aside from the leadership and cheer your bosom friend from the backbenches?]

To continue:

The Bill has already reached the committee stage in the Commons - but it is likely to face opposition when it reaches the House of Lords next month.

[Thank God! -for our Senate at this dangerous era in our history-we now learn from the D. Mail on Tuesday March 7-2006 that

Labour’s ID plans defeated in the Lords

TONY BLAIR’s plans for compulsory identity cards were in disarray last night after the Government crashed to a defeat in the House of Lords.

Peers threw out plans for the public to be forced to buy a National I.D Card when they apply for a new passport -by a crushing majority of

MPs will vote again on ID cards on Thursday-March 16, the day after Mr Blair faces a crunch vote on his Education Bill.

Many Labour MPs are aware that Tony Blair’s aim is to destroy local government as he wants ONLY REGIONAL accountability -if one could call it that.

David Cameron by supporting the Education Bill is doing just that but he can’t see further than his next photo opportunity.

Labour’s majority was slashed in half when the Commons backed ID cards last month.

Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour rebels joined forces to inflict last nights defeat, accusing labour of bringing in ID cards by the back door.

Ministers claimed the Lords should support the Government as the plans were laid out in Labour’s election Manifesto last year.

[Well this statement is most disingenuous as many voters put into office a particular Government for a variety of reasons and a manifesto objective might be of the least interest in the minds of many when they decide who to vote for -if anybody at all.

Major issues of policy should be by Referendum -out of a Party arena where the issue can be looked at on a National perspective.]

To continue:

Gareth Crossman, policy director of civil rights group LIBERTY, said:

‘This Government has a terrible track record of bypassing Parliament by rushing votes through and allowing no time for debates.

How can we trust them, not to mention future governments, not to abuse POWER?

[You can’t! - as history has shown throughout the long history of our people in our island HOME. We have quoted from the mouths of many illustrious figures over the past nine years the warnings from the past but to no avail. ONLY POWER divided among MANY for SHORTER terms of OFFICE with no one permitted to return again after a completed term but must absence themselves until such time as agreed in the future.

The Ancient Greeks knew of the difficulties and they haven’t changed over two and a half millennium.

In the 18^th century the background to the Declaration of Independence of the United States contained safeguards against an over-mighty Executive.

In the Federalist or the New Constitution on page 265 the following is stated:

First, In a single republic all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into district and separate departments.

In The compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allocated to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second, It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the opposition of rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part.

Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the majority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -that is of society itself; the other by comprehending in the society in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.

The first method prevails in all governments possessing hereditary or self-appointed authority [Tony Blair]. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well expouse the unjust views of the major as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties.[As in 2006 many of the 6,000,000 public servants employed by the government might as their lackies - follow without question their Masters dictates.]

The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States of America.

Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in danger from interested combinations of the majority.

In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.

This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union [USA] may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States, oppressive combination of the majority will be facilitated; the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens will be diminished; and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased.

JUSTICE is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or until LIBERTY be lost in the pursuit.

[As in 2006 with the United States of Europe]

In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may be truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.

In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of JUSTICE and the General Good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will independent of the society itself.

It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of SELF-GOVERNMENT. And happily for the republican cause , the practical sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

PUBLIUS.

The EDP has always supported the concept of a:

Confederation of a family of the Independent Nation States of a Greater Britain.

And as so succinctly stated on page 15 of the Federalist [J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd. -London]

What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would all these three governments (if they agreed at all) be able with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectively as the single government of Great Britain would?

To continue:

Tory MP- Grant Shapps, a member of the Commons Public Administration Committee, said:

‘There would be uproar over steps to allow the life of a Parliament to be open-ended. Once you start writing bad laws it is there forever.

‘This raises very serious questions. If the Government has no intention of extending the life of a Parliament then WHY NOT explicitly put that in the Bill?

[It’s obvious WHY to anyone who has read our Parliamentary History]

Cabinet Office Minister Jim Murphy insisted the legislation would be subject to proper safeguards and was merely intended to make it quicker and easier to tackle unnecessary, out dated or over-complicated regulation.

[Well! -this work should be carried out by an ALL Party LAW REVISION Parliamentary Committee and NOT left to the Government of the Day which should not be left with any chance to destroy even further the foundations of our once great Parliamentary Democracy]

To continue:

[Mr Murphy] repeated pledges that the Government would not do anything

‘highly controversial’

[WE DON’T BELIEVE

THEM -WOULD YOU?]

Q&A

What’s the argument about?

The Government’s legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, published last month. If it becomes LAW, any Act of Parliament could be amended by Ministerial Order.

What’s the aim of the Bill?

Ministers say their only motive is to make it easier to cut parliamentary red tape quickly, or to enable that our LAWS are made compatible with Human Rights legislation.

Currently they say, even some minor changes to the LAW have to go through a lengthy process of approval from MPs and peers. Their new powers would not be used for any ‘highly controversial’ matters, they insist.

[We wouldn’t trust them whatever they say -their past history over nine years tells us to watch them closely and not give an Inch as they will take as usual a Mile-of course they prefer Kilometres as we all know. The moral is don’t trust them and you won’t be disappointed.

It’s YOUR Parliament and YOUR Law and they are still YOUR servants - only just and they don’t like it and want to change it.]

BUT CRITICS SAY THAT IT COULD GO FURTHER.WHAT COULD THE BILL ALLOW MINISTERS TO DO?

Legal experts and Opposition MPs are warning that a future government will be granted unprecedented powers to make sweeping legal changes without Parliamentary approval.

According to Academics at Cambridge University, these could include new powers of arrest for police; curtailment or abolition of jury trial; allowing the Prime Minister to sack Judges (Who are our ONLY protection from a Dictator who wishes the Rule of Law not to protect the subject but to give full power to the STATE) permitting the Home Secretary to place people (It could be YOU) under house arrest; changes to divorce laws and rewriting immigration law.

Charter 88, the constitutional pressure group, says the penalty for using a mobile phone for driving could be increased from a £60 fine to two years in jail at the drop of a hat.

[Well! -Many may no doubt feel that such behaviour at the wheel should be punished severely as many lives are and will be lost if the penalty is not increased. But the legislation should be passed through OUR parliamentary procedure as is now in place. As for a jail sentence -it must be a joke as there are insufficient prison places for the hundreds of thousands of offenders who should be there RIGHT NOW!]

To continue:

Will there be any restrictions at all?

YES! -As the Bill stands, Ministers could not impose or increase taxation by Order.

They could not create a new criminal offence or increase the punishment for an offence, unless the prison sentence is for less than two years.

They would not be able to authorise forcible entry of property, search and seizure or compel people to give evidence to Police or the Courts.

An Order that amends, repeals or replaces legislation could be made only if the Minister is satisfied that the effect is ‘proportionate’

Would Parliament have any oversight?

Technically, any order can be challenged-but critics say the process is arcane and limited.

They become LAW on the day they are made but MPs would have 21 days to object.

The leader of the Opposition could try to force a debate with a Commons motion. Or MPs could use an ancient procedure known as ‘praying’-which Tories and Lib Dems employed unsuccessfully last year to oppose an Order introducing 24-hour drinking.

Will the Government have to give way?

Concern about the Bill is growing at Westminster as its implications sink in.

It is due back in the Commons in March [2006], but could run into serious trouble when it goes to the Lords.

Ministers are already hinting that they will write a veto on proposals for relevant Select Committees of MPs formally into the Legislation.

Further concessions look likely.

[This will be a typical example of EU Commission procedure in always giving the impression that they have had to accept less than they had asked for, but don’t be fooled as everything that they and Tony Blair and other EU cronies in the House obtain is yet another step to our enslavement into a

United States of Europe.

This is not the time to tear up over 700 years of evolved

English Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy

on the say so of a Traitor-War Monger-Liar and Deceiver who seems still intent of destroying the very Constitution which stands in his way of changing our political landscape into a Continental model of the Rule of the State instead of under a Rule of LAW as Free subjects of the Queen a Constitutional Head of State with a link stretching back over a thousand years.

Don’t give him the tools to do the job-but send him on his way to join his many friends within the Totalitarian bastion in Brussels.]

* * *

In our reply to Tony Blair we have the assistance of Shakespeare’s play of the villainy of Richard III and his comeuppance by the Good Richmond.

‘A Bill! A Bill! my kingdom for a Bill.’

Richard III. 1, iii. 336

‘And thus I clothe my naked villainy with old odd ends -stolen out of holy writ.’

Richard III, v. iv. 7

[Good] Richmond ‘s Oration to his soldiers.

‘ More than I have said, loving countrymen,

The leisure and enforcement of the time

Forbids to dwell upon; yet remember this:

God and our good cause fight upon our side;

The prayers of holy saints and wronged souls,

Like high-rear’d bulwarks, stand before our faces;

[Tony] Richard except, those whom we fight against

Had rather have us win than him [Tony] they follow.

For what is he they follow? Truly, gentlemen,

A bloody tyrant and a homicide;

One rais’d in blood, and one in blood establish’d;

One that made means to come by what he hath,

And slaughtered those that were the means to help him;

A base foul stone, made precious by the foil

Of England’s chair, where he is falsely set;

One that hath ever been God’s enemy.

Then if you fight against God’s enemy, God will in justice ward you as his soldiers;

If you do seat to put a tyrant down’

You sleep in peace, the tyrant being slain;

If you do fight against your country’s foes,

Your country’s fat shall pay your pains the hire;

If you do fight in safeguard of your wives,

Your wives shall welcome home the conquerors;

If you do free your children from the sword,

Your children’s children quits it in your age.

Then, in the name of God and all these rights,

Advance your standards, draw your willing swords.

For me, the ransom of my bold attempt

Shall be this cold corpse on the earth’s cold face;

But If I thrive, the gain of my attempt

The least of you shall share his part thereof.

Sound drums and trumpets boldly and cheerfully;

God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.

Richard III -Act 5-Scene 3.

[Also to David Howarth and his all-party allies in the Commons and Lords in March 2006.]

* * *

Secret Plan To Revive EURO Charter.

Daily Mail

Tuesday, March 7 -2006

FRENCH PRESIDENT Jacques Chirac and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel [‘THE ONE for ALL -AND All for ONE Team’-nothing appears to stop them-YET?] have launched secret talks to revive the controversial European Constitution [or in other words the:

United States of Europe.

-It emerged yesterday.

Reports in the German Press claim the pair want to rewrite parts of the [New -now newer still] Constitution in an attempt to sell it to a deeply sceptical public.

They would then seek fresh votes on two sections of the blueprint-those that deal with reforming EU bureaucracy and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Voters would not have a say on the third section, which deals with areas such as the Economy and Transport.

Their plan comes amid warnings that elements of the blueprint are sneaking into British Law.

It is less than a year since the Constitution was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.

But a Report for the Centre for Policy Studies, a Tory think-tank said Britain was

‘Sleepwalking’ into a

European Legal System

The Report claimed the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer had admitted the

CHARTER OF RIGHTS

-was already informing the judgements of the

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Lord Blackwell, who wrote the Report, concludes that because British Courts are inclined to defer to EU Court Precedents, the Charter ‘could well become the governing frame work’ for UK Civil Law.

* *

[We have in the past compared the spread of the Continental system of Law infecting our English Common Law to a scourge of the plague, which laid low almost half the population of England in 14th century, and later centuries.

As almost everyone must now be aware the disease appears unstoppable because it has developed over at least 35 years with the help of the majority of Members of YOUR Parliament during that time.

Only by being vigilant and combining together to delay and eventually stop the Brussels steamroller in its tracks will we triumph over the ‘Fat cats’ at home who should have been the protectors of our Constitution and our Liberty but instead decided they knew better in bringing within England a Continental system of Collectivism and Interrogative system of Law which has no place this side of the English Channel.

In the House of Commons on the 20^th February, 1846- one of our greatest Prime Minister’s

Benjamin Disraeli

Addressed the House:

‘… First, without reference to England, looking at all countries, I say that it is the first duty of the Minister, and the first interest of the State, to maintain a balance between the two great branches of national industry [Agricultural and Industry]; that is a principle which has been recognised by all great Ministers for the past two hundred years; and the reasons upon which it rests are so obvious, that it can hardly be necessary to mention them.

Why we should maintain that balance between two great branches of national industry, involving political considerations-social considerations, as affecting the happiness, prosperity, and morality of the people, well as the stability of the State. But I go further;

I say that in England we are bound to do more - I repeat what I have repeated before, that in this country there are special reasons why we should not only maintain the balance between two branches of our national industry, but why we should give a preponderance - I do not say a predominance, which was the word ascribed by the hon. member for Manchester to the noble lord the member for London, but which he never used - why we should give a preponderance, for that is the proper and constitutional word, to the agricultural branch; and the reason is, because in England we have a territorial Constitution.

WE have thrown upon the land the revenues o the Church, the administration of justice, and the estate of the poor; and this has been done, not to gratify the pride, or pamper the luxury of the proprietors of the land, but because in a territorial Constitution, you, and those whom you have succeeded, have found the only security for self-government -the only barrier against that centralising system which has taken root in other countries.

I have always maintained these opinions; my constituents are not landlords; they are not aristocrats; they are not great capitalists; they are the children of industry and toil; and they believe, first, that their material interests are involved in a system which favours native industry, by insuring at the same time real competition.

But they believe also that their social and political interests are involved in a system by which their rights and liberties have been guaranteed; and I agree with them -I have these old-fashioned notions.

I know that we have been told, and by one who on this subject should be the highest authority, that we shall derive from this great struggle, not merely the repeal of the Corn Laws

[In 2006 -The Repeal of the 1972 Accession Treaty of the EU]

-But the transfer of power from one class to another - to one distinguished for its intelligence and wealth, the manufactures of

England.

My conscience assures me that I have not been slow in doing justice to the intelligence of that class; certain I am, that I am not one of those who envy them their wide and deserved prosperity, but I must confess my deep mortification, that in an age of political regeneration. When all social evils are ascribed to the operation of class interests, it should be suggested that we are to be rescued from the alleged power of one class only to sink under the avowed dominion of another.

I, for one, if this is to be the end of all our struggles - if this is to be the great result of this enlightened age - I, for, one protest against the ignominious catastrophe.

I believe that the monarchy of England, its sovereignty mitigated by the acknowledged authority of the estates of the realm, has its root in the hearts of the people, and is capable of securing the happiness of the nation and the power of the State.

But, Sir, if this be a worn-out dream; if indeed, there is to be a change, I, for one, anxious as I am to maintain the present polity of this country, ready to make as many sacrifices as any man for that object - if there is to be this great change, I, for one, hope that the foundations of it may be deep, the scheme comprehensive, and that instead of falling under such a thraldom, under the thraldom of Capital - under the thraldom of those who, while they boast of their intelligence, are more proud of their wealth -

if we must find a new force to maintain the ancient throne and immemorial monarchy of England, I, for one, hope that we may find that novel power in the invigorating energies of an educated and enfranchised people.

(English Economic History-compiled and edited by

A.E.Bland,BA., P.A.Brown.M.A. and R.H.Tawney,B.A.

G.Bell & Sons.

[In 2006 there is a divide within the country as great or some may say greater than the events of 1846.

Then it was looked on as an internal battle for control by a class whereas in 2006 the people of England appear to be bystanders as their very country and all it means is slowly been taken from them.

As we have voiced before we can no longer count on Politicians in general to safeguard our Heritage but that everyone concerned and wishing to hold

on to their Ancient Constitution with its Common Law of England in preference to the Continental model of Collectivism and subordinated to the State needs to make a stand and join others with the same resolve NOW so that the Politicians will be in no doubt that a vote at the next General Election or By-election will be conditional on our country’s withdrawal from the European Union.

The Question is straightforward and uncomplicated.

Do you wish to remain Free with your inherited Rights and Liberties under your OWN Parliament at Westminster -under the Common Law of England?

[Those of our fellow islanders in Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Assembly/Parliament to address their concerns.]

We read in the Daily Mail on Monday March 13^th-2006 an article by Geoffrey Levy of a secret cabal of generals, aristocrats and businessmen really did plot to oust Harold Wilson and seize power 30 years ago.

What we would like to know is WHY there has been no uprising when one considers what is and has been happening over the past nine years TO YOUR COUNTRY -ITS VALUES -ITS PARLIAMENT and there appears a general malaise instead of a coming together to oust the Dictator we already have in our midst.

We have on many occasions asked for the Military and the Captains of Industry and others from all sections of society to combine in such a coup before it is too late

Where are they in 2006 -those who would make a stand? -there is little time left as

The Abolition of Parliament

almost upon us.

WHAT WILL YOU DO?

IF MILLIONS OF CONCERNED SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN MADE THEIR MOVE BY TRAIN CAR OR BY WATER TO ASSEMBLE PEACEFULLY AT WESTMINSTER AND DECIDE NOT TO MOVE UNTIL THE THREAT TO OUR PARLIAMENT HAS PASSED AND THE DICTATOR BLAIR HAS RESIGNED

WILL YOU DO IT?

BECAUSE SOON IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE AND THEN YOU WILL REGRET IT !

* * *

VOTE

UKIP

THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO LEAVE

THE EUROPEAN UNION

www.ukip.org

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

MAR/06

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

13th October,2007

So You Want Out Of The EU

THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE

RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout

Details from petition creator

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given

DUAL CITIZENSHIP

-both

EUROPEAN and BRITISH

The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.

The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with

BRITISH DOCUMENTATION

-only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents.

EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who

HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]

www.noliberties.com

[Latest Addition - June07]

www.eutruth.org.uk

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

www.speakout.co.uk

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

* July 18-2007

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

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

MAY/07

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin

Elections in the British One Party State

If you vote Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP or the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship. All five party leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote doesn't make a difference - all these five parties have the same policies: the EU's policies.

The 17 most senior politicians in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties, including Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David and Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Peter Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140 strong band of ultra senior Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build the EU dictatorship.

No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever be allowed to hold public office.

UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU leadership.)

For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF

UKIP

OR

INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE

THE EDP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF BULLETINS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE CRITICISED THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY FAILED TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT THEY HAD NO WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANISATION. THIS FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL TO NO AVAIL. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER CLOSE SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO AN ISRAELI SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR WEBSITE . IRONICALLY IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO TO COME UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO THE ILLUMINATI. THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN. THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE SUSPECTED FOR MANY YEARS THAT MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION MIGHT BE UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI. IT IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL ITS POLICES AS THEY BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

Our intention is not to benefit from this disaster as since the 1999 European Election we have NOT! accepted a DONATION! from ANYONE! and we closed membership also because we did not wish to split the vote for UKIP but have stated in the past that we would contest another election if it was ever necessary to enter into the affray again and with the reputation of UKIP under scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN! As we mentioned some time ago we have been almost two decades on the campaign trail to free our once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the SATANIC EU and those who have for centuries have planned for an EVIL ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the WORLD'S POPULATION and therefore if we are right about those mentioned above they are not only TRAITORS to their COUNTRY but also a THREAT to WORLD PEACE. However, of late, matters have NOT! been going well for the ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

BENJAMIN FULFORD

More!

[WORKS]

*

SEEKTHETRUTHANDWISDOM

*

Bank Of England « The Banking Swindle

More!

More!

PATRIOT or TRAITOR to HIS COUNTRY

+More!

More!

+(More!

THIS YOU MUST SEE IT CONCERNS

YOUR

PLANET!

AND

YOU!

NO NEED TO PANIC!

'Others shall sing the song,

Others shall right the wrong,-

Finish what I begin,

All all I fail of win.

Hail to the coming singers!

Hail to the brave light-bringers!

Forward I reach and above

All that they sing and dare.

The airs of heaven blow o'er me;

A glory shines before me

Of what mankind shall be'-

Pure, generous, brave and free,

I feel the earth move sunward,

I join the great march onward,

And take, by faith, while living,

My freehold of thanksgiving.-

WHITTIER

MAY-2012

TOP OF PAGE

The Soul of England pt I **** The Soul of England pt 2 **** Why are we English made to feel guilty? **** Don't let them destroy our Identity **** Nor shall my sword **** Why can't we have a right to be English ?- pt I **** Why can't we have a right to be English ? -pt 2 **** England is where the majority views are ignored and minorities rule at their expense in politically-correct Browndom **** Alfred - Christian King of the English-pt I **** Alfred - Christian King of the English -pt 2 **** Englishmen as others see us beyond our once oak wall **** England arise!-Today we can claim our right of self-determination. **** Kiss good bye to your sovereignty and country **** St George's Day-England's Day **** The Spirit of England by Winston Churchill.

ADDED - MAY-2012

New World Order

1000's of Video's

‘ABOLITION

[Quoted by David Howarth in QuentinLetts-Yesterday in Parliament-Friday, March 10-2006-

*

Daily Mail

Jane Merrick

MAR/06

*

Bank Of England « The Banking Swindle