VOTE UKIP!-ON MAY 7-2015

 

 
 
 
 
MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
 
 
     

VIEWERS -TOP TOPICS-WKLY/ARCHIVE

 

PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ PAGE FOUR &LATEST-

PAGE FIVE

 

A PEACEFUL ENGLISH REVOLUTION IS ON THE WAY-ALERT-1

 

 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MARRIAGE AND THE STATE**** GAMBLING AND ETHICS****CHRISTIANITY,THE PEOPLE, AND ETHICS****IMMIGRATION POLICY**** CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN A RELIGION_IT IS THE MAIN CULTURAL FORCE_WHICH MAKES US WHAT WE ARE****CHRISTIAN BELIEFS UNDER ATTACK BY EU'S PARLIAMENT IS INTELLECTUAL NAZISM**** A DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY BY A ONCE AGNOSTIC****WHO CARES ABOUT MORALITY****DEMOCRACY WITHOUT MORALITY AND RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUALITY IS DESPOTISM****THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO MANY RELIGIOUS CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE****THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE BACKBONE OF CHRISTIANITY****CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN SPEAKS ON TAX BILLS-FOREIGN POLICY-PEACE-AND THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS****OURS MIGHT BE A STRONGER AND HAPPIER SOCIETY IF CHRISTIANS WERE READIER TO DEFEND THEIR VALUES****SUNDAY SCHOOL CAN SAVE CHILDREN FROM DELINQUENCY-SAYS BISHOP****OUR CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL OF EASTER WHICH MANY KNOW SO LITTLE AND SOME NONE****

AN AGE WHEN ALL FAITHS ARE EQUAL-EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY****

LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN-by -MICHAEL NAZIR ALI-BISHOP OF ROCHESTER-DEC-2006****

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

 
 

 

GAMBLING AND ETHICS

 

By

 

William Temple –Archbishop of Canterbury (23rd April 1942) formerly Archbishop of York and earlier as Bishop of Manchester.

 

PART 2

 

 

 

[Publishers Longmans, Green and Co. –1927]

 

The discussion which was set going by the proposal to institute a tax on Betting [Written in 1927] has revealed the fact that very few people have acquired the habit of thinking about moral issues. Plenty of people feel, and feel strongly; very few seem to think.

 

As a result, obvious distinctions are ignored. It is clear that in the public mind, phrases of moral description or classification are regarded as an index of feelings of approbation or disapprobation, rather than of any clear judgment. This makes moral discussion almost futile.

 

I propose in this article to set out some of principles of ethics, as I understand them, and to illustrate them in reference to the question of Gambling. But, of course, I realise that there are different “schools” of moral philosophy, and that my statement of principles would be challenged at many points by some students of the subject on perfectly reputable grounds. But all “schools” seek to articulate the theory of the moral life by means of intelligible distinctions; none leaves it to be the sport of gusts of feeling.

 

1

 

First, then, I would insist that the moral judgment is, or at least the claims to be, a real judgment of fact; it is not a mere expression of disturbed or outraged feeling. Even the holders of a distinct “moral sense” would claim that the perception of this sense is, or should be, proportionate to, and determined, the moral fact.

 

This is important, because many people tend to judge the degree of evil in any act by the intensity of their own disgust at it. So one noticed, during the war, that in some cases (though by no means in all) conscientious objection to military service really rested on aesthetic disgust.

 

This is in fact a most insecure criterion, for it depends largely on the vividness of imagination. Suppose a man, transported by some passion which had its roots in indication, murders the object of his indignation with horrible mutilations; suppose another, moved by a coldly calculating self-interest, skilfully administers poison to someone who blocks his path. Plainly the latter is the wickeder of the two; but his act is likely to be less disgusting. We are disgusted chiefly by what horrifies the imagination, and this easily happens with what is physically horrible. The artist in the crime is not disgusting; “the Devil is a gentleman.”

 

Moral judgement, then, is not concerned with the feelings of the critic, but with the quality of the act or agent. And here we come upon a host of popular confusions.

 

11

 

IT is commonly said or implied that there are two kinds of wrong act – those which are wrong in themselves and those, which are wrong because of their consequences; and the question is often asked whether Betting is wrong in itself. Further, it is apparently assumed that every act which is “wrong in itself” is worse than any act which is wrong because of its consequences.

 

So those who have said that Betting is wrong in itself are told that it is nonsense to put playing for low stakes on a level with murder or prostitution. Of course it is. But an act may be “wrong in itself,” so far as that phrase has any meaning, and yet be only a very little wrong; while an act may be wrong only for its consequences, and yet be a very great wrong.

 

An act, however, cannot, strictly speaking, be wrong in itself, apart from both motive and consequence. So isolated, it is a mere physical fact devoid of moral value. The moral value, positive or negative, lies always in personality-that of the agent and that of anyone affected by his act; but it must be tested by inquiry into three things: the character expressed in the act, the principle involved in the act, or the consequences resulting from the act.

 

If I kill a man with a poker, it is not the mere swinging of the poker which is evil; it is the resultant death of the man, and (unless I act in self-defence) the intention to hurt or kill.

 

On the whole, people usually seem by acts “wrong in themselves” those which directly express an evil character; and as , in the last resort, it is only personal characters that are morally good or evil, this is the most justifiable use of a very obscure phrase. Thus any form of illicit sensual indulgence exhibits a character that cares more for pleasures of sense than for the interests for whose sake that indulgence has become stamped as illicit; and this is bad character.

 

But the indulgence itself mostly consists of acts which under certain conditions, are permissible and even necessary – such as eating and drinking. The evil here is , therefore, the acceptance of a wrong scale of values. And the act which is already evil because it springs from an evil state of character, is generally also evil because by force of example it encourages that evil state of character in others.

 

Such an act has moral evil, both in its source and in its result; and no doubt that is the most absolutely immoral kind of act. But even here there are degrees; an act of this general type may be a gross or a trifling instance of the type.

 

The second type of wrong act is that of acts which in given circumstances have bad effects, though in other circumstances they might have good effects. Here the evil is in the consequences only; but it is certainly a duty to abstain from such actions.

 

The third main type of wrong is referred indiscriminately to each of the two categories in the popular classification. Hence it is generally not observed at all. It is a type of act whish is wrong, because it is based upon a wrong principle; that is to say, a principle which is contrary to the principles of well-being.

 

The kind of lie which a man may tell from good motives is an illustration of this. His intentions are good; that is to say, he wishes to promote general well-being as he understands it; he realises that to speak the truth will give pain; there seems to be no balancing advantage; so he says what is untrue.

But his principle is false. Veracity is essential to that full social intercourse which is part of human good.

 

Every lie diminishes the trust which men put in one another; and this is its evil- as St Paul recognises when he gives as a reason for truth-speaking, that we are members one of another. And on the whole it is a safe rule that the maintenance in their integrity of the principles essential to human welfare is more important than the particular advantage to be obtained from breaking them on any special occasion.

 

But it is not held in quite all cases. Thus the “medicinal lie,” where a doctor gives good news to a patient hovering between life and death, because the bad and true news would kill him, is generally recognised as justifiable.

 

Here the special character of the occasion is obvious, and the “lie” does not in fact at all diminish the general trust which men put in one another; all that the doctor has weakened is his power of using the “medicinal lie” quite as effectively another time. Most of us , again, would regard as justifiable a lie told to a murderer by which his victim is enabled to escape.

 

But the very nature of the exceptions proves the general obligation of the rule; and it has to be noticed that many actions which rest on a wrong principle, but do not represent any scandalous kind of character, are actually worse by one of the two standards of judgment than are some of those which directly express a debased character. Of course such acts represent imperfection of character, but not necessarily a character below the average.

 

 

III

 

For there are two standards of judgment- one referring to motive and the other to consequences. If the act proceeds from a character in which love of sensual pleasure is stronger than sense of duty, it is bad with the badness of that sort of character. If it proceeds from a good state of character misled by ignorance of the consequences likely to ensue, it is bad with the badness of those consequences.

 

With the first type we are not concerned here. No doubt there are in the world moral sceptics who profess to see no difference in value between a life of devoted service and a life of sheer self-indulgence; we are not now arguing with these; they can usually be trapped into a repudiation of their position by anyone who knows the gambit.

 

We are concerned with people who do pronounce moral judgment and at least by profession, accept the Christian scale of values. We need not, therefore, argue that acts in which personal health or social fellowship are sacrificed to sensuous pleasure are wrong.

 

But acts are wrong when they have the tendency to destroy social well-being, even though the agent is quite ignorant of this tendency. A person who, with the best intentions, acts so as to do harm is commonly described as “well-meaning”- a term which has in it far more blame than praise.

 

Where the ignorance , which led the well-meaning

Person wrong, is avoidable, such an act is a direct expression of a bad character- a character so enamoured of its own amiable feelings that it takes no trouble to acquire accurate information; this is one form of the vice of sentimentalism. Where the ignorance was unavoidable, the agent is free from all blame. But the innocence of the agent does not prove the innocence of the act.

 

It is necessary to insist on this with something like violence. The subjectivism everywhere rampant has led many people to affirm that if a man sees no harm in what he is doing, there is no harm in it; or, at any rate, that if he thinks it right, it is right.

 

That is sheer confusion. A man is indeed bound to follow his conscience, but he is also bound to take care that his conscience is as enlightened as possible

What a man’s conscience condemns at any time depends very largely on his previous habit of life. Acts are right or wrong quite independently of anyone so judging them; in that sense, they are right or wrong in themselves.

 

Their moral value does in fact reside in the character that prompts them and the social consequences involved in them. Part of a man’s duty is to see that his own sense of duty corresponds to these two standards. A man must obey his conscience; and if, in doing so, he acts wrongly, his guilt depends on the trouble he had taken fully to inform his judgment; if he has done all he could, he is blameless- but the act is still wrong.

 

*

 

*
 

 
 
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.

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 all her coronation oaths, by signing these six 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, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Realising that under the five Treason Acts they should already be hanging by the neck until dead, Tony Blair and the Queen signed the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, which secretly abolished much of the crime of treason (s36.3) and reduced the penalty to life imprisonment - 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 oath and duty as a constitutional check and balance, by refusing to sign the six treaties until an in/out referendum had been held. In the unlikely event the vote went against her, she was even more unlikely to lose her crown (not her life or a limb), and would keep her 9 billion plus palaces either way. Those servicemen's lives would still have meant something.

But she was always keen to sign; and said in advance she would sign the last treaty. Princes Charles, William or Harry can now never be King. You can't have a King without a Kingdom: they can only be princes of a region (principality) within Europe.

King Edward 8th was forced to abdicate because he was too overt as a German Nazi supporter. Mrs Simpson's divorce was merely the excuse. The Royal Family is a German Family - real surname Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Windsor is an adopted surname. All four of Prince Phillip's sisters married high ranking German Nazis. After they lost the war the EU was switched from a Nazi basis to a communist basis.

Between the ages of 12 and 22 Queen Elisabeth's political and constitutional tutor was Sir Henry Martin, a Fabian Communist. It seems clear she was well trained for her subversion and treason.

Because she waves and smiles at us most are fooled into thinking she's lovely; in fact the Queen is a member of the Illuminati, a Bilderberger, head of Freemasonry, is wholly pro the (German) EU, and has abolished this nation with ruthless determination. It is so obvious she cares nothing for Britain or the British.

The Queen's aspirations are not ours; she clearly serves a much darker master; the faith she defends cannot be the one we think it is. King George VI, the one recent monarch not indoctrinated with Nazi or Communist philosophy, must be turning over in his grave.

I ask that the law be enforced, and the Queen be tried for treason before 12 honest people, and not by our corrupt judges. And that the illegal section 36.3 Crime and Disorder Act be declared null and void, so that she can hang by the neck till dead.

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?

 

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

 

www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.l

 

A+MONARCH+THAT+BREAKS+A+CORONATION+OATH+

CANNOT+CLAIM+IMMUNITY+FROM+HIGH+TREASON+

BECAUSE+A+FIRST+MINISTER+SECRETLY

+CHANGED+THE+LAW

IN+1998.

THE+SACRET+OATH+IS+TO+THE+PEOPLE+

TO+PROTECT+THEIR+ACCUSTOMED+LIBERTIES+

AND+THOSE+OF+FUTURE+GENERATIONS+TO+COME

+IS +SACROSANCT.

 

 

HOME

DID YOU KNOW?

No 8

(Christopher Story of International Currency Review)

 

IS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN SOVEREIGN?

Under Article 17 of the collectivist Maastricht treaty , all residents of the European Union are citizens of the EU Collective.  It follows that Presidents and Monarchs are 'citizens of the

EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

as well

This provides the twisted rationale for President Herzog's vituperative dismissal of the relevance of the nation state, and for his insistence that it has outlived its usefulness, even though he continued to serve as President.

Dr Herzog's subversive remarks have special resonance for Britain, where

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

 is the

 SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUTIONAL HEAD

of the

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

She is the custodian, in her person, of the sovereignty of the British people which was passed to HER in February 1952 on the death of her father,  This was confirmed initially when the

QUEEN took the OATH of ACCESSION

and was finally solemnized at the QUEEN'S CORONATION in 1953 after HER MAJESTY had been recognized and universally accepted as the undoubted and rightful

 SOVEREIGN of the BRITISH PEOPLE

In November 2000 -after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief justice and other official office-holders and dignatories -asking:

Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?

HE RECEIVED NO ANSWER AT ALL

or else a non-committal weak, diversionary reply.

Mr Blair being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry  to the Home office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the

BLAIR GOVERNMENT

has been its Ministers' arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions.  Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point on occasion, of'

' standing the Queen up'

by failing to turn up on time., or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

[Further details to follow]

*

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy - contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

AUGUST-2008

*

 

WHAT IF ALL EU LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT AND APPROVED BY HER MAJESTY ARE INVALID BECAUSE AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automatically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne.  However, the Prime Minister's problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht treaty, the Queen is a 'citizen' of the European Union, Her Sovereignty has been usurped.  Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scandalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie

TRAITORS

and ought to be indicted for

TREASON.

But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a 'citizen' of the

EU COLLECTIVE

appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a 'mask' for emerging

'GREATER GERMANY'.

When, following the correspondent's letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether

Her Majesty is Sovereign

the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language:

'Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK's membership of the

EUROPEAN UNION

on the constitutional position of

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled.  It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister's view in the interpretation of the law, in this case the

Treaties of the European Communities and associated European Treaties and UK legislation.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the , as this is a matter for the appropriate courts , not Ministers.'.

It would accordingly appear unclear whether

Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign

-and by extension, whether any legislation passed by Westminster Parliament since  Britain made the mistake of joining the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

in

1972

is

VALID.

For evidently  until the matter is decided by the 'appropriate courts', the question of whether

HER MAJESTY IS SOVEREIGN

and thus able to act as

HEAD OF STATE

and hence give the

ROYAL ASSENT

to

LEGISLATION

passed by the

WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT

remains in the air.

This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted under the

COLLECTIVE TREATY

all residents of the

EUROPEAN UNION

 are its citizens; and the

QUEEN

is a resident of the

EUROPEAN UNION

THEREFORE

if

EU law

 

has precedence over

BRITISH LAW

the

QUEEN

 being an

EU citizen

is

NOT

SOVEREIGN.

 

*

 

It may be asked: Why does no British Government ever take steps to have this matter clarified?

There are two possible answers to this question:

(1)    If the matter were to be resolved and it were to transpire that, indeed, The Queen is not Sovereign, then all legislation to which Her Majesty has given the Royal Assent since Britain acceded to the EEC is

NULL and VOID
 

because she had no power to give the Royal Assent, Alternatively:

(2)    Successive UK Governments since the beginning of the collapse in 1970 have preferred this issue to remain unresolved because if it were to be concluded by 'the appropriate courts' that The Queen is Sovereign, then correspondingly all EU legislation in the UK

is

NULL and VOID

because it is presupposed that EU law has precedence over UK law.

which cannot be the case if The Queen is Sovereign.

By contrast, if it does transpire the

The Queen is not Sovereign, then, certainly all legislation passed since Britain joined the EEC is indeed called into question.

Either way -whether The Queen is or is not Sovereign -the logic of the above leads to the conclusion that all EU law may be invalid in the United Kingdom.

Thus the the real reason this key issue has never been clarified is that the British Government's deceitful EU 'coup d' etat by installments'  policy would be exposed as illegal if the issue were ever to be addressed in the COURTS.  Furthermore, as reveiwed on page 209, the Treaty of Rome was reportedly

NOT SIGNED

-so the basis of all EU law throughout the

EU COLLECTIVE

may be open to

LEGAL CHALLENGE

on that ground alone.

It is concluded that EU law may have no standing in the United Kingdom and that successive conniving UK Governments have been

SHIRKING THIS CENTRAL ISSUE.

 

In an article published in The Times of London on 27th April,1996, Karl Lamers, whio was then foreign affairs spokesman for the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag, condescended to recognise that 'British doubts are deeply rooted.

The British concern is about the destruction of the national identity and the nation state, which is seen by the British as the only legitimate expression of the popular will.   Germans, by contrast, say that there has long been a supranational reality created by our European civilisation.  Common problems spawn common interests; our vital interests are identical

Whereupon Herr Lamers delivered a further broadside in Germany's psychological warfare offensive designed to help the stupid British to abandon their love of national sovereignty, which it is the central purpose of the European Union to

COLLECTIVISE:

'The  Euro-optimists take as their starting point the objective external reality.... The Eurosceptics (in Britain) deal with the inner, subjective reality of the consciousness of the British people.  It is if you like , the forces of Logic pitied against the forces of Psycho-logic.  It must be the task of democratic politics to help narrow this gap.  Otherwise politics will cease to be effective.  A community makes sense if it can begin to solve its existential problems.

If the nation state can no longer do that by itself, its failure undermines its political legitimacy'.

In other words, Britain had no right to continue existing as a nation state, and it must be 'brought to reason' so that it comes to full acceptance of German prescriptions and intentions without further. tedious prevarication

Note that, for Herr Lamers, the Pan-German position was 'logical', whereas the perceived British tendency to 'cling' to the nation state was 'psychological'. Once again here, the truth was turned upside-down.

The essence of Germany's continuing, updated strategy to realise the Germans, has never been in doubt - not least, since the German legislature adopted several amendments to the Basic Law (constitution) on 22nd December, 1992, in order to legalise' ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.  A new Article 23 was incorporated, the previous one having been repealed by the Unification T of 31st August 1990. The revised Article known as the 'ARTICLE on EUROPEAN UNION'. contains the following:

 

With a view to establishing a Unite Europe, the Federal republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union, which is committed to democratic[?], rule of law, social and federative principles as well as to the principle of subsidiarity, and ensures protection of basic rights comparable in substance to that accorded to the Basic law

To this end the (German) Federation may transfer sovereign powers by law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union , as well as amendments to its statutory foundations and comparable foundations which amend or supplement the content of this Basic Law or make such amendments and supplements possible shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) and (30 of Article 79.........

THIS MEANS that Germany can extend its sovereignty into Moravia and Bohemia, as provided for under the secret accord reached between President Gorbachev and Chancellor Kohl in Geneva , in 1990

As for Dr Professor Herzog, he faced both ways at the 1997 Konigswinter Conference, held in Berlin. In a welcoming speech, he suggested that 'Britons and Germans can build on common values, convictions and interests.  the debate on Europe can only reach a fruitful conclusion - that is to say, a conclusion acceptable to the German strategy elite- if we help gain acceptance for one idea, namely that the 'Europe of-Fatherlands' is possible.  The European nations can be Fatherlands and still integrate' 

 

 

[TO BE CONTINUED]

*

 

 

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy -

THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

 -contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

 

 

SEPTEMBER-2008

*

 

TO ASSIST YOUR SEARCH WE HAVE INCLUDED THE LINKS BELOW

 

EUROPEAN UNION Q & A

1EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]   WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU

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

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

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

6]    COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

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

8]   MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]   OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

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

11]  THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20]     100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

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

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

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

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

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

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

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

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

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007]

33]    BLAIR'S LAST TREACHEROUS ACT. THE 60,000 DOLLAR QUESTION IS WHAT WILL MR BROWN DO?-JUNE-2007]

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

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

36]  SAVE YOUR ENGLAND! - SAY NO! TO REGIONS
 

37]   NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007-CLOSER TO YOUR HOME THAN YOU THINK  

38]    A WARNING FROM JAN-2005-TO PRESERVE THE NATION-STATES OF EUROPE-VOTE 'NO' TO THE NEW EU CONSTITUTION (D.T.)

49]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU. (D.M.)

 

[For hundreds of bulletins about the EU]

HOME

 

 

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

*

IS SENATOR RON PAUL- ILLUMINATI?

 

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

 

 

 

MAY-2012

 

*HOME-PT 2

 

HOME