WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON IN 1996 -EURO DOOMED TO
Peter Jay, the most
distinguished of all contributors to the
International Currency Review,
British Ambassador to Washington, explained in the
ICR columns in
1996 why participation in the then
(= collective) currency would be disastrous for
almost all the intended participants.
reproduce the timely and prescient arguments that he put forward.
WE TOLD YOU SO
PETER JAY’S WARNING IN
Volume 23- 3 -August 1996
AN AUTHORITATIVE 1996 WARNING ABOUT THE EURO
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
volume 30, 4. of October 10 -2005.
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 7th
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
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
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
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
‘Peter is one of the outstanding economic journalists of his
But he is much more: all agree that he is the outstanding
economic and financial thinker -presenter of our time.
by Peter Jay]
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
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 , entitled
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
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.
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
It will be an
important question how far and under what conditions this affliction is
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
At this stage in the argument, certain points
need to be emphasised before we proceed:
is not suggested here that uncompetitiveness in the sense that I have defined
is the only or necessarily most important cause of unemployment;
it should be obvious that uncompetitiveness is a relative condition, and cannot
therefore afflict every economy simultaneously, and:
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.
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.
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
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
economies”, or just
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
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
Sovereign economies and regional economies are
both susceptible to becoming uncompetitive in the sense, which I have
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.
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
economy’s imbalance will automatically be financed by
the ordinary flow of payments within the single currency area to which it
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
unit costs mean low profitability. Low profitability triggers the outflow of capital, not inflows,
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 -
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
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
have been many such examples in the reign of
King Tony since
and better still
a filmed-opening, may
have stronger appeal to him than the money used to address the underlying
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
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
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,
option which the regional economy does not -
though both may be confronted by identically the same difficulty, namely
uncompetitiveness as I have already defined it.
economy can experience a change in the value of ITS currency.
this stage in the argument, we are not concerned with such tactical questions
as whether this comes about as a result of:
direct command decision by the government, for example to declare a new parity
under some fixed but adjustable exchange rate regime, or:
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
in the case of Britain’s ignominious exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism of
the European monetary System, first one or the other.
IS that the exchange rate can
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
But there is no reason why other
domestic prices should nullify the effects of currency devaluation, unless
either or both of two conditions obtain.
home economy is operating under such overall pressure of demand that prices,
measured in terms of foreign currency, quickly return to their pre-devaluation
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
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
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
remind the viewer that these words were written in
AS A SAFETY VALVE
The fact is that devaluation can work, if conditions are right,
and that nothing else will -
transfers from some supposedly benevolent central government,
automatic fiscal transfers,
not sudden productivity
not smoothly adjusting reductions in
spontaneous migrations of cheerful
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
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
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.
Let us summarise where we have got to here and
examine the implications.
Both sovereign and regional economies can be
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
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.
This conclusion, if accepted, of course raises
a whole host of supplementary questions:
Are all regional
problems simply suppressed exchange rate problems?
it is so much the better to be a sovereign economy than a regional economy,
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:
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
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,
to what was said above about the general conditions required for successful
devaluation and subject to what is also said below about
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
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:
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
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
In my judgment, at the time both they and
Germany as a whole would have done better to have reformed the
allowed it to find its own value against the
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.
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,
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
against the Federal Dollar could have contributed to such an outcome, it would have
been well worth it.
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
It is fashionable to look at the question of
Europe’s future [since 1999, of course, current-Ed.]
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?
Europe’s economic interests be sacrificed for a political gesture?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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-
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
mechanism, which depends for equilibrium upon the enforced migration, on pain
of destitution, of its populations in the tens of millions.
from the places to which they are tied by natural affection, by family
relationships, by social capital and individual will:
frontiers of language, culture, historical experience and law;
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
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
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
temporary monetary union would indeed be less damaging to Europe than a
permanent one, but only because it is temporary
-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.
short-term monetary union might also have an attraction for
[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.
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
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.
The relevance and accuracy of Peter Jay’s warning [those
many years ago] should be apparent to ALL except
WHY HAVE WE REPUBLISHED THIS
Following the death of
Sir Edward Heath
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
bribes as did the other signatory to the 
was the longest-serving penetration agent of the
and the secret Nazi International intelligence service,
based at Dachau,
controlled and controls the IRA [Irish
Republican Army], intelligence sources have further informed us
Currency Review - the sole independent currency journal -established
since 1969-Full details on
board] as also reviewed elsewhere, that
huge sums of
‘Black Ops’funds are routinely disbursed every time an EU treaty comes up for
and Tony Blair
Having both allegedly accepted
remitted in exchange for their signatures from the
maintained in Switzerland for this purpose.
Given the sordid facts as stark as these
It is unsurprising that rational argument such as the careful
have had no
[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
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.
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.
filthy secret did not emerge into the public domain until the death of Edward
Heath -July 2005
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
[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:
World reports Limited
108 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2EF
Editor: Christopher Story FRSA
financial and intelligence analyst
* * *
[Font altered-bolding and underlining used-comments in brackets]
of London is governed by the Illuminati-Freemasons and they are governed
by their god Lucifer/Satan.
of England owns the Central Banks established around the world, and this
is the real power of the modern British Empire.
One example is
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
"The Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen. It is a private
corporation led by the Illuminati.
AUGUST - 2010
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
[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
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF THE
have signed a
DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
, calling on the
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street website is
Ten EU truths we must tell
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
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
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
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
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
by The Reform Treaty
- Passed by majority of 138
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Then check it at the German Parliament
Campaigns: Print these .pdf's: One or two
Treaty one page
of 48 Counties
Map: the 9
Treaty full text
Constitution, one page pdf
Constitution: one page html
of EU police state
The EU's degraded our
What will the EU be like?
Beef up the British Constitution
Lib Lab Con: One Party State
The EU's Hitler
The EU costs
£200 billion pa
UK > EU
handover of power.
our 48 counties
drjn.co.uk - copy of this site
The Cornish Free
The British Free
to get out
Stood for the
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.
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
5. Thirty three years inside the EU - have
you noticed how our democracy is being
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
We have lost the right to free
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
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"
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
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
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
Have you noticed this growing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
| What do we
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
David Noakes 07974 437 097 ;
Campaign to repeal the 1972
European Communities Act and get clean
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
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.
A summary of the loss of our 48 counties
(a WP file)
A map of the nine EU regions (.pdf)
The Devonport Column, exposing Common
Purpose nationally, and corruption in
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
We're being fooled again
A diagram of the
EU Government in the UK.
The wiring of the EU
EU subversion of our
A link to
Our other site:
training 18,000 of our
new EU rulers at all
levels of our government
As a word doc.
The Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Bill
government doesn't need
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
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 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
amongst the world's 205
independent nations, and
we will make it
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
David Noakes: 07974 437
but delete the three
letters "del" -this is
to stop automated spam.
The Westminster News
Please donate to help
us spread the word:
under a brutal police
This is: http://eutruth.org.uk
Questions for Bush.
site is © Copyright
David Noakes 1997-2007,
All Rights Reserved, but
permission to copy and
republish is granted.
07974 437 097.
A Prime Minister in
Gordon Brown in June
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. ]
TIME FOR DECISION-DECEMBER,2007
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
The Commonwealth Realms V
The Constitution for Europe- 4-PARTS
AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS
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.
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
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
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
WE ASK WHAT
PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WORTH?
The Choice is Yours!-but time is
running out FAST!
6 months to be EXACT!
to join THEM
not joining US
WE have more to LOSE
more to GAIN
WE have been clear of
dictators from EUROPE for most of our HISTORY
been cursed with that abomination for most of their HISTORY and NOW!
Our Queen and the EU
The Spirit of England
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
MESSAGE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH
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
it the case on Christmas Day 2007 while the Monarch talks our Rights
and Liberties are being taken from us under our very noses?
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.
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
Hear Tony Benn's comments about the
despotic and corrupt
and the need for a
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.
words/word underlined have a separate bulletin]
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
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
-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
Let the people speak!
[Latest Addition - June07]
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY
WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want a REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
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
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
In London on St.George's Day -1953
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST
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
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
[All underlined words have a separate