|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No Complacency And Paying Attention -MPs must NOT pass LAW giving Blair unlimited stay in No 10. * Law that could give Premier an unlimited stay in No 10 * [Government’s legislation and Regulatory Reform Bill Known as the: ‘ABOLITIONof PARLIAMENT BILL’] [Quoted by David
Howarth in QuentinLetts-Yesterday in Parliament-Friday, March 10-2006-
*Daily Mail
Thursday,
February 23, 2006-03-01 By Jane MerrickPolitical
Correspondent. SWEEPING powers would allow the Government to remain in office for
years on end could become law within weeks, senior Tory Kenneth Clarke warned
last night. To the alarm of MPs and academics, ministers have drawn up legislation, which threatens to cast aside the five-year limit on a Parliamentary Term. -allowing the Prime Minister to remain in Downing Street for AS LONG AS HE WANTED. Mr
K.Clarke, chairman of the Conservatives’ Democracy Taskforce, said
the law would sideline democracy and debate on an ‘astonishingly scale’ [So
would having Britain in a United States of Europe -Mr Kenneth Clarke -if you
had your way.] Under
the 1911 Parliament Act, the Government must call a General Election within
five years of winning office. -the little-publicised Legislative and Regulatory
Reform Bill -
would
give Tony Blair and his Ministers the power to change any law without scrutiny
or approval of Parliament. Ministers would be able to
change divorce laws, introduce house arrest, curtail or abolish jury trial and
give police powers to detain individuals with no vote or discussion by the House of Commons. The Tories have also warned the powers could be used to introduce unpopular EU social and employment policies by the back door. Mr K. Clarke told Radio 4’s Today
Programme: ‘They have produced a Bill
which could be used to sweep away parliamentary procedure and debate on an
astonishing scale.’ He said that despite verbal
assurances by the Government that it would NOT use the new law for
politically-sensitive purposes there was nothing in the BILL to prevent the Parliament Act being overturned. He added: ‘There should be some
safeguards. The Government has so far promised in speeches [Well! -Their promises are
not worth the breath that they expire in their deliberation as the past has
shown too well and with such catastrophic results. They are perjured and no longer believed-They should GO.] -that it won’t use these
powers to deliver highly political measures such as amendments to Terrorism Law
and the Parliament Act. [Mr K.Clarke continues:] ‘It is a great relief to know that ministers are promising that they won’t alter our Terrorism Laws or they would extend the life of the Parliament just by ministerial order. But that isn’t in the Bill. ‘This needs to be done and the Government hasn’t taken the trouble to look at this Bill and write in absolutely clearly a process by which Parliament can insist a full process is gone through.’ * [Well! -We have all been here before with the Opposition expecting the Government to play FAIR which has been shown to be a waste of time on so many occasions over the past nine years. We have Mr Cameron saying he
is going to support Mr Blair’s Foundation Hospitals because he believes in them
but does he not realise that the greater danger is with us every day that Tony
Blair in POWER- In case you have forgotten Mr Nice-Guy your job is to get Blair
OUT of a job and as quickly as possible. The rights and wrongs of
legislation will be explored more profitably if ACTION is taken to challenge
vigorously the Government’s stance on ALL the issues of the day. Unless Mr Cameron you feel
up to the job might it be time for you to stand aside from the leadership and
cheer your bosom friend from the backbenches?] To continue: The Bill has already reached the committee stage in the Commons - but it is likely to face opposition when it reaches the House of Lords next month. [Thank God! -for our Senate at this dangerous era in our
history-we now learn from the D. Mail on Tuesday March 7-2006 that * Labour’s ID plans defeated
in the Lords TONY BLAIR’s plans for
compulsory identity cards were in disarray last night after the Government
crashed to a defeat in the House of Lords. Peers threw out plans for
the public to be forced to buy a National I.D Card when they apply for a new
passport -by a crushing majority of 61 MPs will vote again on ID cards on Thursday-March 16, the day after Mr Blair faces a crunch vote on his Education Bill. Many Labour MPs are aware
that Tony Blair’s aim is to destroy local government as he wants ONLY REGIONAL accountability -if one could call it
that. David Cameron by supporting the Education Bill is doing just that but he can’t see further than his next photo opportunity. Labour’s majority was
slashed in half when the Commons backed ID cards last month. Tories, Liberal Democrats and
Labour rebels joined forces to inflict last nights defeat, accusing labour of
bringing in ID cards by the back door. Ministers claimed the Lords
should support the Government as the plans were laid out in Labour’s election
Manifesto last year. [Well this statement is most
disingenuous as many voters put into office a particular Government for a
variety of reasons and a manifesto objective might be of the least interest in
the minds of many when they decide who to vote for -if anybody at all. Major
issues of policy should be by Referendum -out of a Party arena where the issue
can be looked at on a National perspective.] To continue: Gareth Crossman, policy director of civil rights group LIBERTY, said: ‘This Government has a terrible track record of bypassing Parliament by rushing votes through and allowing no time for debates. How can we trust them, not to mention future governments, not to abuse POWER? [You can’t! - as
history has shown throughout the long history of our people in our island HOME. We have quoted from the mouths of many
illustrious figures over the past nine years the warnings from the past but to
no avail. ONLY POWER divided among MANY for SHORTER terms of OFFICE with no one
permitted to return again after a completed term but must absence themselves
until such time as agreed in the future.
The Ancient Greeks knew of
the difficulties and they haven’t changed over two and a half millennium. In the 18th
century the background to the Declaration of Independence of the United States
contained safeguards against an over-mighty Executive. In the Federalist or
the New Constitution on page 265 the following is stated: First, In a single republic all
the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a
single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of
the government into district and separate departments. In The compound republic of
America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two
distinct governments, and then the portion allocated to each subdivided
among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the
rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the
same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second, It is of great importance in
a republic not only to guard the society against the opposition of rulers, but
to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the
majority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this
evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority
-that is of society itself; the other by comprehending in the society in the
society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust
combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in
all governments possessing hereditary or self-appointed authority [Tony Blair]. This, at best, is but a
precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well
expouse the unjust views of the major as the
rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned
against both parties.[As in 2006 many of the
6,000,000 public servants employed by the government might as
their lackies - follow without question
their Masters dictates.] The second method will be
exemplified in the federal republic of the United States of America. Whilst all authority in it
will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be
broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights
of individuals or of the minority, will be in danger from interested
combinations of the majority. In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject
must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the
sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that
in exact proportion as the territory of the Union [USA] may be formed into
more circumscribed Confederacies, or States, oppressive combination of the
majority will be facilitated; the best
security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens
will be diminished; and consequently the stability and independence of some
member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally
increased. JUSTICE is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or until LIBERTY be lost in the pursuit. [As in 2006 with the United States of Europe] In a society under the forms
of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy
may be truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker
individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter
state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their
condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as
themselves; so in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties
be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will
protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of
the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and
sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could
seldom take place on any other principles than those of JUSTICE and the General
Good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major
party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the
former, by introducing into the government a will independent of the society
itself. It is no less certain than
it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been
entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical
sphere, the more duly capable it will be of SELF-GOVERNMENT. And happily for the republican cause
, the practical sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious
modification and mixture of the federal principle. PUBLIUS. * The EDP has always supported the
concept of a: Confederation of a family of
the Independent Nation States of a Greater Britain. And as so succinctly stated
on page 15 of the Federalist [J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd. -London] What would the militia of
Britain be
if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia
obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the
government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would all these three governments (if
they agreed at all) be able with all their respective forces, to operate
against the enemy so effectively as the single government of Great
Britain would? To continue: Tory MP- Grant Shapps, a member of the Commons Public Administration Committee, said: ‘There would be uproar over
steps to allow the life of a Parliament to be open-ended. Once you start
writing bad laws it is there forever. ‘This raises very serious
questions. If the Government has no intention of extending the life of a
Parliament then WHY NOT explicitly put that in the Bill? [It’s obvious WHY to anyone who has read our Parliamentary History] Cabinet Office Minister Jim
Murphy insisted the legislation would be subject to proper safeguards and was
merely intended to make it quicker and easier to tackle unnecessary, out dated
or over-complicated regulation. * [Well! -this work should be
carried out by an ALL Party LAW REVISION Parliamentary Committee and NOT left
to the Government of the Day which should not be left with any chance to
destroy even further the foundations of our once great Parliamentary Democracy] To continue: [Mr Murphy] repeated pledges that the
Government would not do anything ‘highly controversial’ * [WE DON’T BELIEVE THEM -WOULD YOU?] * Q&A What’s the argument about? The Government’s legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, published
last month. If it becomes LAW, any Act of Parliament could be amended by
Ministerial Order. What’s
the aim of the Bill? Ministers say their only motive is to make it easier to cut parliamentary red tape quickly, or to enable that our LAWS are made compatible with Human Rights legislation. Currently they say, even some minor changes to the LAW have to go through a lengthy process of approval from MPs and peers. Their new powers would not be used for any ‘highly controversial’ matters, they insist. [We wouldn’t
trust them whatever they say -their past history over nine years tells us to
watch them closely and not give an Inch as they will take as usual a Mile-of
course they prefer Kilometres as we all know.
The moral is don’t trust them and you won’t be disappointed. It’s
YOUR Parliament and YOUR Law and they are still YOUR servants - only just and
they don’t like it and want to change it.] BUT CRITICS SAY THAT IT COULD GO FURTHER.WHAT COULD THE BILL ALLOW MINISTERS TO DO? Legal experts and Opposition MPs are warning that a
future government will be granted unprecedented powers to make sweeping legal
changes without Parliamentary approval. According to Academics at Cambridge University, these
could include new powers of arrest for police; curtailment or abolition of jury
trial; allowing the Prime Minister to sack Judges (Who are our ONLY protection
from a Dictator who wishes the Rule of Law not to protect the subject but to
give full power to the STATE) permitting the Home Secretary to place people (It
could be YOU) under house arrest; changes to divorce laws and rewriting
immigration law. Charter 88, the constitutional pressure group, says
the penalty for using a mobile phone for driving could be increased from a £60
fine to two years in jail at the drop of a hat. * [Well! -Many may no doubt feel that such behaviour at
the wheel should be punished severely as many lives are and will be lost if the
penalty is not increased. But the legislation should be passed through OUR
parliamentary procedure as is now in place.
As for a jail sentence -it must be a joke as there are insufficient
prison places for the hundreds of thousands of offenders who should be there
RIGHT NOW!] To continue: Will
there be any restrictions at all? YES! -As the Bill stands, Ministers could not impose or increase taxation by Order. They could not create a new criminal offence or increase the punishment for an offence, unless the prison sentence is for less than two years. They would not be able to authorise forcible entry of property, search and seizure or compel people to give evidence to Police or the Courts. An
Order that amends, repeals or replaces legislation could be made only if the
Minister is satisfied that the effect is ‘proportionate’ * Would
Parliament have any oversight? Technically, any order can be challenged-but critics say the process is arcane and limited. They become LAW on the day they are made but MPs would have 21 days to object. The leader of the Opposition could try to force a debate with a Commons motion. Or MPs could use an ancient procedure known as ‘praying’-which Tories and Lib Dems employed unsuccessfully last year to oppose an Order introducing 24-hour drinking. * Will
the Government have to give way? Concern about the Bill is growing at Westminster as its implications sink in. It
is due back in the Commons in March [2006], but could run into serious trouble
when it goes to the Lords. Ministers are already hinting that they will write a veto on proposals for relevant Select Committees of MPs formally into the Legislation. Further
concessions look likely. [This
will be a typical example of EU Commission procedure in always giving the
impression that they have had to accept less than they had asked for, but don’t
be fooled as everything that they and Tony Blair and other EU cronies in the
House obtain is yet another step to our enslavement into a United
States of Europe. This
is not the time to tear up over 700 years of evolved English
Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy on
the say so of a Traitor-War Monger-Liar and Deceiver who seems still intent of
destroying the very Constitution which stands in his way of changing our
political landscape into a Continental model of the Rule of the State instead
of under a Rule of LAW as Free subjects of the Queen a Constitutional Head of
State with a link stretching back over a thousand years. Don’t
give him the tools to do the job-but send him on his way to join his many
friends within the Totalitarian bastion in Brussels.] * * * In
our reply to Tony Blair we have the assistance of Shakespeare’s play of the
villainy of Richard III and his comeuppance by the Good Richmond. ‘A
Bill! A Bill! my kingdom for a Bill.’ Richard
III. 1, iii. 336 ‘And thus I clothe my naked villainy with old odd ends
-stolen out of holy writ.’ Richard
III, v. iv. 7 [Good] Richmond ‘s Oration to his soldiers. ‘ More than I have said, loving countrymen, The leisure and enforcement of the time Forbids to dwell upon; yet remember this: God and our good cause fight
upon our side; The prayers of holy saints and wronged souls, Like high-rear’d bulwarks, stand before our faces; [Tony] Richard except, those
whom we fight against Had rather have us win than
him [Tony] they follow. For what is he they follow?
Truly, gentlemen, A bloody tyrant and a homicide; One rais’d in blood, and one
in blood establish’d; One that made means to come
by what he hath, And slaughtered those that were the means to help him; A base foul stone, made precious by the foil Of England’s chair, where he
is falsely set; One that hath ever been God’s
enemy. Then if you fight against
God’s enemy, God will in justice ward you as his soldiers; If you do seat to put a
tyrant down’ You sleep in peace, the
tyrant being slain; If you do fight against your
country’s foes, Your country’s fat shall pay your pains the hire; If you do fight in safeguard of your wives, Your wives shall welcome home the conquerors; If you do free your children from the sword, Your children’s children quits it in your age. Then, in the name of God and all these rights, Advance your standards, draw your willing swords. For me, the ransom of my bold attempt Shall be this cold corpse on the earth’s cold face; But If I thrive, the gain of my attempt The least of you shall share his part thereof. Sound drums and trumpets
boldly and cheerfully; God and Saint George! Richmond and victory. Richard III -Act 5-Scene 3. [Also to David Howarth and his all-party allies in the Commons and Lords in March 2006.] *
* * Secret
Plan To Revive EURO Charter. * Daily
Mail Tuesday,
March 7 -2006 FRENCH
PRESIDENT Jacques Chirac and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel [‘THE ONE
for ALL -AND All for ONE Team’-nothing appears to stop them-YET?]
have launched secret talks to revive the controversial European Constitution
[or in other words the: United
States of Europe. -It emerged yesterday. Reports in the German Press claim the pair want to rewrite parts of the [New -now newer still] Constitution in an attempt to sell it to a deeply sceptical public. They would then seek fresh votes on two sections of the blueprint-those that deal with reforming EU bureaucracy and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Voters would not have a say on the third section, which deals with areas such as the Economy and Transport. Their
plan comes amid warnings that elements of the blueprint are sneaking into
British Law. It is less than a year since the Constitution was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands. But a Report for the Centre for Policy Studies, a Tory think-tank said Britain was ‘Sleepwalking’ into a European
Legal System The Report claimed the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer had admitted the CHARTER OF RIGHTS -was already informing the judgements of the EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Lord Blackwell, who wrote the Report, concludes that because British Courts are inclined to defer to EU Court Precedents, the Charter ‘could well become the governing frame work’ for UK Civil Law. * * [We have in the past compared the spread of the Continental system of Law infecting our English Common Law to a scourge of the plague, which laid low almost half the population of England in 14th century, and later centuries. As almost everyone must now be aware the disease appears unstoppable because it has developed over at least 35 years with the help of the majority of Members of YOUR Parliament during that time. Only by being vigilant and combining together to delay and eventually stop the Brussels steamroller in its tracks will we triumph over the ‘Fat cats’ at home who should have been the protectors of our Constitution and our Liberty but instead decided they knew better in bringing within England a Continental system of Collectivism and Interrogative system of Law which has no place this side of the English Channel. In
the House of Commons on the 20th February, 1846- one of our greatest
Prime Minister’s Benjamin Disraeli Addressed the House: ‘… First, without reference to England, looking at all countries, I say that it is the first duty of the Minister, and the first interest of the State, to maintain a balance between the two great branches of national industry [Agricultural and Industry]; that is a principle which has been recognised by all great Ministers for the past two hundred years; and the reasons upon which it rests are so obvious, that it can hardly be necessary to mention them. Why
we should maintain that balance between two great branches of national
industry, involving political considerations-social considerations, as affecting
the happiness, prosperity, and morality of the people, well as the
stability of the State. But I go
further; I say that in England we are bound to do more - I repeat what I have repeated before, that in this country there are special reasons why we should not only maintain the balance between two branches of our national industry, but why we should give a preponderance - I do not say a predominance, which was the word ascribed by the hon. member for Manchester to the noble lord the member for London, but which he never used - why we should give a preponderance, for that is the proper and constitutional word, to the agricultural branch; and the reason is, because in England we have a territorial Constitution. WE have thrown upon the land the revenues o the Church,
the administration of justice, and the estate of the poor; and this has been
done, not to gratify the pride, or pamper the luxury of the proprietors of the
land, but because in a territorial Constitution, you, and those whom you have succeeded, have
found the only security for self-government -the only barrier against that
centralising system which has taken root in other countries. I have always maintained these opinions; my constituents are not landlords; they are not aristocrats; they are not great capitalists; they are the children of industry and toil; and they believe, first, that their material interests are involved in a system which favours native industry, by insuring at the same time real competition. But
they believe also that their social and political interests are involved in a
system by which their rights and liberties have been guaranteed; and I agree
with them -I have these old-fashioned notions. I know that we have been told, and by one who on this subject should be the highest authority, that we shall derive from this great struggle, not merely the repeal of the Corn Laws [In
2006 -The Repeal of the 1972 Accession Treaty of the EU] -But the transfer of power from one class to another - to one distinguished for its intelligence and wealth, the manufactures of England. My conscience assures me that I have not been slow in doing justice to the intelligence of that class; certain I am, that I am not one of those who envy them their wide and deserved prosperity, but I must confess my deep mortification, that in an age of political regeneration. When all social evils are ascribed to the operation of class interests, it should be suggested that we are to be rescued from the alleged power of one class only to sink under the avowed dominion of another. I, for one, if this is to be the end of all our struggles - if this is to be the great result of this enlightened age - I, for, one protest against the ignominious catastrophe. I
believe that the monarchy of England, its sovereignty mitigated by the
acknowledged authority of the estates of the realm, has its root in the hearts
of the people, and is capable of securing the happiness of the nation and the
power of the State. But, Sir, if this be a worn-out dream; if indeed, there is to be a change, I, for one, anxious as I am to maintain the present polity of this country, ready to make as many sacrifices as any man for that object - if there is to be this great change, I, for one, hope that the foundations of it may be deep, the scheme comprehensive, and that instead of falling under such a thraldom, under the thraldom of Capital - under the thraldom of those who, while they boast of their intelligence, are more proud of their wealth - if
we must find a new force to maintain the ancient throne and immemorial monarchy
of England, I, for one, hope that we may find that novel power in the
invigorating energies of an educated and enfranchised people. * (English
Economic History-compiled and edited by A.E.Bland,BA.,
P.A.Brown.M.A. and R.H.Tawney,B.A. G.Bell
& Sons. [In 2006 there is a divide within the country as great or some may say greater than the events of 1846. Then it was looked on as an internal battle for control by a class whereas in 2006 the people of England appear to be bystanders as their very country and all it means is slowly been taken from them. As we have voiced before we can no longer count on Politicians in general to safeguard our Heritage but that everyone concerned and wishing to hold on to their Ancient Constitution with its Common Law of England in preference to the Continental model of Collectivism and subordinated to the State needs to make a stand and join others with the same resolve NOW so that the Politicians will be in no doubt that a vote at the next General Election or By-election will be conditional on our country’s withdrawal from the European Union. The
Question is straightforward and uncomplicated. Do
you wish to remain Free with your inherited Rights and Liberties under your OWN
Parliament at Westminster -under the Common Law of England? [Those
of our fellow islanders in Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own
Assembly/Parliament to address their concerns.] We read in the Daily Mail on Monday March 13th-2006 an article by Geoffrey Levy of a secret cabal of generals, aristocrats and businessmen really did plot to oust Harold Wilson and seize power 30 years ago. What we would like to know is WHY there has been no uprising when one considers what is and has been happening over the past nine years TO YOUR COUNTRY -ITS VALUES -ITS PARLIAMENT and there appears a general malaise instead of a coming together to oust the Dictator we already have in our midst. We have on many occasions asked for the Military and the Captains of Industry and others from all sections of society to combine in such a coup before it is too late Where
are they in 2006 -those who would make a stand? -there is little time left as The
Abolition of Parliament is almost
upon us. WHAT
WILL YOU DO? IF MILLIONS OF CONCERNED SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN MADE THEIR MOVE BY TRAIN CAR OR BY WATER TO ASSEMBLE PEACEFULLY AT WESTMINSTER AND DECIDE NOT TO MOVE UNTIL THE THREAT TO OUR PARLIAMENT HAS PASSED AND THE DICTATOR BLAIR HAS RESIGNED WILL
YOU DO IT? BECAUSE SOON IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE AND THEN YOU WILL REGRET IT ! * * * VOTE UKIP THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION [Font altered -bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets] MAR/06
*
* 13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum * July 18-2007
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * WHY NOT
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
