1994 - EDP Official Website - JANUARY-PART 4-2021

 

 

HOME -  PART1- PART 1-PAGE 2 -PART 2 -PAGE 3 -PART 4 -PART 5 -PART 6

 

 

WORK IN PROGRESS

 

 

 

 

PATRIOTS-1972-2021

 

 

BELOW WE  LIST BY THEIR WORKS THE PATRIOTS-MANY WHO ARE NO LONGER WITH US --BUT WILL ALWAYS BE REMEMBERED WHILE ENGLAND REMAINS TRUE TO ITS CHRISTIAN INHERITANCE AND ACCUMULATED FREEDOMS  SINCE THE ANCIENT KING EGBERT UNITED ALL ENGLAND

 IN THE YEAR 829. 

IN 2021 WE NOW HAVE MILLIONS OF NEW CITIZENS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD WITH THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS FAITH AND CUSTOMS -MANY WILL INTEGRATE BUT MILLIONS WITH A BIRTHRIGHT ADVANTAGE OF 4 - 1 WILL QUITE NATURALLY WISH TO REMAIN IN THEIR OWN CUSTOMS WITH THE HOPE THAT ENGLAND WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME  A

 MUSLIM STATE.

 

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

 

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

The Christian Faith, which eventually brought about the Unity of the English People guided our beginnings in this Land of England. The Leaders of the faith of Christ were from many other Peoples and they defended the People against Tyranny at Home and from overseas. Our greatest and early Charter of Freedom the Magna Carta was the result of the steadfastness of Archbishop Stephen Langton who having knowledge of the Charter of Henry 1, was with the co-operation of the Barons able to unite the People to obtain a Confirmation of their Liberties, an accumulation of their just Rights as a Free, Proud and Just Nation.

 

This Christian Heritage has resulted in the molding of the character of the English People – a Proud, Stubborn but Just and Free People, and with just Laws, being the natural defenders of Freedom, with a constant desire to protect the Innocent and defend their Values against all, whatever their overwhelming forces, and we leave it to the words of the past to defend our Inheritance.

 

“Christian Religion is the only one that puts morality on its proper, and the right basis, viz: the fear and love of God “. -  1    The morality of the Gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man”. - 2

 

Morality, distinguished from and Independent of Christian Faith, is Nothing; but Christian Morality is of the very essence; it is the True Fruit, the same testimony, the faithful companion, the glory and perfection, yea, the very Life and Soul of Christian Faith. Let us beware, that we do not confound things so different as worldly and Christian Morality; as the Works of the natural man and those of the Disciples of Christ”. -  3   Morality without Religion is only a kind of dead – reckoning – an endeavor to find our Place on a cloudy sea by measuring the distance we have run, without any observation of the Heavenly Bodies”. -  4

“Morality without Religion is a Tree without Roots; a stream without any spring to feed it; a House built on the Sand; a pleasant place to Live in till the Heavens grow Dark, and the Storm begins to Beat”. -  5  “Morality does not make a Christian, yet no Man can be a Christian without it” .-  6

 

The Morality which is divorced from Godliness, however specious and captivating to the eye, is superficial and Deceptive. The only Morality that is clear in its source, Pure in its precepts, and Efficacious in its Influence is the Morality of the Gospel. All else is, at best, but Idolatry – the Worship of Something of Man’s own Creation; and that imperfect and feeble, like himself, and wholly insufficient to give him Support and Strength.”  “ Piety and Morality are but the same Spirit differently manifested. - Piety is Religion with its Face towards God; Morality is Religion with its Face toward the World.”-  7

 

 Let us with caution indulge the supposition that Morality can be maintained without Religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National Morality  can prevail in exclusion of Religious Principle.”.-   8     “ The great mistake of my life has been that I tried to be Moral without Faith in Jesus; but I have learned that True Morality can only keep pace with Trust in Christ as my Saviour.”.-   9    Morality, taken as apart from Religion is but another name for Decency in Sin. It is just that Negative species of Virtue which consists in not doing what is scandalously Depraved and Wicked. But there is no Heart of Holy Principle in it, any more than there is in grosser Sin.”.-  10

 

 

“In the long run, Morals without Religion will Wither and Die like seed sown upon stony ground, or among Thorns.” .-   11  

 

1  Longfellow   2   C. Montesquieu   3   Bishop Mant   4   Longfellow   5   B. Shaw   6   Bishop Wilson   7   Tryon Edwards   8   George Washington   9   Gerrit Smith   10   H.Bushell   11  S.I.Brime  

2003

 

H.F.828

 

 

 

 

 

 ENGLAND

 

Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEFENDERS OF THE REALM

The New Battle For Britain

Southbank House, Black Prince Road, London SE1 7SJ

Tel. 0297 793 4049  Fax. 0207 463 2008

 

EURO-CONSTITUTION DUE TO BE IMPOSED

ON

JUNE 13TH 2004

 

     DO YOU KNOW THIS WILL SPELL THE END OF UK SELF – GOVERNMENT, THE MONARCHY AND OUR INDEPENDENCE?

  • DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEING DISENFRANCHISED AND BETRAYED BY OUR POLITICIANS?

  • DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE 2000 BILLION POUND PENSION DEFICIT IN EU COUNTRIES? THAT’S ON TOP OF OUR OWN 380 BILLION POUND DEFICIT.

  • ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS, TRAFFIC CONGESTION?  BUT DO YOU KNOW BY NEXT JUNE, 73 MILLION MORE EU CITIZENS WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO COME TO BRITAIN AND DRAW BENEFITS OR TAKE BRITISH JOBS?

  • DO YOU KNOW THIS EU-CON-STITUTION IS UNLAWFUL UNDER UK LAW

  • DO YOU KNOW YOU CAN HELP TO STOP THIS NONSENSE IF ENOUGH PEOPLE REFUSE TO ACCEPT UNLAWFUL DEMANDS?

  • IF YOU CARE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY’S FREEDOM, WILL YOU HELP DEFEND OUR RIGHTS & LIBERTIES AND INSIST THAT OUR OWN CONSTITUTION IS UPHELD? 

  •       THEN SUPPORT THE DEFENDERS OF THE REALM

 

Please contact us without delay for further information- we urgently need volunteers throughout the country to help raise funds, promote a national petition to the Queen and stand up for Britain.

 

Vice Presidents: Lord Morris, Edward Fox OBE, Norris Mcwhirter CBE, Chairman: John Gouriet. Directors: Robin de Crittenden, Roy Faiers- Treasurer, C.J.K. Arkell FTCA, Frederick Forsythe CBE, Legal Advisor: John Bingley.

  

Petition to Her Majesty the Queen

 

Your Majesty,

 

We, the undersigned citizens of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, are deeply concerned about the survival of our national independence and democracy; we therefore respectfully petition You, our Sovereign, to uphold the vows You made before God and your people at your Coronation, to govern and defend us according to our laws and customs.

 

We further petition Your Majesty to refuse Royal Assent, as is your lawful right and duty, to any law that threatens, weakens or diminishes our sovereignty by seeking, for example, to impose an EU constitution in primacy over our long established British Constitution; and to be prepared to dissolve Parliament should your ministers challenge your authority or act in breach of our Constitution,

 

SIGNATURE                                                        NAME & ADDRESS  (Capitals)

 

1.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

2.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………....

4.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

5.

…………………………………..………………………………………………………………..….

6.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

8.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Note: Please sign this Petition once only, but encourage others to sign if they wish to register their concerns for the sovereign independence and democratic future of Great Britain. When completed, please return this form to;

 

Battle for Britain, Southbank House, Black Prince Road, LONDON SE1 7SJ

 

In due course the Petition will be sent in bulk to HM the Queen (or Parliament as relevant). Names and addresses will not be passed on to any other source. If you would like further copies of this Petition to distribute, please write to the above address stating number required. You may also photocopy this form provided no alterations are made to the text.

If you wish to support our continuing campaign to restore the primacy of Britain’s Constitution and Rule of Law, please send your name and address with any donation made payable to ‘Constitutional Challenge’. All donations will be acknowledged.

 

 

PETITION TO HM THE QUEEN

 

PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION

 

1.  The British Constitution and Rule of Law are paramount and must be invariably upheld by all who bear allegiance to the Crown.

2.  No one is above the law.

3.  The authority of the Crown and Parliament is limited by the British Constitution

4.  No Government or Parliament has authority to;

a.   Place the Sovereign in breach of Her Coronation Oath and contract to rule according to our law and custom.

b.  Transfer British sovereignty to a foreign power that claims primacy over us.

5.  The Sovereign has power to refuse Royal Assent to any legislation that threatens, diminishes or surrenders the people’s sovereignty, their rights, liberties, customs and independence.

6.  The Sovereign has power to dissolve Parliament and call elections.

7.  The people have a right to petition the Sovereign and/or Parliament to obtain remedy and preserve the rule of law.

8.  In the event of failure by the Sovereign and/or Parliament to provide remedy to genuine grievance, or in the event of unlawful governance or legislation the people may withhold allegiance until a remedy has been secured.

 *

On the 27th October, 2007  at the Rally and March opposite YOUR Houses of Parliament an opportunity to show to Mr Brown that our Ancient Constitution is inviolate and cannot be extinguished by a British Prime Minister even with the consent of the people because it belongs to future generations as by right of INHERITANCE.

Your presence at the Rally and March  opposite the House on Saturday 27th October, 2007 will be your answer to the TRAITORS in YOUR PARLIAMENT at WESTMINSTER that our INHERITANCE is SAFE in the HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.

 

THE DAY IS HERE -DON'T WASTE IT. YOUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY DEPEND ON YOU!

19th October, 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A MEDLEY OF EU MATTERS

OCTOBER-2008

*

[We have found 1931 bulletins with the word DEMOCRACY and over 600 with CABINET out of over 2000 bulletins on our website so the subject is one which demands the attention it is rightly given.]

A Constitution millions have died for is at greater risk now than any time in it’s over a Thousand years of history.

*

DANGERS OF A SUPREME CABINET

 *

NON-AGRESSION PACT WITH LABOUR BY MR NICE-GUY- DAVE WILL LEAD TO A ONE PARTY STATE.

*

WHILE TONY BLAIR IS ON HIS KNEES APOLOGISING FOR OUR PAST OUR ENEMIES ARE ON THEIR KNEES IN JOY AND EXHALTATION .

*

A Fabian Europhile of 1947 supported Independent Nation-States and the Rule of Law. [G.D.Cole]

*

Almost everything, which is most precious in our Civilisation, has come from small States. [Lord-Peter Shaw]

*

WHY THE QUEEN MUST STAND UP TO BLAIR

*

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, to Edward Heath, prior to the ACCEPTANCE by PARLIAMENT of the TREATY of ROME.

*

Neil Kinnock in glover-but failed to stop the shadow of graft over the EU's £68bn spending

*

Cost of EU to UK -£4,811 million in 2003 = 40 District Hospitals equiped and staffed and funded.

*

Our Queen & EU Constitution

*

THREE PARTIES have more in COMMON with EACH OTHER

*

The New European Treaty is no ordinary Treaty it will destroy your 1400 years unique Free Nation-State

*

Neil Kinnock sacked honest Auditor because of refusal to sign off questionable EU ACCOUNTS [It is now the 14th year that the EU has been unable to get its ACCOUNTS PASSED. Would any business in the UK get away with it for one year let alone 14.

*

CABINET TYRANNY v CLARE SHORT MP

*

TONY BLAIR one of the MOST DISREPUTABLE-DUPLICITOUS and DISHONEST PRIME MINISTERS IN BRITISH HISTORY

*

HOUSE OF TOADIES

*

THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

*

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM which CANNOT BE ABUSED -IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

*

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

*

Nor shall my sword

*

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

 

*

OCTOBER-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

 

*

FOR THE RETURN

OF THE

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

AT

WESTMINSTER

AND

 

 

 [A NEW BRITISH PARLIAMENT EQUIDISTANT FROM WALES AND SCOTLAND]

 

*

 

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

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined capitals - words have a separate bulletin]

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A REMINDER

 

 

 

 

 

HOW WE TOOK A WRONG TURN ON JANUARY 1-1973

*

THE WAY WE WERE

THE BRITISH POLITICAL TRADITION

The Concept of Empire

BURKE TO ATTLEE

1774-1947

Edited by

George Bennett

*

LONDON

ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

79

J.A.FROUDE. Oceana-1886

[Below an excerpt which we feel appropriate to mention with

BREXIT

in mind.]

Page 297- Concept of Empire. -1947

 ' IMPOSSIBILITY ' is a word of politicians who are without the wish or without the capacity to comprehend new conditions. An 'empire' of Oceana there cannot be. The English race do not like to be parts of an empire [or a European Union in our day] But a 'commonwealth' of Oceana held together by

COMMON BLOOD

COMMON INTEREST

and a common pride in the great position which

UNITY can secure-such a commonwealth as this may grow of itself if politicians

CAN BE INDUCED TO LEAVE IT ALONE.

...It has become doubtful even to the political economist whether England [1886] can trust entirely to free trade and competition to keep the place which she has hitherto held.  Other nations press us with their rivalries. Expenses increase, manufactures languish or cease to profit. Revenue, once so expansive, becomes stationary. 'Business' may probably will, blaze up again, but the growth of it can no longer [1886] be regarded as constant, while population increase and hungry stomachs multiply, requiring the three meals a day whatever the condition of the markets. Hence those among us who have disbelieved all along that a great nation can venture its whole fortunes safely on the power of underselling its neighbours in calicoes and ironwork no longer address a public opinion entirely cold.  It  begins to be admitted that were Canada and South Africa and Australia and New Zealand members of one body with us, with a free flow of our population into them , We might sit secure against shifts and changes.  In the multiplying number of our own fellow citizens animated by a common spirit, we should have purchasers for our goods from whom we fear no rivalry; we should turn in upon them the tide of our emigrants[1886] which now flows away, while the emigrants themselves  would thrive under their own fig tree, and  rear children with stout limbs and colour in their cheeks, and a chance before them of a human existence.  Oceana would then rest on sure foundations; and her navy - the hand of strength and the symbol of her unity- would ride securely in self-supporting stations in the four quarters of the globe [1886].

*

WILLIAM HUSKISSON . Speech on moving for a Select Committee on the Civil Government of Canada

House of Commons,3 May, 1828.

Sir, England is the parent of many flourishing colonies-one of them is become an empire among the most powerful in the world. In  every quarter of the globe we have planted the seeds of freedom, civilisation, and Christianity.  To every  quarter of the globe we have carried the language, the free institutions, the system of laws, which prevail in this country; - in every quarter they are fructifying and making progress; and if it be said by some selfish calculator, that we have done all this at the expense of sacrifices which we ought not to have made, my answer is,- in spite of these sacrifices, we are still the first and happiest people in the old world; and, whilst this is our lot, let us rejoice rather in that rich harvest of glory, which must belong to a nation that has laid the foundation of similar happiness and prosperity in other nations, kindred in blood, in habits, and in feelings to ourselves. [1828]

Ibid., Vol iii.pp286-7

*

126: CLEMENT R. ATTLEE. Speech in the House of Commons

15 March 1946

 

...We should be conscious that the British have done a great work in India. We have united India and given her that sense of nationality which she so very largely lacked over the previous centuries,. She had learned from us principles of democracy and justice. When Indians attack our rule, they base their attack, not on Indian principles, but on the basis of standards derived from Britain. I was struck the other day in the United States, at a dinner where I met a number of distinguished Americans, including a very distinguished Indian, where the talk was turning on the way in which principles worked out here have been applied on the Continent of America.  It was pointed out that America had a great heritage from Britain.  My Indian friend said to me, " You know, the Americans sometimes forget there is another great nation that has also inherited these principles and traditions, and that is India.  We feel that we have a duty, a right and a privilege because we also bring to the world and work those very principles that you evolved in Britain."

Hansard, Fifth Series, Vol. 420, cs.1421-2.

*

[That is why by joining the EU  on January 1-1973 England renounced her historic PAST to become a tool of its planned mischief maker, our enemy of

TWO WORLD WARS

-Adolf Hitler

 H.F.1211-BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 10 will be relieved it has an early opportunity to cultivate relations given that May’s leadership rival Boris Johnson is now signed up to the Daily Telegraph, where his last column on fully veiled Muslim women was so controversial that it dominated the political conversation for a week. While it was criticised by high-profile party liberals, it was popular with many members, already unhappy with May’s Chequers Brexit compromise.

Part of Greig’s initial thinking is that, by next March, when Britain is due to leave the European Union, some of the heat will have come out of the leave/remain debate – or at least it will become less binary and more complex, a discussion about where the country should head next.

But it is also influenced by a desire not to give Dacre any satisfaction that his approach accurately reflected the mood of a large section of the nation. The tabloid campaigned relentlessly for leave during the referendum, characterising the opposing campaign as “Project Fear” and attacking anybody it perceived as frustrating Brexit, branding three high court judges “enemies of the people” after they ruled that parliament had to vote to trigger article 50.

A week after Dacre’s departure was announced, he fired a warning shot to Greig in the Spectator, writing: “Support for Brexit is in the DNA of both the Daily Mail and, more pertinently, its readers. Any move to reverse this would be editorial and commercial suicide.”

The tabloid sold 1.26 million copies a day in June and while sales in recent years have fallen in line with all printed newspapers, it remains Britain’s second-bestselling title after the Sun and is arguably its most politically influential. Greig knows that Dacre, who will be based on the sixth floor, where Rothermere has his office, will be studying the sales figures closely.

Greig has assembled a small group of loyalists to help him to assert his grip on a paper where almost everybody owes their career to Dacre. Gerard Greaves and Tobyn Andreae, who have previously worked on the Mail on Sunday, will be his deputies, while the City editor, Ruth Sunderland, is also being brought over.

The most significant appointment, however, is that of the Mail on Sunday’s political editor, Simon Walters, as assistant editor. He moves after 19 years in Westminster to the paper’s Derry Street headquarters, where he will become Greig’s chief political commentator and adviser. Walters, a seasoned story chaser who is well known across all wings of the Tory party, is not regarded as an ideologue in the Brexit debate. But he has long been carefully attuned to Greig’s thinking and will be used by the new editor to help assert the emerging editorial line.

Greig’s editorship ended on a melancholy note, however. He rushed off early as he finished his final edition of the Mail on Sunday to be at the bedside of his friend, writer VS Naipaul, who died shortly after he visited him yesterday.
 

*

[THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG UK  IS INDEBTED TO MR DACRE AND THE DAILY MAIL WITHOUT WHICH THE EDP WOULD HAVE FOUND ITS TASK TO SEE THE RETURN OF ENGLAND AS AN INDEPENDENT NATION STATE EVEN MORE TOILSOME THAN IT HAS BEEN OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS.  WE THANK HIM FOR HIS HISTORIC DECISION TO SUPPORT THE BREXIT CAUSE AT SUCH A CRUCIAL MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.

 WE WISH HIM EVERY SUCCESS IN HIS NEW ROLE.]

*  *  *

[THE   ENGLISH CONSTITUTION HAS MANY ADHERENTS COVERING MUCH OF THE WORLD AND THE DECISION BY A NAZI TRAITOR WITHIN IN 1973 MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WITH DISBELIEF KNOWING THE UNIQUENESS OF THAT SACRED INHERITANCE PASSED BY ITS FOREBEARS TO THE PRESENT GENERATION IN KEEPING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.  WE CAN UNDERSTAND OUR COUNTRY BEING WITHIN AN ASSOCIATION OF FREE FRIENDLY STATES

BUT

BEING A CAPTIVE STATE WITHIN A FOREIGN CONSTITUTION DEVISED BY THE LEADER OF NAZI GERMANY ADOLF HITLER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY ANY TRUE ENGLISHMAN.

WE FIND IT MYSTERIOUS THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL COULD GIVE UP THEIR COUNTRY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. AFTER ALL, AS WE NOW OBSERVE IN  2018 MANY OF THE CAPTIVE ONCE FREE NATION STATES IN EUROPE THE EMERGENCE OF A CRY FOR LIBERTY WHICH MANY NATIONS HAD RECEIVED ASSISTANCE AT OUR HANDS OVER THE PAST 300 YEARS.]

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1688

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

LITTLEJOHN

We need a fearless leader to deliver

BREXIT

- Nigel Farage:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN believes the former Ukip leader should be an integral part of the process after campaigning for so long

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly

Enoch Powell said famously that all political careers end in failure. Nigel Farage should have proved him wrong.

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly.

Up to a point.

The magnificent Leave victory in 2016 was a vindication of Farage’s virtually single-handed campaign to get Britain out of the EU.

Yes, others can also take credit. But Farage was the figurehead, often a lone voice in the wilderness. 

No one had to endure the vilification and violence directed at Farage as he took his message around the country year after year, well before Call Me Dave finally buckled and gave the people a long-overdue referendum.

Fifteen years ago, when I was presenting a nightly show on Sky News, I was about the only broadcaster who would give him a regular platform. The mainstream media treated him as a pariah — at best a circus act, at worst a neo-Nazi. 

This was around the time that New Labour was almost unanimously agreed to have established a 1,000-year reich and opposition to our glorious future as a European statelet was considered futile.

Aside from a few principled players in the Conservative Party — former leader and one-time Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith prominent among them — the political establishment wholeheartedly embraced the EU project. 

But Farage kept banging away, making mischief in Brussels, where he’d managed to get himself elected as an MEP and used his position to ridicule the pompous panjandrums running the show.

Who can forget his wonderful denunciation of the ridiculous Herman Van Rompuy, self-styled former European ‘president’?

‘You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk . . . Who are you? I’d never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.

‘I would like to ask you, President, who voted for you . . . oh, I know democracy’s not popular with you lot, and what mechanism do the people of Europe have to remove you?

‘Is this European democracy? You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states — perhaps that’s because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country . . .

‘Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying: We don’t know you, we don’t want you, and the sooner you’re put out to grass, the better.’

The Westminster bubble was horrified. How dare this upstart show such a lack of respect to our European masters? But out in the suburbs and the shires, and on the rundown council estates in the North of England, millions of decent British citizens gave a silent cheer.

Call Me Dave dismissed Farage’s Ukip as a collection of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. It was a cruel caricature, but partly accurate. Ukip’s annual conference certainly resembles a roomful of Hyacinth Buckets and men who model themselves on the Major in Fawlty Towers.

But Ukip was on a roll — and by now Farage was a ubiquitous presence in radio and TV studios, even if he was often only there as an Aunt Sally, to be shouted at by self-righteous presenters and panellists alike.

Yet Farage stood up to the verbal slings and arrows, and to the nasty physical abuse he frequently had to endure. Cigarette in one hand, pint of best in the other, he kept on plugging away.

In the 2015 General Election, Ukip polled almost four million votes, a large chunk of them in former Labour strongholds in the North, which felt ignored and abandoned and had suffered the greatest impact from mass immigration.

Farage’s ‘fruitcakes’ didn’t make a parliamentary breakthrough but they delivered the Tories their first Commons majority since 1992, simply by denying Labour seats they had taken for granted.

Now, Cameron feared, they were coming for the Tories, so he panicked and promised a referendum on EU membership. 

Say what you like about Call Me Dave, but this was his greatest gift to the people of Britain, an opportunity we seized, asserting our sovereignty and overturning the decades-old project of submerging our country into an anti-democratic United States of Europe.

 

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be

Cameron’s gamble backfired. He resigned immediately and is now reduced to scraping a living on the international lecture circuit, essentially a political end-of-the-pier show.

Next week, he’s playing a small town theatre in Florida, but has sold fewer seats than its current production, Million Dollar Quartet, a jukebox musical featuring hits by Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis.

In the States, where they value national independence, Farage is a folk hero, a bigger draw than our former Prime Minister.

And yet.

OK, so the referendum wouldn’t have been won without Boris, Gove and the brave career politicians who dared to defy the Establishment stitch-up. But without Farage, there would have been no referendum, nor would there have been any Brexit.

What kind of Brexit, if any, remains to be seen. Which, presumably, is why Farage is now muttering about making a comeback as part of a Ukip Mark II.

The corpse of the old Ukip is still twitching, but without Farage it’s nothing. The party’s on its third post-Farage leader, no one you’ve ever heard of, and he’s on the way out over a few incendiary tweets sent by some dopey bird half his age he’s got himself hooked up with. I can’t be bothered to go into details, because it’s a waste of time.

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be.

One of the reasons Ukip imploded was because those four million voters returned to the two main parties, both of which made manifesto promises to implement Brexit in full, yet now seem hell-bent on either reneging or watering it down so far it becomes meaningless.

So I understand and share Farage’s concern. As I’ve said all along, the fix has been in since the result of the referendum was announced. The political class have stolen our biggest vote in history for anything and made it all about them — not the people they are paid to serve.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of them to deliver the Brexit we voted for. If the vast majority of MPs had their way, they’d stop the whole process in its tracks today. When Theresa May succeeded Call Me Dave, she should have established a grand cross-party coalition to negotiate our departure, including heroic Labour figures such as Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey.

But the central player should have been Farage, a man who knows his way around Brussels and scares the EU to death.

He’d never have put up with the contemptuous treatment being meted out to Britain by Michel Barnier and his ‘damp-rag, low-grade bank clerk’ bureaucrats.

Instead, we’re stuck with Mother Theresa, who spent the referendum hiding behind the sofa and still won’t say whether she’d vote Leave if it was held today.

Her new de facto deputy, David Lidington, is a full-on federast, already speculating we could rejoin the EU at some stage. Rejoin? We haven’t even left yet — and never will, other than in name only, if the political establishment prevails.

Even David Davis seems to have gone native and Boris has been banished to the outer darkness, certainly when it comes to Brexit. In what kind of Fred Karno government is the Foreign Secretary excluded from the biggest foreign policy issue facing the country in modern history?

Never mind Boris, though. Mrs May should be making plans for Nigel, bringing him into the fold, allowing him to be an integral part of the very Brexit process for which he has campaigned so long, so hard and so selflessly.

He doesn’t need a knighthood, or a sinecure in the Lords — each of which would have been a traditional reward for his service to this country. Given the fuss over Mrs Thatcher’s memorial, I suppose a statue in Parliament Square is out of the question, too.

But what is beyond doubt is that, after Thatcher, Farage is the most influential, most significant British political figure since Churchill — much more so than the Westminster pygmies and time-servers who treat him with unwarranted disdain.

Ukip, the party he led, may be sleeping with the fishes, but if there is any justice, Farage’s career deserves to end in triumph.

Let’s hope Enoch was wrong.

 


Read more:   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300489/We-need-fearless-leader-deliver-Brexit-Nigel-Farage.html#ixzz55RBjzeYS

 

H.F.1460

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

The Commonwealth Realms  V  The Constitution for Europe. - Part 1

 

inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of nations… united by the common allegiance to the Crown”

 

The Statute of Westminster 1931

 

A Paper delivered to a meeting held in the House of Lords London on the 21st April 2004.

 

By

 

Philip Benwell MBE

   

The Commonwealth Realms

 

Antigua and Barbuda          New Zealand

Australia                                Papua New Guinea

Bahamas                                Saint Kitts

Barbados                                Saint Vincent

Belize                                      Solomon Islands

Canada                                   Tobago Tuvalu

Grenada                                  Tonga

Nevis Saint Lucia                    United Kingdom

 

 

*          *          *

 

My Lords, Ladies & Gentlemen,

 

My task tonight is not to take sides on whether we should be in or out of Europe, but rather to explore what I consider to be the real danger to the Commonwealth of Australia and the fourteen Commonwealth Realms.

 

The issues relating to individual sovereignties are indeed complex, particularly since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 which was enacted to provide for the maturing independence of those former colonies who remained ‘under The Crown of the United Kingdom’ which were termed ‘Dominions’, so named in 1907 as ‘the self-governing dominions beyond the seas’ to replace the term ‘Great Colonies’ and which today comprise the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, each having unique constitutions with precedents and conventions developed to suit their individual environments and peoples.

 

For instance, Canada is still essentially a ‘Royalist’ nation whereas Australia is not; and this is probably due to the comparative physical closeness of Canada to the United Kingdom and its greater number of Royal Visits, a privilege Australia has little experience of, due to our distance and the length of travel time to reach us.

 

This may explain why Australia has a more constitutional – and lesser Royalist-approach to our Monarchy than Canada.  We tend to recognise The Crown as but an ingredient –albeit vital – within our system of Government.  It is this more sterile approach that has led Monarchists to explain that the Governor-General is effectively Australia’s Head of State with the Queen as Sovereign, whereas Canada still unashamedly recognises The Queen as their head of State.

 

In the years leading up to 1931, the former British Prime Minister, Arthur, later lord Balfour, formulated a treaty between the United Kingdom and the then Dominions to encompass the views expressed during the preceding Imperial Conferences, particularly that of 1926.  The Conferences had been held in London between the United Kingdom Government and representatives of the Governments of the Dominions who were calling for a relaxation of control, which continued to be exerted by the British Government following their independence, particularly with regard to the decision of who would nominate their respective Governors-General.

 

It was this Treaty, which was consolidated into an Act of the British Government called the Statute of Westminster, which was adopted by the then Dominions, which included Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand.

 

The independent sovereignty of the Realms was clearly shown at the time of the Constitutional Referendum in 1999, for if Australia was not in charge of its own affairs, how else could the people themselves decide whether or not to retain The Crown?

 

The concerns now facing Australia go far beyond the Republican / Monarchist divisions caused by the Referendum.  Whilst the British Parliament no longer has any right to legislate over the affairs of Australia, it is fettered from taking certain actions relating to the Crown of the United Kingdom and is specifically barred from legislating in matters of the Succession and the Royal Styles and Titles.

 

In Zurich in September 1946, Churchill, still in Opposition, explained his motivation in working for Union: “When the Nazi power was broken, I asked myself what was the best advice I could give my fellow citizens in our ravaged and exhausted continent.  My counsel to Europe can be given in a single word: Unite!”

 

[Winston Churchill also stated in his Zurich speech his feelings of his own country when he said:

 

We are with Europe but not a part of it.

 

We are linked but not combined.

 

We’re interested but not absorbed”]

 

*

  

In Volume IV of his ‘The Second World War’ Churchill wrote:

“Hard as it is to say now, I trust that the European Family may act united as one under a Council of Europe…I look forward to a United States of Europe in which the barriers between nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible. I hope to see the economy of Europe studied as a whole.”

 

It was thus that Churchill founded the United Europe Movement in 1947 and it was Churchill who brought together persons of influence to create a bi –partisan committee and it was Churchill who persuaded France to allow a defeated Germany into the Alliance.  Indeed had not Churchill thrown his weight behind the early meetings the entire concept of a united Europe may have become a forgotten segment of history?

 

Churchill, of course, knew that Britain had to provide the leadership in bringing the war-torn nations of Europe together and that in ding so there would be some loss of sovereignty.  Britain has been entering into treaties for nigh on a thousand years or more, all of which have resulted in a loss of some sovereignty.

 

There is a statement attributed to Churchill: 

 If the choice for Britain is Europe or the open sea, then Britain must choose the open sea.”

 

This, however, has been taken from a conversation Churchill had with de Gaulle in 1944 and is often quoted out of context to indicate his opposition to European Union.  It is not necessary to take Churchill’s comments out of context for it was never in his mind that Britain would ever become a State subservient to a United Europe.

 

And certainly not at the expense of the Empire and Commonwealth, but rather that Britain had to take the lead, jointly with the United States of America, in the reconstruction of Europe.  [Elsewhere in our Bulletins we have emphasised that the USA from the beginning of their support for a United Europe wished to include the UK in a Federal Union.]  

When in Government, Churchill seemed to lose interest in European Union.  This was possibly because the Marshall Plan was working, but more probably because he was then in full command of the facts and he vehemently disagreed with the more extensive plans of pro-Unionists and would never be convinced that the sacrifice of British Sovereignty would be worth anything Europe could offer Britain.  It was not until Harold Macmillan became Conservative Prime Minister that Union was pursued by Britain with full vigour at whatever cost.

 

Macmillan, of course, had been with Churchill as Churchill sought solutions to rebuild a war-torn Europe, but unlike Churchill, Macmillan never took into account the dangers of full integration.

 

Macmillan was not the British Bulldog that Churchill was.  He was a Conservative as such and in his younger days had flirted with many different ideologies, including Mosley’s National Socialism and Roman Catholicism.

 

For over fifty years, the British Parliament has been debating and legislating over matters pertaining to its entry into Union with Europe.  That there are economic benefits to Britain in a European Trading Bloc cannot be denied.  That there are disadvantages also cannot be denied.  Today (21st April 2004) however, we are not just talking about an economic Union, but a political one, one that denies, indeed saps, the natural right of member states to legislate and administer themselves without external interference or authority.  It is this, which is the greatest challenge to the independence of Britain’s sovereignty, and it is this, which provides a possible danger to the integrity of the Crown of the United Kingdom, without which the independent constitutions of the fifteen Commonwealth Realms cannot survive.  That is the question to be analysed tonight.

 

End of Part 1

Click Here for Part 2

 

*

 

FEBRUARY 5-2016

H.F.700/1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.F.1842

 

 

 

 

THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

 

ENGLAND

'The present must be balanced on the wings of the past and the future, and that as you stretch out the one you stretch out the other to strength.' 

 Wordsworth

 

'WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.'

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

 

[THE PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT IN 2015 IS SHOWN IN MANY TOWNS AND CITIES IN OUR ONCE FAMILIAR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE EU AND MASS IMMIGRATION FROM

 

FOREIGN CULTURES LEADING TO FOREIGN ENCLAVES

WITH THEIR BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 AND MORE IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES  AND FROM  ELSEWHERE WILL UNLESS FIRM DECISIVE ACTION IS TAKEN NOW! WILL LEAD TO A FOREIGN TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY WITHIN A FEW GENERATIONS . WE HAVE SEEN SOME EXAMPLES ON HOW THEY CAPITALISE ON THEIR CUSTOMARY ELECTION TACTICS ONCE DESCRIBED BY A JUDGE INVESTIGATING ELECTION FRAUD IN A LABOUR CONSTITUENCY IN BIRMINGHAM AND WOULD FIT EVENTS RECENTLY IN

TOWER+HAMLETS

AS AN EXAMPLE OF A

BANANA REPUBLIC.  

 

THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN

TONY BLAIR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

Freedom 

 http://FreedomKeys.com


Keys
a collection of amusing, 
fascinating, insightful, or 
maybe even useful information

   

Professor R. J. Rummel, who keeps track of such things, now estimates that in the 20th century

262,000,000

people were murdered by their own governments.  And all these horrors were perpetrated by collectivist governments for the alleged sake of "the proletariat," the "master race," and especially, "the greater good."

None were done by countries based

on

individualism

 

See:  http://tinyurl.com/RJRummel

WAR-MONGERS

[The Zionist led USA with its poodle England has illegally invaded Islamic countries for their own gain with no thought for future consequences.  Those individuals such as George Bush and Tony Blair are WAR CRIMINALS as are those who follow their despicable and illegal actions which must surely one day bring them before the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT for 'RIGHT JUSTICE' to be delivered for their grievous WAR CRIMES.  But for Parliament's VETO! of David Cameron's attempt to send British Forces into SYRIA he too would have joined the band of war criminals above. The billions spent on illegal wars such as Kosovo and many others in the Arab world could have been used to raise the STANDARD OF LIVING of the PEOPLE instead of making the RICH even RICHER while the rest of the population are struggling to make ends meet.  We believe that we should have efficient ARMED FORCES to PROTECT our ISLAND HOME but NOT! for ILLEGAL excursions around the WORLD.

PARASITES OF THE PUBLIC PURSE

-YOUR HARD-EARNED TAXES.

 

 The PUBLIC PURSE with the growing PUBLIC SECTOR has been and still is being squandered on PUBLIC SERVANTS for far too long. The recent example of MP's receiving a £30,000 payment at the end of their term which can be repeated should the same circumstances arise is a blatant case of

 'ROBBERY of the PUBLIC PURSE'

There have been many examples of CIVIL SERVANTS-PUBLIC OFFICIALS leaving a position with a severance pay only to shortly or even immediately obtain another job with in some examples it appears like a merry-go-round of

GREED!

 to which we are sure the TAXPAYERS are none to happy with many of them finding that they must 'tighten their belts' but for those in PUBLIC SERVICE it can be a LOTTERY WIN on every occasion . The reason why this practice continues is because those making the decisions on such matters are

NOT!

INDEPENDENT PROTECTORS OF THE PUBLIC PURSE]

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 UK voting system' ignores will of millions'

by

BRITAIN'S voting system is 'archaic' and divisive' and does not represent the will of millions, a pressure group has argued. The Electoral Reform Society, which has campaigned for proportional representation for 130 years, claimed last month's General Election was the most disproportionate ever.  It said UKIP would have WON up to 80 seats using the type of PR used in many European nations, while the GREENS would have got 20.  UKIP and the GREENS received 5MILLION VOTES, but under the FIRST-PAST-THE-POST system ended up with ONE MP each.  An E R S-commissioned survey said under PR the TORIES would have seen their tally of MPs fall  by almost 100 while  LABOUR would have gone down 24...

[MONTHLY BULLETIN CHART UNTIL REFERENDUM ON EU -LATEST MAY 2017 -AT FOOT OF PAGE!    ASAP!  

SEE HERE!   ]

 

&

 

WE ASK ON OCTOBER 30,2015

WHAT PROGRESS have the SMALL PARTIES MADE to COMBINE to FIGHT this

GROSS INJUSTICE?

 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

 

*

 

Elections in the British One Party State

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Martin for the Daily Mail -Chief Political Correspondent-JUNE 2-2015.

 

*

 

City Mile of London -an independent state-a hotbed of

TREASON-INTRIGUE-GREED-MURDER-CONSPIRACY

 for over 300 years.]

&

How The Crown Rules the World

 

H.F.

 

 
 

 

 

FREE SPEECH

 

 

 

DEMONISED!

 

IT IS TIME TO TELL THE 'WOKE' BRIGADE

 TO GO TO

HELL!

 

 

['WOKE' IS AN INSIDIOUS DISEASE OF THE MIND WHICH MUST BE BROKEN! FOR JOHN MILTON WARNED DURING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR THAT ONLY FREE SPEECH WILL SEEK OUT THE TRUTH]

 

 

 

 

IN 1945 THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT-FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1882-1945)

 

 

STATED:

 

'A world founded upon four essential freedoms

 

 

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world

 

 

The second is freedom of every person to worship god in his own way-everywhere in the world.

 

 

The third is freedom from want...everywhere in the world.

 

 

The fourth is freedom from fear...anywhere in the world

 

 

( Speech,6 January,1941)

 

 

*

 

[Since that time  the scourge of political correctness has embedded its insidious doctrine into the LAW of once FREE SPEECH DEMOCRACIES the  FIGHT BACK must BEGIN-NOW!- TO RECOVER OUR INHERITED RIGHT BELONGING TO  A FREE DEMOCRATIC NATION STATE.

 

 

It has been long stated that a BAD LAW which is IGNORED by a large  part of the nation is NO LONGER A LAW.]

 

 

THE BATTLE FOR FREE SPEECH

MUST NOW

BEGIN!]

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

Broadcaster John Humphrys lifts the lid on 'institutional ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7487661/amp/Broadcaster-John...

John Humphrys today lifts the lid ... ‘Management’ has become a dark art and its practitioners too often leave common sense at the door of the board room. They use language mere humans ...

 Britain's in the grip of a sinister new censorship: 'cancellation' of celebrities deemed to have transgressed the moral code of a self-appointed, self-righteous mob.

BUT IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO FIGHT BACK...

H.F.2047

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

 

TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUALS

[WHY THERE IS SO MUCH STRIFE IN THE WORLD SINCE  THE 1920s]

"From the savage flowering of ethnic and religious hatreds in the Middle East and throughout Europe today to the mendacious demand for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on college campuses everywhere in the WEST, the treason of the intellectuals continue to play out its unedifying drama..."

-Roger Kimball.

 

Arrives: July 18 - 20 Details
 

Fastest delivery: Wednesday, July 15 Details

 

*  *  *

 

 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the

 

TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

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

 

H.F. 1325.

 

 

 

*

If this article makes you angry how can you argue that Multiculturalism is not designed to polarize society?

E Pluribus Unum?

 

This is banned but separation is not

Multiculturalism is the policy of encouraging the separate development of several cultures within a nation state. It is not about having Curry Houses and Balti restaurants, these just make for a varied national culture, it is not about hip hop or the Chinese New Year, multiculturalism is about encouraging people from different backgrounds to develop separately from the rest of society. Multiculturalism is not about diversity, it is a political movement with a clear and deliberate policy of deconstructing national cultures in favour of many separate cultures. It is a sad truth that 90% of those who say they support multiculturalism are actually anti-racist and pro-diversity: they have got no idea that when they say they support "multiculturalism" they are supporting a subversive political and philosophical movement within Western countries. It is probably the support of this ignorant faction that has allowed Multiculturalism, which is another word for "separate development" (in Afrikaans 'apartheid'), to become so embedded in Britain.

 

 

Multiculturalism in Britain was a policy implemented by New Labour with the intention of creating a revolutionary tension and change in society. It was a Soviet policy that was released in instruction packs distributed to the various, subversive, university "socialist societies" in the nineteen seventies, at the height of the Cold War. The policy was intended to destabilise the West. (See The Roots of New Labour). It failed in its primary objective because the British are a tolerant culture. It is amazing that British journalists, especially in the television media and BBC, have supported this policy with such zeal although this is probably due to the fact that many of these individuals also have roots in the British left wing movements of the 1970s and that multiculturalism is now seen as an 'answer' to how to accommodate nationalities within political unions such as the EU, Russian Empire and Chinese Empire.

Multiculturalism was more fully characterised in the work of the philosopher Jacques Derrida who proposed that the polarization of society should be an objective of social policy. Derrida was a malevolent force in modern philosophy whose ideas were largely designed to damage social structures. Curiously governments have permitted the appointment of post Marxist post modernists who support the ideas of Derrida to chairs in sociology and education in western universities so that social policy is now being guided by many people who believe that the objective of social policy should be the destruction of a structured society.  Political commentators have not realised that socialism now relies on racial tension, not class war, to exacerbate political difference and create conflict (see Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism).

Apart from the obvious ill-effects of polarising people into ghettoes and opposing groups Multiculturalism also has some serious adverse effects that result from the fact that almost all non-western cultures have not undergone the changes that result from exposure to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Examples of the adverse effects of multiculturalism are: failure to identify with society at large, socialising solely with your co-religionists so depriving others in the neighbourhood of society, supporting the caste system and caste attitudes so that the poor are kept poor, excluding people from outside your culture from work, girls wearing restrictive clothing in school so that they cannot participate in the full range of lessons, forced marriage, setting up schools to teach Intelligent Design or Koranic ideas on biology so depriving children of a truthful education, supporting foreign powers against your own country so endangering our security etc. All of these adverse effects of multiculturalism and many, many more are evident in British life. The socialist elite argues that separate cultures within the UK should be encouraged to exercise these "freedoms" but each freedom that is encouraged within a separate culture deprives the whole of British society of other freedoms. Those who support multiculturalism generally just deny that these adverse effects will occur but some, such as the effects of restrictive clothing in young girls and the effects of a caste system etc. are simply inevitable because they are in the nature of those "freedoms".

Multicultural policies are apparent in a variety of institutions and exist wherever the intention is to increase the polarization and separation of people rather than to reduce it. The teaching of history in British schools has been heavily infiltrated and oriented towards polarization, for instance British children are taught about slavery and colonisation rather than about emancipation and the explosive development of European states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They are taught about the US Civil Rights movement, which has nothing to do with the British but upsets black people, rather than the peaceful decolonisation of much of the British Empire. They are taught about the persecution of the Jews rather than the heroic struggle of the British and the global British cultural zone against the Germans, Russians and their allies that saved the Jews. Some of the legislation that treats groups of people as minorities and victims also polarizes society. The recent extensions to Equalities legislation in the Equalities Act that outlaw political discussion about belief are also designed to polarize society.

The social tension caused by multiculturalism must now be repaired and wholesale immigration into the UK, which is already overcrowded, must be stopped (See The benefits of immigration to the UK economy). Multiculturalism has already caused the outbreaks of terrorism associated with Londonistan (many of the 9/11 terrorists stayed in the UK and the 7/7 terrorists were British) and will lead to worse problems as time goes on.

The coalition government has taken a sensible stand against multiculturalism (see State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron). The government should be supported in this stand and the New Labour appointed BBC governors and current affairs staff should be quietly removed to prevent the distorted coverage of the issue. Governments should oppose both institutional multiculturalism and institutional racism because apartheid is both a cause and a symptom of racism.

Many races in one culture is workable and may be desirable but separating the races into cultural ghettos will polarise society and cause perpetual strife, though not a full blown revolution and totalitarian government, as the originators of multiculturalism once hoped. It is time to finally cauterise the damage done to the social fabric of Britain by the Cold War and to move on to realist, liberal politics.

Multiculturalism has recently been adopted by those who are in favour of large scale political unions such as the EU as a desperate approach to the problem of the free movement of labour and how to contain multiple nationalities within a single state. This problem could be resolved by simply unwinding the EU back to the EEC without the destructive effects of multiculturalism.

If we continue with Multiculturalism we will end up with tribalism with all that that entails from corruption to nepotism to gangs, riots and terrorism.

The whole point of a modern nation with one culture was to stop these evils. Nations are the unit of cultural diversity and this must be respected.

See also:

The Roots of New Labour

Labour confirms that multiculturalism is bad

Diversity in the UK

A ranking of social evils 

Multiculturalism and truth

Nations are the unit of cultural diversity  

The Benefits of Immigration to the UK Economy

Against racism

The aims of Localism

 

 

 

 

 H.F.718/MULTICULTURALISM

 

H.F.2043

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT IF BRITAIN HADN'T JOINED THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

Daily Mail

SATURDAY ESSAY

by

Christopher Booker

 

 

On the 50th anniversary of the EUROPEAN UNION, a devastating analysis of what it's REALLY COST US.

 

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the

TREATY of ROME

-which launched what was eventually to become the

EUROPEAN UNION.

Whatever our European partners may get up to in commemorating this historic moment [calamity], in two month's time., it is safe  to predict that the celebrations here in Britain will be pretty muted. It is unlikely that cheering crowds will be turning  out to watch fireworks exploding over the Thames.

Although all our major political parties are totally wedded to our MEMBERSHIP

-of this vast political project, the EU's own polls have consistently shown that the PEOPLE of BRITAIN are less happy to be part of it than those of any other country in EUROPE.

 

 

[The dissenting voices from the PAST to our entrapment into the EEC]

 

[In 1963 the French President Charles de Gaulle declared that it would be impossible for Britain to join the EU because of its CUSTOMS -CONSTITUTION and HISTORY.]

 

Also

In 1963 in Britain - Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery

'I say we must not join Europe.'

 

Harold Wilson in 1961-To consider the Common Market in simple black and white terms.

 

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor warning of the danger to the country's SOVEREIGNTY, to Edward Heath, prior to the acceptance by Parliament of the TREATY of ROME.]

 

Mr George Thomas-Lord Tonypandy - Previous Speaker of the House of Commons-1976-83 -supports our Ancient Constitution and against our involvement in the so-called Common Market  in fact a pseudo for the  United States of Europe.

 

BE WARNED-'THE LIES of 1975-THAT STILL HAUNT US

 

*

 

 

Perhaps it may be timely therefore to mark this anniversary in our own way today, by asking what Britain would be like TODAY if, all those decades ago, our then-political leaders, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath, had NEVER taken us into it in the FIRST PLACE.

 

If we had NEVER entered the 'Common Market' back in 1973, would we now, as the Europhiles like to tell us, be just an impoverished little island standing sadly alone on the edge of Europe, gazing in envy at the success of the great project we were SO FOOLISH NOT TO JOIN?

Or is it possible that we might in 2007 be living in a Britain significantly richer, happier, freer, more democratic, more self-respecting and more at ease with itself THAN IT IS TODAY?

 

To imagine how Britain might have fared if we had never been drawn inti 'EUROPE'

-but remained on the outside as an INDEPENDENT Nation, like Norway and Switzerland - the two countries which have persistently refused to join -we must consider both what we are meant to have gained and also what we have lost.

And here we immediately come up against a paradox. The most obvious thing we didn't gain on entering the Common Market was the one benefit we were told was the main reason for joining

When Macmillan first decided to take us in back in the early Sixties, it was because Britain was suddenly suffering from a severe loss of self-confidence. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson observed in the forties,

-BRITAIN HAD LOST AN EMPIRE AND NOT YET FOUND A ROLE'.

 

POLITICALLY and economically we seemed as a nation to be spiralling downwards -and this was just when we could see those original six Common Market countries having made a miraculous recovery from the chaos of World War II.

 

The PROMISE was that , by going into partnership with them, we might learn the secret of their newfound dynamism -and for this we were prepared to turn our back on so much of what over the centuries had given Britain her unique place in the world.

In particular, by throwing in our destiny with Europe, we were expected to turn away from the English-speaking world and abandon our close historic and economic ties with the worldwide Commonwealth with which we conducted nearly half our overseas trade.

The paradox was that when in the 1980sm, we did eventually rediscover the secret of economic success, in that transformation which took place under Mrs Thatcher this had nothing whatsoever to do with our MEMBERSHIP of what had by then become the 'EUROPEAN COMMUNITY'.

Britain's renaissance, which by the late 1990s had made us again the fourth-largest economy in the world was entirely homegrown. And by this time that original equation which had drawn us into 'EUROPE' in the FIRST PLACE had been almost ENTIRELY REVERSED.

 

It was now those Continental countries whose economies were suffocating under all the problems Britain had solved by her own efforts in the 1980s -while most of the countries across the world whose economies have in the past decade been bounding ahead, from America to Australia to India , are part of that English speaking world and Commonwealth on which we had decided to turn our backs.

In hindsight, we can see that , had we remained outside the European project, as it has become increasingly sunk in economic gloom, we could have remained a natural part of what became the most dynamic sector of the global economy.

 

In taking that mighty gamble back in the 1960s and 1970s it has very much looked as though we backed the wrong horse - and ,simply in economic terms, we have paid a COLOSSAL PRICE FOR IT.

Switching the main focus of our trade away from the English-speaking world had turned out to be very one-sided deal indeed. In the past 30 years, so much more do our European partners sell to us than we sell to them that we have run up a staggering deficit on our dealings with the EU

-amounting to

£300Billion

 

Without our trade with America and the rest of the world-[Details on EDP Front-Page] for which we do not need to take on the deadweight of all those

EU

DIRECTIVES

REGULATIONS

-estimated to cost us a further

£120Billion a year.

 -we should long since have gone bankrupt. The ultimate PROOF of how well we might have survived outside the EU is that even TODAY, Both Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest countries in Europe, export a higher percentage of their products to the EU than we do,

WITHOUT HAVING TO JOIN IT.

 But this is only a small part of what we have given up as the PRICE for belonging to the

EUROPEAN UNION.

When we look at how much else we have lost, we can see just how different Britain might look TODAY -IF WE HAD NEVER JOINED.

 

The REAL SACRIFICE we have made in submitting to the EU's system of 'supernational government' is that of the right to decide

SO MANY OF OUR OWN LAWS AND POLICIES.

IF WE HAD NEVER JOINED: We would have the most efficient and prosperous agriculture in Europe, as we did before we had to submit to the cockeyed rules of a Common Agricultural Policy -CAP drawn up primarily to serve the interests of FRANCE.

[At this stage we draw your attention to our Front-Page at its lowest level for more details of

 IF WE HAD NEVER JOINED.]

Continuation of Essay:

Drawing on the experience of those 11 years when, as Prime Minister, she saw the REAL NATURE of the 'EUROPEAN PROJECT' at FIRST HAND Mrs Thatcher wrote in her last BOOK that the attempt to create a European Super-state would be seen in the future as having been 'the greatest folly of the modern era'

She went on to say that for Britain, 'with her traditional strengths and global destiny', to have become part of it, would come to be seen as having been

'A POLITICAL ERROR OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE'.

The fact is that , at a time when political judgment of our leaders had been warped by the political and economic decline they were led into taking a gamble we can now see, 30 years later, to have spectacularly failed.

 

[WE REMEMBER the time well and voted NO to the suspiciously named Common Market and at that time LIES -LIES and more LIES were bounded about by politicians who ONLY considered their political careers and though many knew the TRUTH deceived the ELECTORATE. WE have on our front page details of the crucial vote in the House of Commons when a number of Conservative MPs sided with the LIERS . There were some voices at the time who told the TRUTH  such as Tony Benn - Enock Powell- Eric Heffer and others of Integrity but they were shouted down by the CONSPIRACY.

We cannot accept that so many politicians were not aware of the full intention of the 1972 European Communities Act or the other Treaties since that date particularly the

Maastricht Treaty which opened the door to the United States of Europe.

If one looks at the publications available at the time and the warnings from men of Integrity it will be found that the TRUE intentions of the Common Market where already in current use among politicians - the idea had been around since the late 1930s. For many of them now to say that they did no know what was intended was a mortal blow to the Independence of the greatest and longest Democracy since the time of Athens those thousands of years ago.

No we will take no excuses from politicians who that day in 1972 sold their country to a foreign power and years later now say it was an unfortunate mistake.] 

WE thank the Daily Mail and the excellent summary  by Christopher Booker which was of the usual high standard which will remind many who have not given a thought to the European Project to  see the TRUTH which has been hidden from the General Public by the Media particularly the BBC and sections of the Press for over 50 years.

 

*

Some titbits from the past.

 

Press-1961

Daily Mail circulation -2,610,487

Daily Telegraph circulation - 1,248,961

 

 

Burke said : there were Three Estates in parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far they all.

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.

Thomas Jefferson, 1787.

 

Anatomy of  Britain by Anthony Sampson. 1962

 

 

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-Bolding &Underlining Used-Comments in brackets]

JANUARY/07

 

A final reminder that there is a part summary on our Front-page under

'IF WE HAD NEVER JOINED:'

which is not included with the above essay.]

 

*

*

 

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?

*

Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION

SAY VOTERS

by

Daniel Martin

Political Reporter

[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]

MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last week's

IRISH REFERENDUM'

The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in the

HOUSE of LORDS

today to delay the

RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY.

And

10,000 people

have signed a

PETITION

on the

DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE

within the past few days

JUNE16-2008

, calling on the

GOVERNMENT

NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL

[WHY DON'T YOU?]

 

Downing Street website is

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

*

JUNE 18-2008

 

*

13th October,2007

 

So You Want Out Of The EU

 

THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE

RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP

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

Details from petition creator

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

DUAL CITIZENSHIP

-both

EUROPEAN and BRITISH

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

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

BRITISH DOCUMENTATION

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

EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who

HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

 

[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]

 

*

 

Let the people speak!

www.makeitanissue.org.uk

 

 

*

www.noliberties.com

[Latest Addition - June07]

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

 

*

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

HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ

*

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

*

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

July 18-2007

 

 

VOTE

 -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

 

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

 

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?

 

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

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

 

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

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
LITTLEJOHN

We need a fearless leader to deliver

BREXIT

- Nigel Farage:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN believes the former Ukip leader should be an integral part of the process after campaigning for so long

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly

Enoch Powell said famously that all political careers end in failure. Nigel Farage should have proved him wrong.

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly.

Up to a point.

The magnificent Leave victory in 2016 was a vindication of Farage’s virtually single-handed campaign to get Britain out of the EU.

Yes, others can also take credit. But Farage was the figurehead, often a lone voice in the wilderness. 

No one had to endure the vilification and violence directed at Farage as he took his message around the country year after year, well before Call Me Dave finally buckled and gave the people a long-overdue referendum.

Fifteen years ago, when I was presenting a nightly show on Sky News, I was about the only broadcaster who would give him a regular platform. The mainstream media treated him as a pariah — at best a circus act, at worst a neo-Nazi. 

This was around the time that New Labour was almost unanimously agreed to have established a 1,000-year reich and opposition to our glorious future as a European statelet was considered futile.

Aside from a few principled players in the Conservative Party — former leader and one-time Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith prominent among them — the political establishment wholeheartedly embraced the EU project. 

But Farage kept banging away, making mischief in Brussels, where he’d managed to get himself elected as an MEP and used his position to ridicule the pompous panjandrums running the show.

Who can forget his wonderful denunciation of the ridiculous Herman Van Rompuy, self-styled former European ‘president’?

‘You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk . . . Who are you? I’d never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.

‘I would like to ask you, President, who voted for you . . . oh, I know democracy’s not popular with you lot, and what mechanism do the people of Europe have to remove you?

‘Is this European democracy? You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states — perhaps that’s because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country . . .

‘Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying: We don’t know you, we don’t want you, and the sooner you’re put out to grass, the better.’

The Westminster bubble was horrified. How dare this upstart show such a lack of respect to our European masters? But out in the suburbs and the shires, and on the rundown council estates in the North of England, millions of decent British citizens gave a silent cheer.

Call Me Dave dismissed Farage’s Ukip as a collection of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. It was a cruel caricature, but partly accurate. Ukip’s annual conference certainly resembles a roomful of Hyacinth Buckets and men who model themselves on the Major in Fawlty Towers.

But Ukip was on a roll — and by now Farage was a ubiquitous presence in radio and TV studios, even if he was often only there as an Aunt Sally, to be shouted at by self-righteous presenters and panellists alike.

Yet Farage stood up to the verbal slings and arrows, and to the nasty physical abuse he frequently had to endure. Cigarette in one hand, pint of best in the other, he kept on plugging away.

In the 2015 General Election, Ukip polled almost four million votes, a large chunk of them in former Labour strongholds in the North, which felt ignored and abandoned and had suffered the greatest impact from mass immigration.

Farage’s ‘fruitcakes’ didn’t make a parliamentary breakthrough but they delivered the Tories their first Commons majority since 1992, simply by denying Labour seats they had taken for granted.

Now, Cameron feared, they were coming for the Tories, so he panicked and promised a referendum on EU membership. 

Say what you like about Call Me Dave, but this was his greatest gift to the people of Britain, an opportunity we seized, asserting our sovereignty and overturning the decades-old project of submerging our country into an anti-democratic United States of Europe.

 

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be

Cameron’s gamble backfired. He resigned immediately and is now reduced to scraping a living on the international lecture circuit, essentially a political end-of-the-pier show.

Next week, he’s playing a small town theatre in Florida, but has sold fewer seats than its current production, Million Dollar Quartet, a jukebox musical featuring hits by Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis.

In the States, where they value national independence, Farage is a folk hero, a bigger draw than our former Prime Minister.

And yet.

OK, so the referendum wouldn’t have been won without Boris, Gove and the brave career politicians who dared to defy the Establishment stitch-up. But without Farage, there would have been no referendum, nor would there have been any Brexit.

What kind of Brexit, if any, remains to be seen. Which, presumably, is why Farage is now muttering about making a comeback as part of a Ukip Mark II.

The corpse of the old Ukip is still twitching, but without Farage it’s nothing. The party’s on its third post-Farage leader, no one you’ve ever heard of, and he’s on the way out over a few incendiary tweets sent by some dopey bird half his age he’s got himself hooked up with. I can’t be bothered to go into details, because it’s a waste of time.

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be.

One of the reasons Ukip imploded was because those four million voters returned to the two main parties, both of which made manifesto promises to implement Brexit in full, yet now seem hell-bent on either reneging or watering it down so far it becomes meaningless.

So I understand and share Farage’s concern. As I’ve said all along, the fix has been in since the result of the referendum was announced. The political class have stolen our biggest vote in history for anything and made it all about them — not the people they are paid to serve.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of them to deliver the Brexit we voted for. If the vast majority of MPs had their way, they’d stop the whole process in its tracks today. When Theresa May succeeded Call Me Dave, she should have established a grand cross-party coalition to negotiate our departure, including heroic Labour figures such as Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey.

But the central player should have been Farage, a man who knows his way around Brussels and scares the EU to death.

He’d never have put up with the contemptuous treatment being meted out to Britain by Michel Barnier and his ‘damp-rag, low-grade bank clerk’ bureaucrats.

Instead, we’re stuck with Mother Theresa, who spent the referendum hiding behind the sofa and still won’t say whether she’d vote Leave if it was held today.

Her new de facto deputy, David Lidington, is a full-on federast, already speculating we could rejoin the EU at some stage. Rejoin? We haven’t even left yet — and never will, other than in name only, if the political establishment prevails.

Even David Davis seems to have gone native and Boris has been banished to the outer darkness, certainly when it comes to Brexit. In what kind of Fred Karno government is the Foreign Secretary excluded from the biggest foreign policy issue facing the country in modern history?

Never mind Boris, though. Mrs May should be making plans for Nigel, bringing him into the fold, allowing him to be an integral part of the very Brexit process for which he has campaigned so long, so hard and so selflessly.

He doesn’t need a knighthood, or a sinecure in the Lords — each of which would have been a traditional reward for his service to this country. Given the fuss over Mrs Thatcher’s memorial, I suppose a statue in Parliament Square is out of the question, too.

But what is beyond doubt is that, after Thatcher, Farage is the most influential, most significant British political figure since Churchill — much more so than the Westminster pygmies and time-servers who treat him with unwarranted disdain.

Ukip, the party he led, may be sleeping with the fishes, but if there is any justice, Farage’s career deserves to end in triumph.

Let’s hope Enoch was wrong.

 


Read more:   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300489/We-need-fearless-leader-deliver-Brexit-Nigel-Farage.html#ixzz55RBjzeYS

 

H.F.1460

 

 

 

 

 

 

 BROUGHT FORWARD FROM MARCH,2007

THE SLAVERY PROTESTORS FAIL TO LOOK WITHIN THEIR OWN CULTURE AND HISTORY

*

The slavery protests' guilty secret

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-March 30, 2007]

 

The other celebration this week has been confused. Were we proud that Parliament had backed William Wilberforce's Bill to abolish the shameful slave trade, or were we in a familiar

ON-OUR-KNEES

POSITION

-and apologising for ever being involved in it?

If the latter, then it would have been helpful to hear someone of African descent also apologising for the

FACT

-that SLAVERY continued throughout that continent for decades afterwards, except where colonial governments like Britain managed to suppress it -in face of fierce [African] local opposition.

It might have been helpful, too, if the protesters of African descent had vented some of their spleen on the

ARAB SLAVE TRADERS

-who carried on for so long with their particularly vicious form of

SLAVE TRADING

They systematically

and crudely castrated their victims, which killed the great majority of them

PERHAPS

-the slavery protesters have called on the

ARAB NATIONS

-for a few billions of their oil revenues in

COMPENSATION

BUT IF SO, I FAILED TO NOTICE IT.

*          *          *

A SUMMARY OF THE SLAVE TRADE

 

..From Britain, the largest slave trader and the greatest offender the movement sprang which successfully abolished slavery in the British Isles in 1772, then the slave trade in 1806, then slavery itself in the British Dominions in 1833, and finally so worked on the conscience of the world as to secure a large and nearly universal concurrence of action for the extirpation of the evil.

The credit for securing from Lord Mansfield the famous decision in the case of

JAMES SOMERSET (1772)

-that the status of slavery was unknown to the

COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND

was due to

GRANVILLE SHARP

-a civil servant, inconspicuous in wealth and station, but of a rare warmth of heart and persistence of character, who once fired by the cruel usage of a negro slave in the streets of London, never rested until he had obtained the verdict which for ever afterwards rid the British islands of the taint of slavery.

Thereafter comes a roll of English emancipators whose names even in a general history of Europe are worthy of

COMMEMORATION

-William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Zachary Macaulay and James Stephen, whose preparatory labours, sustained over a period of twenty years, enabled Charles Fox to carry the

ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE

Thomas Fowel Buxton, the parliamentary leader of the

ABOLITIONISTS

-who worked up the

HOUSE OF COMMONS

-to abolish slavery; and Lord Brougham, who carried the torch through the country; Lord Palmerston, who stopped the slave trade between

PORTUGAL and BRAZIL

-and the noble group of missionaries, soldiers, and statesmen, David Livingston, Charles Gordon, Sir John Kirk, and Lord Lugard, by whose efforts in large measure

AFRICA

-has been opened up and

RID OF THE CURSE

of the

ARAB SLAVE -RAIDER

Lecky does no more than

JUSTICE

when he states the

THE CRUSADE of ENGLAND

AGAINST SLAVERY

"may probably be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous pages in the history of nations'

[A History of Europe by H.A.L.FISHER -1936]

 

*

 

[Today in March 2007 we have a Government which does not deserve a mention in history as it has had no virtuous events in the past ten years. It will be remembered as a Government not trusted by the people and which has brought a once proud and just nation to kneeling before the  politically correct diverse minority who have not lost any opportunity to degrade the nation which today should not be on its knees but standing with thankfulness that their descendents had showed Christian fellowship with all mankind remembering the words dedicated above to the many who saw an injustice and abolished a vile trade which at the time was responded too because of our standing and reputation in the corridors of power throughout the world.]

What is unforgivable that an opportunity to honour an 18th and 19th century of a

BAND of BROTHERS

-had been lost because a people who once had confidence and pride in their country and have lost their way and  have become the 'silent people' because they are afraid (they think) to offend.

Our minority cultures have all been taught that they can be a part of our country but not of it. They can demand their voice is heard but not that of the majority who are of this country. this pattern was launched by

MULTICULTURALISM

-which has now been discredited -as it has done immense harm to community relations in our country.

IT IS TIME FOR OUR MINORITIES TO FORGET THEIR ENCOURAGED DIFFERENCES AND IN FUTURE TO BE AS WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE PAST

ALL ONE

Whoever you are and from wherever you have come.

 

LET US ALL BE

A

 

BAND OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS

AND

NOT LOOK FOR OUR DIFFERENCES.

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

 

*

13th October,2007

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

 

H.F.2044

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE

 

 

 

[BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005]

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNCEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

 

 

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

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

 

H.F.730

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A REMINDER

TO OUR NEGOTIATOR

IN JULY 2020.]

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

WHY I LOATHE  BRUSSELS

 

 
 

 

They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt. For decades Labour's Grimsby

 MP Austin Mitchell passionately campaigned against the

E U.

On the second anniversary of the referendum, his cri de coeur will cheer the

HEART OF EVERY BREXITEER.

 

Why I loathe Brussels: They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt, writes AUSTIN MITCHELL

 

513

View
comments

 

Austin Mitchell was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015. 

A self-confessed maverick who refused to toe the party line, he has always been fiercely opposed to Britain remaining in the EU. 

Here, on the second anniversary of the EU referendum, he delivers a powerful and timely reminder of why Brexit must be seen through.

 

My long-held and passionate attitude to the European Union is summed up in four words — three of which are ‘the European Union’, preceded by a commonly used four- letter verb of exhortation that the Oxford English Dictionary describes as ‘vulgar’.

I’ve always been a Eurosceptic, ever since I first stumbled across the Common Market, as the EU then called itself, in 1962. I was 28, Yorkshire born and bred, and, with my doctorate from Oxford, was teaching history at a university in New Zealand. A colleague gave a lecture on the Common Market — and, to my horror, he endorsed it as ‘a good thing’.

Incredible. Almost blasphemy. Britain led the Commonwealth. New Zealand, rich in dairy products, was its antipodean farm. Europe was there for us to defeat in war. How could an Englishman be so daft?

 

Austin Mitchell campaigning for fishermen in 1978. He was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015

Fortunately General De Gaulle, the French president, agreed with me and dismissed British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s efforts to join a club he should never have applied for in the first place.

I was further comforted when a succession of British politicians came out to New Zealand to assure us that if Britain did join this alien institution then, scout’s honour, New Zealand’s access to the British market would be protected. The old relationship would carry on.

They lied. Albion can be perfidious and was particularly so when it betrayed New Zealand by joining in 1973 — egged on by Tory prime minister Ted Heath, who was so eager to get us into Europe that he did so on less than favourable terms. We were asking to be clobbered and duly were.

I was back in Britain and had switched jobs to become a journalist and a presenter on regional television when two years later Harold Wilson, the new Labour PM, called for a referendum to endorse or reject that decision. 

I voted ‘No’. But two-thirds of the country said ‘Yes’. We were staying in.

I was far from convinced this was the right decision, and my hostility increased when in 1977 I was elected Labour MP for Grimsby.

The town’s fishing industry had been ruined when the Europeans cunningly declared the seas around Britain common waters and gave other members, even landlocked Luxembourg, equal access. 

As a result, we got only a small proportion of our own fish.

I formed a Save Britain’s Fish campaign, which attracted support from all over the country.

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them.’ Which was true, but far better for us to eat them than have them gobbled by undeserving Europeans who took our jobs and the processing industry with them.

 

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them’

There was more to my scepticism about Europe than a lingering desire to catch our own fish, however. 

I believed then, and still do now, that the nation state is not only the best but the only way of advancing the cause of the people while maintaining their democratic control of the process.

There is nothing the EU can do for us that we can’t do better for ourselves. Europe is too big, amorphous, divided and powerless. 

It’s not a democracy but a plutocracy with a rootless bureaucracy, always pursuing an ever-closer union the people don’t want, yet never able to reach it.

As a concept it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense, a mirage.

The trouble was that the EU couldn’t break away from its original purpose of protecting French agriculture and boosting German industry. 

With these two states dominating, Europe embarked on a journey where few wanted to go, to an ever-closer union only the Brussels bureaucrats sought, imposing policies without democratic consent and ever prepared to overrule the people for their own good.

My basic reason for opposing membership was economic. The European Union drained Britain of jobs, money, demand and growth. 

It became a brake on our economy, not an accelerator. 

Being a deal between the interests of Germany, which needed a bigger market for its manufacturing, and France, which wanted agricultural protection for its food, the EU didn’t suit Britain, a net agricultural importer with a less modern and less well-invested industry.

The basis of British trade had been buying cheap food, particularly from Commonwealth countries, and sending them our manufactured goods in return.

That stopped after we joined. The Common Agricultural Policy required us to buy France’s more expensive food. Costs went up and every family of four lost £20 a week.

Meanwhile, Labour’s policy to boost jobs in the regions had to be scrapped because it was against the rules. What had been a surplus in our trade with Europe before we went in became a steadily growing deficit.

Our membership contributions — in effect, our payments for being damaged — went up year by year, siphoning off money to Europe, particularly to the powerful German economy, which generated ever-bigger surpluses at the expense of everyone else and particularly us.

To cap all this, Europe’s fast growth, which enthusiasts had claimed Britain would hitch up to, slowed substantially.

That’s why in my successful campaign in the 1979 General Election, I stood on a soapbox outside the Bird’s Eye frozen fish factory in Grimsby to denounce Brussels. And I’ve been doing so as vigorously as I can ever since.

But I’ve increasingly found myself out on a limb in a political class inexorably drawn to Brussels.

Europe is very attractive for those who don’t like Britain. 

For the liberal intellectuals and many of our elite, who saw themselves as cosmopolitan rather than nationalist, Europe was nicer than their brutal, xenophobic compatriots. 

Those suffering in Britain — the unions, local government and the Labour Party — came to love the beguiling hopes Europe held out for them.

They didn’t see that it had no ability to help lame dogs over stiles and that its handouts were really the nation’s own money coming back, but with the EU’s heavy costs deducted.

My views remained unchanged as the Common Market marched on, grandiosing into the European Community, then the European Union.

Major Labour figures from Roy Jenkins to Peter Mandelson went off to Brussels and found a bigger and better stage to strut on.

 

Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies. Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster

There, people actually listened to them rather than dismissing them out of hand. They came back to proclaim Europe’s benefits. 

Then Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies.

Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster. The whole system collapsed and Britain was humiliatingly forced out.

We sceptics heaved a sigh of relief, forgetting the propensity of dogs to return to their own vomit.

Instead of backing off, the EU went for an even stronger monetary union by creating the common currency, the euro.

Unable to get electoral support for ever-closer union, the EU bureaucracy tried to smuggle it in through the back door. 

A common currency, they hoped, would lead to convergence and develop the central institutions necessary to manage it.

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering.

Daft as a Liberal when it came to anything that would demonstrate his Euro-enthusiasm, he was passionately in favour of a single European currency.

Not understanding economics, he didn’t realise that Britain would be shackled by a fixed, and inevitably overvalued, exchange rate, with consequences ruinous for our weaker economy.

Fortunately, Gordon Brown, his Chancellor, saw the dangers and managed to think up five tests, failure in any of which would deny entry until the time was ripe. Which in my view it never would be.

Britain stayed out of the euro, thank heaven, leaving us peripheral to the Eurozone, the EU’s great adventure into the clouds. 

The Eurocrats persisted with monetary union, even though it forces deflation on weaker and less competitive partners. 

Britain would have been one of these if we had been foolish enough to join in.

Brussels showered money on the weaker European economies, then crippled them with unsustainable and unrepayable debt, as the Germans refused to underwrite it. Any grudging help went to save the banks, not the individual nation.

Increasingly the EU was losing its shine. Unemployment was high, with a quarter of its young people out of work.

Germany built up huge economic surpluses, which it didn’t spend or recycle to the less successful economies. 

To manage the euro, the EU needed the economic institutions of the nation state, but the Germans couldn’t accept that.

The EU could only move forward by greater federalism to create ‘ever-closer union’ but the members didn’t want this straitjacket. It was hit by the refugee crisis and couldn’t agree on what to do about it.

 

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering

It could possibly have conciliated British public opinion by delivering benefits to Britain, whose EU membership costs were spiralling all the time. 

But it wouldn’t and didn’t. It was deadlocked: rudderless and dominated by Mrs Merkel, the most cautious politician in Europe.

Yet still Britain clung to the edge of this rickety raft.

The public were told to be happy with this developing disaster, and a Euro-enthusiastic Tory-led coalition government did nothing about it.

That is, until an overconfident David Cameron buckled to pressure in his own party and announced that he would solve his party problems by renegotiating improved terms for our membership, to be endorsed by a referendum.

 

He asked Brussels for changes to make the EU more acceptable in Britain. He got nothing worth having but still embarked on what he confidently assumed would be an easy victory.

The battle of Brexit was a thrill for me. I had stood down from Parliament by the time of the referendum. I was into my 70s and had been an MP for nigh on 40 years.

Suddenly I was in demand again. 

As one of the few survivors of that rare breed, the Labour Eurosceptic, I was hauled into debates to provide a balance to overconfident Euro-enthusiasts who couldn’t believe anyone would be insane enough to want to leave the Franco-German condominium.

It was the best fun I’d had for years. It was marvellous to harangue large audiences who were with me, for a change, rather than sitting there in stony-faced silence as Labour audiences had.

Even more wonderfully, the campaign ended in triumph. To the amazement of Cameron and the rest of Britain’s elite, he lost. The British electorate, two-thirds of whom had voted to stay in 1975, had changed its mind.

Victory was a strange new phenomenon. It had never happened to me before. I was as euphoric as any politician is ever allowed to be.

What happened, though, was in fact a peasants’ revolt rather than a triumph for my arguments.

 

The people, angered by cuts, stagnant living standards, de-industrialisation and austerity, used this unaccustomed power to express their unhappiness not just at Europe but at three decades of neo-liberal politics and globalisation which had done little or nothing for them.

The educated and the liberal middle classes had come to identify with Europe as part of their privileged way of life, and supported a union that they saw as the symbol of enlightened internationalism and civilised (ie their own) values. 

The less well-off, the less educated and the people who’d been left behind felt differently.

Britain’s elite were shocked by the nation’s rejection of their wisdom and advice. George Orwell once remarked that ‘England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality’. 

That remained true of the liberal intellectuals, who’d given up on Britain and saw Europe as the future.

For the people to reject the EU just showed how irredeemable the British were.

It was, as they saw it, a surrender to racism, xenophobia, insularity and everything liberal intellectuals dislike in their own people.

On the other hand, Eurosceptics like me saw the vote as the result of a 40-year learning experience.

For me, the referendum result was the turning point I’d hoped for since 1979. The people had achieved what the politicians had failed to do. 

It’s a shame it took so long and that so much damage was done before it came. Winning is rare in the political game. But it’s nice.

It has not, though, led to any belated acclaim coming my way. After the referendum, invitations to speak dried up as if I’d been a personal friend of Jimmy Savile. 

The Guardian lost every article I sent them (as it had before, but now without explanation or reply).

The BBC, which had used me as a tame Brexiteer throughout the campaign, once it was over immediately replaced me with a Muslim to keep up their other diversity targets.

As for what lies ahead of us, the EU’s intransigence and the weakness of an insecure Government in negotiating are making withdrawal messy and difficult. 

The Remainers don’t help. 

They denounce the vote as the result of fear, ignorance, even Russian deceit, and have unleashed another, even bigger tide of fear about the consequences.

They do everything they can to discredit the British case for withdrawal, to shackle, soften and weaken the Government’s negotiating position and to collude with the EU to resist it, in the hope that eventually the people will give up their foolishness and stay, unhappily or not, in the promised land.

The Brexiteers, in contrast, can only wait and see, hoping for a good outcome which can’t emerge until negotiations end.

The British Government has been weakened by its second election and Remain’s long rearguard action.

The EU Commission, struggling to keep its rickety show on the road and facing unmanageable difficulties in Eastern Europe and Italy, wants to punish Britain pour décourager les autres.

These are the symptoms of an impossible negotiation. I fear that the account by the former Greek minister of finance, Yanis Varoufakis, of the way the EU crushed his country’s aspirations may well be an omen of what’s to come.

Intransigence, delay and simple bloody-mindedness were their weapons — and clearly still are.

Those who believe they have a divine right to rule don’t give up easily. Nor must we.

  • Extracted from Confessions Of A Political Maverick by Austin Mitchell, to be published by Biteback on July 3 at £20. © Austin Mitchell 2018. To order a copy for £15 (25% discount), call 0844 571 0640 or go tomailshop.co.uk/books. P&P is free on orders over £15. Offer available until July 9, 2018.

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1583

 

 

**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Britain is ruled by patronising

 

 

B*#*@:rds

 by QUENTIN LETTS

 

A rebellion has taken place in this country of ours, an uprising, a new Peasants’ Revolt. A real kick in the kidneys for Britain’s ruling elite.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people.

In the greatest citadel-storming since the French Revolution, they chose to leave the obtrusive European Union.

But it was not a result that happened by accident. It was born of a weary truculence — a yeoman impatience with those who make up our smug, self-perpetuating, invisible Brahmin caste.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised. His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election

For decades, Britons have been bossed about by a cadre of administrators and managers and pose-striking know-alls.

The old aristocracy having faded, in came a more furtive elite, driven by the desire to own minds, not acres, determined to control opinion and dictate our attitudes.

It was done on the sly, of course. They posed as liberals, and crouched behind ‘enlightened’ attitudes while imposing their views on a populace they claimed to esteem but more truthfully disdained.

 

Politicians, civil servants and lawyers used a language few could understand, while government was farmed out to agencies and quangos and privatised supply companies.

Cheap labour was imported, suppressing workers’ wages, because that was what globalised boss-cats at the international forums said was necessary.

Could we criticise immigration? Only if we wanted to be called racists and fruitcakes. The elite’s media munchkins had placed it on the top shelf, somewhere safe where it could not be touched.

 

At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed

Against our will, children were exposed to sex education by schools more interested in dogma than declension. Sex crimes rocketed.

Sociologists said murderers must be released into the community. Re-offending rates rose.

Smokers were made to feel like criminals. Criminals were encouraged to sue their victims.

From every side came instruction as to what we must think: about diet, gender, sexuality, race, even the weather, with the TV forecasters telling us to put on sun cream and giving silly names to every incoming squall.

The entire System was at it, badgering us, belittling us, patting us on the head, putting us in our place.

Think this. Don’t think that. Inappropriate! Hate-crime!

From the Chief Medical Officer and her strictures about alcohol limits to railway announcements saying ‘do not become a victim of crime’, they treat us like toddlers.

Even the most docile beach donkey, by nature placid and reliable, if repeatedly kicked, will eventually refuse to co-operate. It will bare its teeth and walk in the other direction, pulling its tethers out of the sand.

So it has proved with the British voters.

Get off our backs, they said. Stop goading us. Stop being such patronising bastards.

The morning we discovered we’d break free from Europe was that unforgettable Friday, June 24, 2016.

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated. Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof

I was in a pokey hotel bedroom in London’s Bloomsbury and awoke at daybreak as the television relayed the referendum results from around the country.

I’d expected the technocracy was going to win. It always did, didn’t it? The experts had said defeat for Remain was unthinkable. Treasury officials, opinion pollsters and almost the entire diplomatic corps idly presumed Remain would win.

But it hadn’t.

Our dominating elite of parliamentarians, lobbyists, bankers, artists, political theorists, clergy, academics and sterile aesthetes was about to take a massive custard pie smack in the face.

So many well-connected people had scoffed at Brexit. They had belittled anyone who suggested it could occur.

But there it was, happening before our eyes as the BBC’s presenter, David Dimbleby, announced: ‘The British people have spoken and the answer is “we’re out!”.’

The cold print of the referendum ballot papers had merely asked voters if they wanted to stay in the EU. This result was the crystallisation of something bigger.

It was the eruption of a long-building resentment at being bossed around by an opaque snootocracy, by affluent fixers and the People Who Know Best.

 

James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x’

In my hotel room on that Independence Dawn last year, I felt a giddying rush of patriotic pride. The apple-cart had been overturned.

This was not just a public rejection of the EU. It was an act of thrilling dissent. Our arrogant elite, after years of self-enriching condescension, had been whupped.

More than a year on, I still can’t get out of my head how unrelenting the campaign was for Remain to win the popular vote.

For months before the referendum, the System did its best to engineer things in favour of the EU.

Cabinet Brexiteers were silenced. Civil servants were told to hide sensitive EU material from Eurosceptic ministers.

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised.

His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election.

Carney, a Canadian but bound to the status quo here by instinct and career, predicted Brexit would cause sterling to collapse, growth to stall and unemployment to rise.

From comedians to bishops (hard to say which of those two groups is funnier), fund managers to charity-sector tsars, Brexit was as pongy as a bad sardine. They did not just oppose it. They recoiled from it.

The reaction was not simply intellectual or even political. It was rooted in taste, aesth- etics, manners.

Let your future son-in-law have tombstone teeth, the clothes sense of Ken Dodd and a string of shoplifting offences to his name, but pray God Almighty he be not a Brexiteer.

We no longer have widowed duchesses who clutch their dewlaps in horror when they hear the word ‘serviette’, but Brexit had the same effect on managerial and technocratic types.

My wife, a sweet and liberal-minded soul, casually mentioned to a princeling of the Church of England that she intended to vote Leave. He gasped: ‘How could you?’ He might have been less aghast had she admitted to witchcraft.

 

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more’

Fashionable ‘opinion leaders’ and pliable industrialists were pressed to the Remain cause to build the idea that superior people — good people — were of one accord. They crouched down beside the voters, looked them very gravely in the eye and told the boys and girls that Mummy and Daddy would be really, really sad if Remain did not win the referendum.

Opinion pollsters said Remain would win, and in the last week of the campaign the Cameroons started to strut.

Two days before the referendum, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, la-di-dah Leftist and one-time owner of the most perfect villa in Italy, opined that the result was in the bag. The headline over her article read: ‘On Friday I’ll get my country back. Britain will vote Remain’.

But the voters came to a different conclusion. They decided that those prominent Remain supporters were only in it for themselves, chasing either business contracts or honours.

The Leavers were the ones who reclaimed their country. On the morning after the referendum, I headed from my hotel to work in a taxi whose driver was cock-a-hoop at the Leave vote. At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed. He was right. General elections are elections for Parliament. The referendum was an election against Parliament, in spite of Parliament.

Abraham Lincoln once spoke of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’. We had drifted towards ‘government of the people, by the Parliament, for the Parliament and its fleas’.

The Establishment reacted with petulant disbelief.

Tony Blair called it ‘a foolish excursion into populism’. The then Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, 46, normally a sunny fellow, was ‘angry that today we wake to a deeply divided country’. Would he have said the same if the scores had gone the other way?

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated.

Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. 

Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof. James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x.’

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more.’ TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’

The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’. Damon Albarn wore a black armband.

Marianne Faithfull, famous because decades earlier she was supposed to have done something filthy with a Mars Bar and Mick Jagger, said: ‘We are back to where it used to be, the Right-wing racist Little England. Those dreadful people, they’ve always been there.’

TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’ The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’

Emma Thompson, mother, director, writer, actress, intellectual, citizen, was, naturally, appalled by Brexit. She said she felt more European than English and she regarded Ukip’s Nigel Farage as a ‘white nationalist’.

Where that left the many non-white Leave voters and non-white Ukip supporters, it was hard to say.

The Remain camp united atheists and the modern Church of England, with former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and arch-atheist Richard Dawkins deploring the result. Science bod Dawkins, who has made a study of natural selection, raged that the voters had been ‘ill-informed’ and ‘ignorant’. Personally, I blame evolution.

Another secularist, A. C. Grayling, wrote to MPs demanding that they reject the will of the people who, said Grayling, had voted on the basis of ‘demagoguery and sentiment’.

Too many voters were merely ‘System One’ thinkers, he argued — i.e. they acted chiefly on impulse and could be ‘captured by slogans’, unlike ‘System Two’ thinkers who made more considered, logical judgments.

Shades here, of the Greek philosopher Plato, who regarded democracy as rule by the rabble and proposed the creation of elite ‘Guardians’ or ‘Philosopher Kings’ who could be selected in youth and trained to rule.

Plato’s thinking is most clearly seen today in the French grandes écoles that train the cadre of Brussels Eurocrats who propose and draft EU treaties.

Tony Blair made a speech calling on people to ‘rise up against’ ... er, themselves, basically.

Time and again it was argued by anti-Brexiteers that Leave voters did not understand the vastness of their decision.

The elite was indignant and fearful — and that only made many Leave voters all the more certain they had made the right decision.

In their appalling condescension, what all these furious anti-Brexiteers ignored were people such as a Derbyshire factory worker called Stuart Carrington and the other 17,410,741 men and women who had voted to Leave.

Stuart had also been on my mind that anxious night as we waited for the referendum result. He was my brother-in-law. (Well, as good as. He and my wife’s sister Nicky were not formally married but they had been together years.)

Fifty-four-year-old Stuart’s health had become a worry in recent months. Out of character, he took time off work. Stuart’s machine, capable of the most intricate measurements, checked parts for aircraft jet engines.

He was proud of his work, just as he was proud of Nicky, her two sons and their flat. But he knew all that was coming to an end.

The doctors initially told him he had a low-threat cancer but they changed their prognosis. That week we were told he was dying.

Yet on referendum day morning, moving with difficulty, he had managed to get himself to his local polling station in the Spital district of Chesterfield, to vote for the last time.

A gaunt figure, he leaned heavily on the stubby pencil while casting his vote. Job done, he carefully dropped his ballot into the box, thanked the officials, winced a little and made slowly for the door.

A keen supporter of Leave — and normally a Labour man, his dad having been a miner — Stuart had been determined to vote and he had bloody well managed it.

I kept thinking of stoical, taciturn Stuart.

Those northern men don’t always say much but by God they make their mark. Stuart was not a showy person. He did not consider himself important, not in the way we normally use that term.

Not back then. Maybe things are a little different now. Maybe, with Brexit, the balance of power has shifted a little.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

As I will show in the rest of this series based on my new book, the patronising bastards are everywhere, lording it over the plebs, putting us in our place, waving their entitlement in our face, telling us what to think and what to do.

And not just over Brexit but on every issue under the sun.

And the biggest ‘bastard’ of them all, at the very top of my list of patricians treating the rest of us with contempt? I’ll reveal his identity on Monday.

Adapted from Patronising Bastards: How The Elites Betrayed Britain, by Quentin Letts, published by Constable on October 12 at £16.99. © Quentin Letts 2017. To order a copy for £13.59 (offer valid to October 14, 2017) visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640. P&P is free on orders over £15.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4957180/Britain-s-ruled-patronising-b-rds-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html#ixzz4uqBaZlGZ
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

 

6/10/17

 

 

H.F.1338 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT A SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LITTLEJOHN

 

 

I'm a

Brexiteer

Get me

OUT

of here!

 

*....MY BEST guess on Brexit has always been that a dirty deal was done before the Chequers ambush in the summer

Mother Theresa would present her shabby withdrawal agreement, certain in the knowledge that it would never get the support of her own party, let alone the House of Commons.

But in the process, she would shed the most truculent Brexiteers from her Government and eventually, pull a rabbit from the hat at the last minute which would allow her to plot a marshmallow soft Brexit-in-name-only through Parliament.

I assumed the EU's grand panjandrums were fully on board with this cynical stitch-up, whatever noises they made for public consumption

. If there's one thingJean- Paul-Georges-et Ringo would love more than the UK crawling back into the fold, tail between legs. It's, Mrs May's craven plan to keep us in their orbit as a serf state, under the thumb but shorn mof all influence.

Up until yesterday, anyway, everything was going according to plan. That was before she bottled putting her 'deal' to the vote, when the overwhelming scale of her looming defeat became apparent.

No prime Minister could have survived in office given the hammering she would have taken in the division lobbies. So, instead of scuttling off to Brussels begging for more pre-arranged concessions' after a slim mdefeat in Parliament, she has been forced to step back from the abyss.

Now what?

Theresa says she intends to return to the EU to seek further 'reassurance' on the Irish backstop. Be honest, have you any idea what this 'backstop' nonsense is all about?  It's an elaborate smoke-screen dreamed up to stop a proper Brexit.

LONG story short, without going into teeth-grindingly boring detail, it is designed to divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and ensure that we can never, ever,leave the EU's cuastoms union, without the permission of our

SO-CALLED 'PARTNERS.

That pipsqueak ingrate Irish premier Lenny Verruca didn't do Mrs May any favours yesterday, either, dancing a jig to the Brussels tune and issuing empty threats against a benevolent, and much larger, neighbour which kept his country afloat during difficult economic times.

Of all the horror stories put about by

PROJECT FEAR

the warnings about Brexit imperilling the Irish peace process are by far and away the

MOST DESPICABLE.

It is an insult not just to Britain but to the Irish people themselves, on whichever side of the political divide, who have invested so much in resolving their differences.

For opportunist politicians to exploit

GOODWILL

with incendiary remarks about reigniting violence is beneath contempt.

So, too, the garbage about children going hungry because school meals won't be available after Brexit, or people dying from lack of imported medicines. Enough, already.

Look, I say again, even hardline 'no deal' Brexiteers like me accept that there will have to be some compromises if we are to

GET OUT OF THE EU

in one piece.

But the antics of the political class have been shameful, an insult to the intelligence of every single one of us who pay their wages.

As I said last week,

WHO CAN YOU TRUST ?

With a few honourable exceptions, their collective behaviour as been

SELF-SERVING and DISGRACEFUL.

I admired Boris for having the courage to come out in favour of

LEAVE

even if he did take for ever to weigh his options.

He should have got the top job after the referendum, but was carved up by his oppo Michael Gove, who clearly still fancies his own chances of becoming Prime Minister. Don't they all?

But when Boris turned up on TV at the weekend with a smart new haircut, my heart sank.

This is no longer about

BREXIT

It's about

HIM.

THEN I read that Boris is apparently part of a Tory leadership dream ticket with Amber Rudd. I'm sorry, I'll just read that again. This is the same Look back in Amber who not so long ago was slagging off Boris, accusing him of not being safe in taxis.

Now were asked to believe they're Westminster's lovey-dovey answer to Seann and Katya whoever they are). I'm only surprised that Amber hasn't had a Mrs Thatcher perm-that's if Esther Mc Rantzen, or whatever her name is, hasn't beaten her to it.

And so this is Christmas, and what have they done? Apart from squabbling among themselves-

NOTHING.

My best guess is still that a grubby deal has been done and may yet be revived.

But after yesterday, I wouldn't bank on anything any more.

The political class must think that we're so stupid and bored with the whole business that we'll accept any deal they can cobble together.

And, you know what , sadly maybe they're right.

I'm a Brexiteer. Get me

OUT

 of here!

*  *  *

[The present political system is bankrupt. Only PR can save our nation from eventual Despotism. AS we have stated over the past decades Members of Parliament should ONLY serve one TERM in office which should ensure that MPs will in the main do the best they can for THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS and THEIR COUNTRY.  It will ensure that those from all  walks of life have the opportunity to SERVE THEIR PEOPLE and THEIR COUNTRY. Not as now when the greater majority have decided ONLY TO

SERVE THEMSELVES.]

*

*...HOWEVER brexit works out, or doesn't

, there seems to be no end to mass immigration. The number of EU citizens settling in Britain may have fallen since the referendum, but arrivals from the rest of the world have hit a 14 year high.

A quarter of a million more people came here from outside the EU than left in the past year, an increase of 40 per cent. It was another triumph for Mother Theresa,who-don't forget-was in charge of

IMMIGRATION

at the

HOME OFFICE

until the the keys to Number 10 dropped into her lap...

 

*  *  *

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: I'm a Brexiteer get me out of here! | Daily Mail...

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

DECEMBER 11,2018

H.F.1763

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO RECOVER OUR 

 ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

IN

WESTMINSTER

 

'I wish, sir, an English Parliament to speak the free unbiased sense of the body of the

ENGLISH PEOPLE

and of every man among us,  of each individual who may be justly supposed to be a fair majority...and we ought always to remember the important truth, acknowledged by every free state-that all government is instituted for the good of the mass of the people to be governed that they are the original fountain of power, and even of reverence and in all events the last response...I mention them now to show the necessity of a new regulation

[To introduce PR-Proportional Representation in 2020.]

  of the representation of the Kingdom of ENGLAND...the monstrous injustice and glaring partiality of the present representation of the Commons of England

 [In fact there is no Commons of England  since 1707 at Westminster since 1707]

has been fully stated, and is, I believe almost universally acknowledged, as well as as the necessity of our recurring to the great leading principle of our free [English] constitution which declares the House of Parliament [English Parliament] to be only a delegated power for the people at large. Policy, no less than justice, calls our intention to the momentous point; and reason, not custom, ought to be our guide in a business of this consequence [PR-PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in 2020 in an ENGLISH PARLIAMENT] where the right of a free people are materially interested.

[In Germany which has PR-PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION those who wish for the return of their NATIONHOOD are protected in their democratic decision by the LAW of the LAND as we have seen only recently.]

Without a true representation [Introduction of PR in 2020] of the commons our constitution is essentially defective ,our Parliament is delusive name, a mere phantom, and all other remedies to recover the pristine purity of the form of government established by our ancestors would be ineffectual, even the shortening of the period of Parliament and a place and pension bill, which iI highly approve, and think absolutely necessary. [As we the EDP in 2020 fight for the return of the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT at WESTMINSTER.]  I therefore flatter myself sir, that I have the concurrence of the House with the notion which I have the honour of making, That leave be given to bring in a bill for a just and equal representation of the

PEOPLE of ENGLAND in PARLIAMENT.

BORIS JOHNSON HAS A STRIKING MAJORITY IN WESTMINSTER TO ENABLE HIM TO BE A MAN OF HISTORY TO RIGHT THE WRONG AND RETURN WESTMINSTER TO ITS HISTORIC PLACE AS THE HOME OF THE

 ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

JUNE 14-2020

 

The above extract of an article

JOHN WILKS

A warning and a Prophecy

The Commons and its Rights

1727-1797

 

taken from

 

International University Reading Course

Copyright by

International University Society.

JUNE 14-2020

H.F.2031

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

A REMINDER FROM 2006

 

 

 

 

HOW COULD A MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN WORK

 

By

Andrew Alexander

Column

[Daily Mail-December 15, 2006]

 

TONY BLAIR has admitted at last that MULTICULTURALISM has failed, but future historians will puzzle why anyone thought it would ever succeed

 

After all, history is one long tale of cultural clashes - religious, sectarian, racial and national. As they contemplate the remains of what was once one of the world's most stable societies, blessed with a common cultural heritage, they will marvel that vast waves of immigrants were admitted -

AND ARE STILL COMING.

Of course , there had always been immigration but the numbers had been small, the arrivals often talented; and many of them not just ready but eager to embrace the British

WAY-OF-LIFE

 

For an explanation, we need to go  back to the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act. When Harold Macmillan finally brought in that legislation, peppered with loopholes to pacify critics, the Left sternly opposed it.

The Far left was intelligent enough to see that mass immigration could overturn a society they hated. The opposition of more moderate Socialists was based on a firm if vaguely-defined belief in the

BROTHERHOOD OF MAN

- those from less prosperous countries should be automatically welcomed.

 

Besides, there was the delicious lure that nearly all immigrants would

VOTE LABOUR

-But that was not publicly aired.

 

MacMillan reluctantly introduced the legislation, whose outlines had been drafted in 1955.  As with others in his party, he was in thrall to the Multiracial Commonwealth fantasy, prolonging a belief that though the

BRITISH EMPIRE

-was dead, we could be-

or pretend to be -

a serious global power.

The biggest hindrance to clear  thinking about immigration and multiculturalism has always been the 'moderates' who dominate what is called the political class-party activists, information professionals, social scientists and opinion formers generally. these people are always proud of their 'moderation'.

 

MULTICULTURALISM was a natural attraction. It sounded, you see, so 'decent'

 

. These predominately middle-class moderates could also think of themselves as more enlightened than the working class (who bore the brunt of the tidal wave of immigrants).

 

You encountered these high-minded souls in the Press and TV and radio, insisting that immigration was by definition a good thing.

THEY STILL DO IT.

-but their postal codes always give then away.

If you lived in Hampstead or Kensington or Richmond you could enjoy the advantages of a moral smugness without the disadvantages of an alien wedge in your midst. When I point out to multicultural enthusiasts the tremendous property values in Brixton, they seem curiously uninterested.

 

Their cause was certainly helped by media self-censorship. Not since the British Press kept silent about Edward VIII's dalliance with Mrs. Simpson had the media exercised such nervous restraint. Anything that was alarming about IMMIGRATION was PLAYED DOWN.

[We have at the present day the same reluctance to thoroughly open discussion on the benefits or otherwise of the European Union -though there appears to be a slight fissure appearing in the 35 year-old dam of silence but no real momentum by the pro-Europeans to sell their wonderful dream in their utopian wonderland. We wonder WHY?]

The moderates who dominated the Press became terrified of the accusation of 'racism'. The U.S.,because of well-deserved bad conscience had declared that the ultimate sin; and with our habit of importing everything American good or bad, we adopted the same values.

 

Anything that might suggest their thinking was racist had newspapers in a flap. Disagreeable forecasts about immigration levels were ignored, reassuring figures emphasised. Anyway, ran the moderate view, even if the numbers did prove large, our oh-so-tolerant multicultural society would comfortably absorb them.

When facts became unavoidable, real issues would be evaded. if the number of blacks in prison was reported as disproportionately high, the required conclusion was that something was wrong with the judicial system.

If there were riots in Brixton or Tottenham , some extreme moderate like Lord Scarman would be sent to conclude that

WE WERE ALL GUILTY.

 

Blair's insistence that we must have integration is hopelessly late. he says, for example that immigrants must learn English. But there is no way to compel that on the inflow [flood] of immigrants from Eastern Europe.

They may unlike the Commonwealth immigrants, be less alien to British ways. But they will regularly form their own communities rather than integrate and the process of constant, ethnic fragmentation will be common place.  Poles are already setting up Polish branches of trade unions in Southampton - where they number up to 30,000-and in Glasgow.

 

AS for the insistence that immigration is economically advantageous

IT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

it may produce good economic growth, but income per head rises little.

 

The strain upon public services ranging from HEALTH to TRANSPORT is also very costly. Moreover, IMMIGRATION has been a key factor in raising HOUSE PRICES-inevitably in one of the

WORLD'S MOST CROWDED NATIONS.

Further waves will be coming soon from Romania and Bulgaria but they will be 'managed'. claims the Home Office [You know! -the 'unfit for purpose 'establishment.] unconvincingly. One day, no doubt, from Turkey too (whose admission to the EU is supported by the Conservatives!)

 

THE FUTURE IS BLEAK

*          *          *

 

 

 

DECEMBER/06

 

 

 

POPULATION IN ENGLAND...

INDIANS OVERTAKE POLES AS OUR LARGEST MIGRANT POPULATION

BORN ABROAD LIVING IN UK

1)India-837,000

2)Poland-837,000

3)Pakistan-533,000

4)Ireland-358,000

Daily Mail-November 29,2019.

*   *   *

 https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1959/

black.htm This kind of subversion has been planned since the beginning of last century. Divide and conquer is a valuable tool for the elites.

 

NOVEMBER 29,2019

 

 

 

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

 

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

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

*

 FOR RETURN TO

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

*

H.F.1927

 

 

 

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER/06

 

 

 

A BLUNDER FOR WHICH WE'LL ALL PAY THE PRICE

A

COMMENTARY

BY

Sir Andrew Green

 

BRITAIN is facing the largest wave of immigration for nearly 1,000 years.  The number of Huguenots in the 17th century and the Jews a century ago are trivial compared to the present flows. Recent GOVERNMENT figures put the net inflow at almost 500 every day

On part of this inflow comes from  the new East European members of the EU.  If these people wish to work, they must register, and today's figures show that the number who have registered since eight countries joined in May 2004 has hit 500,000 mark

THE HOME OFFICE - NEVER LET IT BE FORGOTTEN, PREDICTED THAT THIS FIGURE WOULD BE A MAXIMUM 26,000 OVER TWO YEARS.

[So much for their statistics]

What effect is all this having and how long can we expect it to continue?

For a start, the registration numbers are looking increasingly DUBIOUS. They have never included the self-employed or temporary workers -the Government themselves have added nearly 50% to take account of this. Even more worrying is the real number of East Europeans who have decided to stay in Britain compared with the number the GOVERNMENT claims have stayed.

Official; statistics suggests that three-quarters of them go home within a year. But these figures are based on a passenger survey which focuses almost entirely on Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester -while East Europeans arrive on budget airlines, mainly at Luton, Stansted and regional airports.

The Governor of the Bank of England has complained twice publicly that the numbers of immigrants are so unreliable that he cannot estimate how tight the labour market has become and, consequently whether or not there is a need to raise interest rates.

There is growing evidence of British workers being replaced by East Europeans. And since East Europeans accept lower wages, British workers -from construction workers to truck drivers to flower arrangers -are suffering pay cuts.

 

The East Europeans can afford a lower wage. They are mainly single. They can, and often do, live in very crowded conditions. And, of course they can earn four or five times what the would earn at home.  This is all good news for them and for their employers. East Europeans have established a solid reputation for hard work, turning up on time and making few demands.  Lower wages mean higher profits. They also mean lower inflation and somewhat lower interest rates [Provided the Bank of England can get the correct immigration figure for their calculation]

The Middle Classes are happy too. Cheap nannies, cheaper restaurants and a cheap hand-wash for the gas guzzler.

 

But there are snags. Not only do the low-paid suffer a reduction in wages. Worse, we risk building up an underclass of long-term unemployment.

 

There are a million young people who are neither in work or education. If you add those on incapacity benefit to the unemployed (now at a six year high), you have nearly

5,000,000

-young people who are NOT WORKING and , more importantly have little prospect of doing so for the foreseeable future.

 

Which employer is going to take a young British worker of incapacity benefit when he can take a bright young energetic and probably over-qualified Pole?

 

The Government frequently claims the East Europeans are filling gaps in the labour market. But we have to examine the facts, NOT THE SPIN.  It is five years since the Government first proclaimed that we need immigration to fill

600,000 vacancies in OUR LABOUR MARKET.

Since then, immigration has added about three-quarters of a million to our population. YET believe it or not, VACANCIES are still at

600,000

The REASON is that immigrants are not only filling jobs, but they are also adding to consumer demand, which in turn creates more jobs so that vacancies in the labour market remain the same. 

The Government argument is demonstrably FALSE

The main outcome is that we become an ever-more crowded island. And that is where the shoe really pinches.  The strain on our public services and infrastructure grows by the day.  Children are turning up at school gates with NO ENGLISH and NO WARNING.  Rents are rising sharply as the buy-to-let market booms and house prices rise.  More young people find it impossible to get on the housing ladder as prices spiral.

I do not mean in any way to be critical of the new arrivals. They work hard and fit in. BUT the bottom line is that we are a small island and are already overcrowded-especially in the

SOUTH EAST

The Department of Transport has forecast that traffic on our roads will increase by 30 per cent in the next ten years and by 40 to 50 per cent on motorways. GRIDLOCK APPROACHES. It is time that serious thought was given to how many people we can sensibly accommodate on this island.

Is there any relief in sight? Not in the Third World, from where the majority of immigrants still come.  As for Europe, Romania and Bulgaria are no longer on the horizon but on our doorstep. From next January 2007 30 million people from those countries will be free to enter Britain.

 

In the longer term much depends on how much time it will take these countries, given substantial aid from Brussels, to reach our level of economic prosperity. Poland, the source of 60 per cent of East European immigration, will be a key factor. At present, its wealth per head is only just over a third of ours.

 

Even if its economy grows at five per cent a year (and we maintain our long-term growth of 2.5 per cent), it will be 34 years before they catch up.

Demographics will help. The two most populous countries -Poland and Romania -will both have a declining number of 18 year-olds in the years to come, down by about a third over the next 20 years.

Eventually too, the other EU countries will be obliged to open their labour markets to the new member states.

The biggest factor of all is how long our newcomers decide to stay.

Eventually, the flow of those going home will balance those arriving and we will be in the same situation as we are with say FRANCE.

 

This interchange of people is what the EU is all about. Eventually it will enrich our lives. The Government's mistake has been to rush into the free movement of labour with countries so much poorer than ourselves.

 

It now tries to SPIN this DECISION as a GREAT SUCCESS, hoping perhaps that we will overlook its massive miscalculations which originally forecast ONLY 13,000 East Europeans would come here a year.

 

THE REALITY IS IT IS PUTTING A BRAVE FACE ON A BLUNDER FOR WHICH THE LESS FORTUNATE IN OUR SOCIETY ARE NOW PAYING

*

 

[We have not commented about the usefulness or otherwise of belonging to the EU as we have hundreds of thousands of words already on our bulletin board asking for a quick exit]

 

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

Sir Andrew Green is chairman of MigrationWatch and former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Syria.

NOVEMBER/06

*          *          *

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

 

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

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

*

 FOR RETURN TO

IMMIGRATION FILE

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

 

Brought forward from 2009

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

 
Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with I. G. Farben

Plotters: SS chief Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with Nazi-backed company I. G. Farben

The three-page, closely typed report, marked 'Secret', copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany's economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.

The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire - but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 - and it paints an extraordinary picture.

The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.

 
Auschwitz

Death camp: Auschwitz, where tens of thousands of slave labourers died working in a factory run by German firm I. G. Farben

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. 'It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.' Such defeatist talk was treasonous - enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo's cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.

But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to 'make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion'.

The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.

They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.

But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the industrialists were to 'prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis', using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a 'secure post-war foundation in foreign countries', while 'existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat'.

In stage three, German businesses would set up a 'sleeper' network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.

'The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,' Bosse announced.

'Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.'

 
Enlarge   The 1944 Red House Report

Extraordinary revelations: The 1944 Red House Report, detailing 'plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity'

The exported funds were to be channelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.

Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report's author notes: 'Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.

'Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party's plans for its post-war operations.'

The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.

During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.

A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: 'By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.'

Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.

As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad's gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.

By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf's ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS's massive pan-European economic empire after Germany's defeat.

Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany's defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.

But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilising the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS's economic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilisation through a stable currency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.

The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.

War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 - despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments - the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.

Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism - the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.

But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.

The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp company soon became one of Europe's leading industrial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400million at the time.

'For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,' says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.

'The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.'

Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany's most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically 'Aryanised' Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank's wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank's representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany's most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis' chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben's bosses hedged their bets.

During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard's research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III - but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany's post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a 'strong German empire' was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today's European Union.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid - reconstruction funds - to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany's economic recovery.

Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.

Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today - on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralisation. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.

That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe - was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.

To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today's drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich - an economic rather than military imperium.

• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor's thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

Full ARTICLE


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html#ixzz4oiNwdrtt
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

H.F.1270 -BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

 

 

 

WHY I WANT

OUT OF THE EU

 

I want out because I fear that our

 

NATIONAL IDENTITY

OUR WAY OF LIFE

and tradition of liberal democracy are under

THREAT

from the EU's rules on the

FREE MOVEMENT of PEOPLE

and its

INSANE

HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME

I WANT OUT

because I believe that

BRUSSEL'S

attempts to impose

UNIFORMITY

on hugely diverse peoples are holding economies back, destroying livelihoods and breeding dangerous ill-feelings between

NATIONS.

I WANT OUT

so that we can regain the right to elect those who make our laws-and to

DISMISS THEM IF THEY FAIL US

I'm sick of seeing my country infantilised by an

UNSACKABLE NANNY STATE.

IN A WORD

I WANT OUT BECAUSE I WANT

BRITAIN

 ENGLAND

TO BE

FREE

*

Tom Utley for the Daily Mail

[We couldn't have put it better-Thank you!- Tom Utley.

TOM UTLEY: Oh dear. Is the fact my wife was a bus ... - Daily Mail-Friday, June 3,2016l

 

H.F.805

 

 

WHY ARE WE

 

ENGLISH

 

MADE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT OUR IDENTITY?

 by

Simon Heffer

 

Daily Mail

Thursday, April 21, 2005

 Over the past decade or so there has been a stark change in the way the majority of people in these islands see themselves.

Whereas most living south of Hadrian’s Wall and east Offa’s Dyke used to consider themselves ‘British’, they now consider themselves, instead ‘English’

 

After all, thanks to the cynical devolution policies of our Scottish- dominated Government, the Kingdom is no longer United. ‘Great Britain’ is a geographical term rather than a political fact.

 

And the English, more than five-sixths of the British people, have been bombarded with ostentatious displays of Scots nationalism and Welsh separation -both phenomena for which the English taxpayer is still having to shell out.

 Little wonder, with the Celtic fringe making it clear to the English that they would rather not be associated with us except financially, that we have reassessed our own identity.

 

And little wonder that this should inspire Englishmen such as Tony Bennett, landlord of the Otter pub in Thorpe Marriott, Norfolk, to seek to celebrate St George’s Day this Saturday in a traditional English fashion: with longer drinking hours.

 

Mr Bennett had already successfully obtained an extension to celebrate the Chinese New Year. And he has been assured that, had he applied for an extension to mark St Patrick’s Day, or The Hindu feast of Diwali, he would have been granted one.

 

However, when he sought permission to allow English men and women to celebrate the feast of St. George, Norwich magistrates turned him down. St George’s Day, Mr Bennett was informed by magistrate Roy Church, simply isn’t ‘special’ enough.

 

As an Englishman, I greatly respect the culture and economic contribution that the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and other minorities such as Asians have made to this country.

 

But throughout the General Election campaign, several prominent politicians have, in search for votes, made the questionable assertion that a ‘diverse’ society-it is no longer politically-correct to talk of a ‘multi-cultural’ one - is better than a monocultural one.

 

This is the prevailing mood among the small out- of- touch clique who rule our country, those who fawn on them, and those who take orders from them.

 

The English, owning as they do the majority culture, are whipping boys for this obsession with diversity. You cannot, after all imagine a less diverse human being than the white, middle-aged male Mr Bennett, swathed in his St. George’s flag, and fulfilling one of the oldest and important functions known to English society: selling ale in his pub.

 

It is all right to celebrate St Patrick’s Day, because the Irish are a historically oppressed minority. A faintly similar case, far more laughable can be made for the feasts of St. Andrew and St.David.

 

And when it comes to celebrating the Chinese New Year, or Diwali, or Ramadan (unlikely, I know, but I include it for the sake of ‘diversity’), the English Establishment can find no objections at all.

 After all, these people are genuine ethnic minorities, the obvious victims of prejudice.

 English politicians and magistrates can thus demonstrate their post-imperial guilt by sanctioning whatever celebrations of such feast days may be required, and taking the much- needed opportunity for some self flagellation about being English into the bargain.

 

Mr Bennett is fuming about this. He is not alone. I am fuming about it, too. And millions of other English men and women will rage at this latest insult to our people, our nation, our traditions, our culture, our way of life, our history, and above all, to our good sense.

 

For we, being fair-minded, know we have as much right to our national and cultural identity as any Irishman, Scotsman. Welshman or Hindu does to his.

 

After all, the reasons adduced by the liberal fascists for our need to feel guilty, and to keep quiet about our national identity, are thoroughly bogus.

 

Our history is not one of oppression, nor of tyranny. Why uniquely among the Great European powers did England avoid revolution in the past 300 years?

 

Was it not, quite simply, because the benign and honest nature of our Constitution and those who implemented it maintained the happiness of the English people?

 

Did not Wales and Scotland benefit greatly from their association with England? Do they not benefit from it greatly still?

 

And have we not gone far-some argue much to far-to try to put right the historic wrongs done in Ireland, wrongs that pale into insignificance compared with what other great powers used to inflict on their minorities?

 

Why is it that nationalism, or the sense and idea of national identity, are entirely acceptable to the liberal fascists when expressed by an Irishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman or a Hindu, but are so unacceptable when expressed by the English?

 

What have we done that is so evil we should hide our culture away? Our crime, quite simply, is to have been so large and so economically successful. The liberal fascists are embarrassed by our power.

 

A

Clownish

Magistrate

 

Who refuses to allow an English publican to serve his customers for an extra hour on the evening of St.George’s Day is either Stupid or has a political agenda of his own.

 

There is a feeling, handed down from the top of the most anti-English Government in our history, that you cannot celebrate Englishness and cannot institutionalise a celebration of Englishness such as the feast of St. George, without being ‘racist’ or ‘diversive’.

 

It may be, of course, that so poorly educated are the new English official class that they cannot understand that

 

English history,

culture and nationalism are something to be proud of: not merely for what they have given us as English people, but for what they have given the world.

 

Either way, the Government’s purpose of creating a society in which minorities are lauded and the English majority are made to feel as bad about themselves as possible is furthered by their actions.

 

To many publican Tony Bennett’s desire to allow his customers to have an hour’s more drinking on St. George’s Day is but a trivial matter. He, and I, would beg to disagree.

 

Our national identity is something to which we have an absolute right to express.

 

For an official of the state [we would say servant of the people] to say that England’s national day is not ‘special’, unlike other similar feasts celebrated by minorities, must be politically motivated as it is illogical.

 

The Government should be warned. The people of England who are being bled white, ignored, exploited and misused by a state machine that clearly detests them, will not have their tempers improved by being treated like pariahs in this way.

 

Never let it be forgotten that it is [New] Labour that let the genie of separate nationalisms out of the bottle in this country by encouraging devolution. We English now want the same rights to self-expression and independence as our fellow Britons.

 

Our nationalism is utterly benign: however, if it is not shown the same respect accorded to others it may not remain so indefinitely.

 

[Font altered-bolding &underlining used -comment in brackets.]

 

* * *

APRIL/05

 

 

The Tories offer YOU £4 billion - UKIP can offer YOU £40-£100 billion a year-Why wait-Vote UKIP on May 5, 2005.

 

What appears to be lost on many commentators is that the insidious measures taken by the present Government are about one thing, which is also sought by the other political parties in OUR Parliament today and over the past 33 years:

 

It is the ultimate aim to have Britain within a:

 

‘United States of Europe’

 

In order to achieve this objective ALL Governments -Tory - Labour [New Labour] -with the help of LibDems have over the last three decades given away almost all our cherished liberties.

 

The recent Terrorism Bill was passed because George Kennedy and 17 of his party decided not to turn up to vote to defend our Habeas Corpus of our Great Charter -the Magna Carta of 1215.

 

New Labour have flooded the country with as many diverse nationalities in a drive to build up a multicultural society in order to weaken the English national identity in a land which does not appear as England on the EU Regional map of Europe.

 

Many of our cities are suffering from ‘White-Flight’ with many indigenous people leaving the cities in the hands of the large immigration of many -over a million - who have no intention of assimilating into our community but instead are in the process of creating a State within a State.

 

There are now many cities which have from 30 to 45% alien population (could be much higher as many immigrants and asylum seekers have melted into the background -but recently a figure of 500,000 has been mentioned from official sources and there are also the dependents of many of the these

migrants to consider which would put the final figure possibly around - 750,000-could be higher-No one really knows?

 

It has been stated only recently that council taxpayers are paying £3 billion a year for the care of at least 250,000 illegal immigrants [those they know of]

 

Might there be in the future a case for UDI- A Unilateral Demand for Independence by a major conurbation -such as Leicester or Bradford or a number of other cities who will be completely in the hands of those who consider they owe no allegiance to our country.

 

Even today there are ‘No-Go areas’ in all but name where the police keep a very low profile and leave the communities to their own clan leaders.

 

This could all have been avoided if only those peoples from the world who wished to assimilate into our community where accepted with tight control of numbers so that the new peoples are dispersed over the greater part of the country and not creating ghettoes.

 

Unfortunately Tony Blair has in mind only the multiple family votes he will get from his fraudulent postal scheme. His chums in Birmingham and elsewhere have showed him the way.

 

Many immigrants who arrived in our country over forty years ago from the Commonwealth are themselves concerned at the large influxes of the never ending deluge of new immigrants and asylum seekers joining them which is now putting a great strain on their limited resources in THEIR community.

 

We are now warned that a new breed of British Muslim zealot -set on destroying this country who believe that:

Freedom is a form of false God or deity and Muslims are obliged to reject anything which is worshipped, obeyed or followed other than Allah’ [Daily Mail-April 23-2005 -THE ENEMY IN OUR MIDST-by Richard Pendlebury.]

 

and there is no doubt there is plenty of material for them to inflame because of the illegal war in Iraq and the actions of politicians over the last three decades in not taking stronger action to control immigration and use more selective measures to ensure that only those who will join us and take a full part in our community were accepted.

 

It has always been Tony Blair’s plan to encourage the break-up of the once United Kingdom into fragments which meant that poor old England being so large had to be divided up into convenient Regions.

 

Well! We know how those plans for Regions are falling a-part thanks to the vigour of the major part of the voting population of the North-East who despite the Pro-Regional stance of the BBC-North-East and pots of money from Government for the ‘Yes’ campaign and the support of a chunk of the business community- with the numerous Blair cronies who had rubbed their hands with delight at the wonderful pickings they would receive -the voters

told Prescott and his cronies to get lost -they preferred their local accountability -Thank you!

 

In order to ensure a trouble free progress into the EU Superstate it was vital for ALL Governments to encourage the politically-correct notions in order to neuter the English people - after all they are a kindly people who will stand anything rather than complain that they have been badly treated. Or is this now to end?

 

So it has not been too difficult for New Labour to have almost completed our enslavement in the New European police state where the many will be at the bid and call of the privileged Elite who have immunity from arrest and so - so many special perks.

 

It is the inaction of the majority of the English people which has made it so easy for politicians of ALL parties to insult us and push us to the brink of Revolution but knowing that many have their eyes on the latest give-away rather than the future of our nation-state of England and it’s Ancient ‘Rights and Liberties’.

 

As much as we loathe Tony Blair and his cronies and want to see the back of them the greater enemy is the large Pro-EU factions in all the parties who when the moment is right will sell us out to a European Super State. It may not be this year or next - but they will not give up.

 

If the English wish to fight back against the repeated insults from the politically-correct brigade which are within All the main parties then why not vote where your vote will hurt them ALL by supporting the only party with a Mandate to leave the EU-

THE UKIP

 

The United Kingdom Independence Party.

www.ukip.org

 

 

And by so doing you will not only send a message to the main parties that you are not happy with the treatment they have meted out to you but there will be a saving of £40-£100 billion a year [Not the measly £4billion from the Tories but the return of our Fishing Fields -No more expensive Common Agricultural Policy which will not only help us but the poor in the world and which will make ALL the other give-aways look poultry by comparison.

 

Whatever bribes you may receive from the other main parties it will mean very little because you will soon have to pay more tax for poorer services and of course the EU dimension will expect to cobble up our £4 billion rebate and there is the increased yearly contribution to the corrupt and unaccountable police state the European Union - after all there are now 10 more open mouths to feed at the trough of plenty at Brussels - funded mainly by the English taxpayer.

 

The time has come for the English people to march into battle to preserve their Country and Identity and there can be no excuse at all because the facts are now clearly visible and the time to make a stand is NOW - to be precise on May 5, 2005 - to give your answer to Tony Blair and all the other Pro-EU factions in the main parties who think you no longer have the bottle to do anything like fight for your Freedom and Identity.

 

LETS PROVE THEM WRONG?

 

On

 

MAY 5 -2005

 

 FINALLY REMEMBER!!!

 

*DID YOU KNOW?

The City of London is governed by the Illuminati-Freemasons and they are governed by their god Lucifer/Satan. The Bank of England owns the Central Banks established around the world, and this is the real power of the modern British Empire.

One example is
the United States Federal
Reserve Bank , which is wholly owned by the Bank of England and her subsidiaries. Thus the world has been enslaved by the Illuminati-Free-Mason conspiracy which exacts her tribute through interest on their various currencies.

"Historically all British military colonies with white populations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were under the authority of the Queen and her Government. Whereas all other brown 'slave' colonies such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the African nations were the private property of the Crown, which is the separate board of the City of London. These colonies were exploited for slave labor and trade, to make the cartels richer and more powerful."

"The Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen. It is a private corporation led by the Illuminati.
(See: +(1)+(1)+(1)

Government Conspiracies - World of Lies - Award Winning Documentary

ZIONISM VERSUS BOLSHEVISM

-A struggle for the soul of the Jewish People by the Rt.Hon. Winston S. Churchill-written in 1920

 

AUGUST - 2010

 

 

*

The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138

*

Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a

REFERENDUM

HEAR HIM ON

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o

*

Daily Mail

Thursday, April 21, 2005

 

 

H.F.1860

 

 

[THE GREAT BETRAYAL]

*

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

The Culture of Deceit

by

Christopher Booker

 

*

PART  4

MRS THATCHER and 1985

[The Great Conspiracy]

Ten years later, when Britain's economy  had begun to make historic recovery which had nothing directly to do with being part of 'Europe' It was Mrs Thatcher curiously enough who was put in the position of the British people, in believing that the Common market's chief purpose was to promote and liberate trade. It was this which led her to fall  for the proposal that there should now be a further big push to turn it into something more like a genuine free-trading area.

Since, as she imagined, this was the Common Market's real aim it could surely be achieved without any need for another treaty. But at the Milan summit in May 1985 she was rudely disabused. The powerful new troika at the head of what had become 'the European Community'. President Mitterand, Chancellor Kohl and Jacques Delors, now President of the Commission, were keen to see another major leap forward to European integration. With  the aid of the Italian Prime Minister, they set a clever ambush, insisting that what she was after could be achieved by only a new treaty, and calling a snap vote.  The reason they wanted this was because it could give Brussels a raft of new centralising powers not allowed in the original treaty, significantly extending both the areas of lawmaking to be handed over to Brussels and restrictions on national veto powers.

By the end of the year their treaty had been already signed and they had got all they wanted.

Mrs Thatcher had been hoodwinked

And to disguise her frustration, she now felt she had to sell the Single European Act back home as if its main purpose really had been just to set up a

'SINGLE MARKET',

as she had told everyone, rather than move towards a 'SINGLE EUROPE' as its name implied. This confusion, alas, only helped to compound the deceit of her predecessors.

In fact one of the significant points agreed at that same Milan summit had been the adoption of a document known as the Addenino Report, which in its own way was to do as much for European integration as any of the treaties. Pietro Addenino was an Italian MEP who had been commissioned after the so-called "Solemn Declaration on European Union" at Stuttgart in 1983, to draw up a whole range of measures specifically designed to create what was called

"A EUROPEAN IDENTITY".

These included giving the Community its own emblem and flag, the "ring of stars" and its anthem, Beethoven's "Ode To joy2, all of which were ceremonially unveiled. Other recommendations ranged from adopting a Community driving licence to sponsoring its own sports teams and cultural organisations. These were deliberately intended to give 'Europe' the symbolic appurtenances of a

NATION STATE

through at that Milan summit by a roomful of people including Margaret Thatcher, whose officials, one may suspect, had no more given her a proper briefing on the real intentions of the Addenino Report than they had on the

SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT.

But it was Mrs Thatcher's growing alarm at just how far and how fast the integrationist tide was now running which led her in 1988 to give that Cassandra-like warning speech in whose memory the Bruges Group was founded. Mr Delors was now speaking openly of how the President and his Commission would soon be the new

"GOVERNMENT of EUROPE"

the

Council of Ministers - its "SENATE",

the

 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

its

"HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES"

which within ten years would be enacting

80 percent

of

EUROPE'S LEGISLATION:

to all of which in

1989

Mrs Thatcher famously responded.

"no, no. no".

Only a year later she was bundled out of the way, soon after she had in effect been blackmailed by her Chancellor Nigel Lawson and her Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe into accepting Britain's catastrophic entry into the ERM. This of course involved precisely that freezing of exchange  rates which the British People had been promised in the 1975 referendum would never happen. We  then saw Mrs Thatcher's successor going off to Maastricht to face another treaty which was now quite unashamedly designed to transform the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

by another giant step into the

EUROPEAN UNION.

*

100 REASONS  TO LEAVE THE EU

*

.H.F.1265 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

 
[A REMINDER]

 

WHAT WE ARE ESCAPING FROM ON MARCH 29,2019

[Daily Mail-Monday, June 9,2008]

 

Brought forward from June 2008

[HOW IT BEGAN.]

 

The Dirty Little Secret Is That Our MPs Hardly Matter Any More

 

by

 

THE

Melanie

Phillips

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-Monday, June 9,2008]

CUP YOUR ears, What is that sound we are suddenly picking up on the bush telegraph?

[PANIC]

It is the distant but unmistakable trumpeting of the elephant in the room. And the name of that most dangerous but lamentably unscrutinised animal is the

EUROPEAN UNION.

The EU is the issue that all politicians are ignoring in the hope we will forget about it.  Most immediately, they hope we have forgotten to be concerned about the

EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

which is masquerading as a bog-standard treaty over which we need lose no sleep.

 

This constitution, which would bring into being a

SUPER-STATE

and end once and for all what remains of the

INDEPENDENCE

OF

EU MEMBER STATES

was dumped after it was rejected by

FRENCH and DUTCH

voters

in

2005.

It was then resurrected in all but name as the

TREATY of LISBON

which

PARLIAMENT

is in the process of ratifying.

This week, that

CONSTITUTION

faces a triple test.

Today, businessman Stuart Wheeler's legal challenge to Labour's refusal to honour its

MANIFESTO PLEDGE

to put it to a

REFERENDUM

reaches the

HIGH COURT.

On Wednesday , the ratification Bill reaches the

HOUSE OF LORDS.

This Bill was ruthlessly shoe-horned through the

COMMONS

This week we will see whether their Lordships will also spinelessly roll over, or recall their historic role as the last-ditch defence of this country's interests against

SUCH ABUSE OF POWER.

 

PANIC

But something else is happening which our politicians didn't bargain for. As we know, the constitution has to be approved by every member state or else it falls. On

THURSDAY 12th JUNE,2008

IRELAND VOTES ON THE TREATY

-and it looks as if

IT MIGHT VOTE AGAINST IT.

[IT DID]

The Irish government is filled with panic and horror at the possibility that the Irish public might actually be thinking for themselves. For the EU has always relied on bamboozling the public about the joys of EUtopia and terrifying them that their whole world will collapse if it is thwarted.

More and more people, however, are realising that they have lied to, not only about the constitution but about the whole EU project.  In Britain we were told from the start that it was only an economic union which would entail no loss of sovereignty.

THAT WAS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH

The dirty little secret is that, even without the constitution, political power has simply drained away to Brussels.

 a little-noticed but quite devastating speech in the Commons last week, the Tory MP Peter Lilly recorded that last year the EU passed no fewer than

177 directives

-more or less equivalent to our

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT

and

2,033 regulations

enforceable in the UK, as well as making

1,045 decisions

WHICH AFFECT US.

Our own Trade Minister has admitted that around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from laws passed in

BRUSSELS.

Once these powers have been transferred to the EU, observed Mr Lilly, ministers engage 'in a charade of pretence that they retain those powers and often end up 'nobly accepting responsibility for laws which they actually opposed in

BRUSSELS.

Is it any wonder that so many are terminally disillusioned with the entire political process when

politicians make promises

which they are simply powerless to keep -a fact which

 they carefully conceal.

Now the former Tory policy adviser Lord Blackwell is arguing that Britain should renegotiate the

TERMS OF EU MEMBERSHIP

restricting it to

TRADE AGREEMENTS

COMMON SECURITY

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

BUT REJECTING

EU CONTROL

OVER

MONETARY POLICY

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

DEFENCE

AND

JUSTICE.

 An opinion poll run by his group

GLOBAL VISION

suggests that more than a third of voters across all parties would back a prospective

CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT

pledge to negotiate such a change, and that people would support it in a

REFERENDUM

MORE than TWO to ONE.

 

CORRUPTING

The fact is that those opposed to the creation of a

EUROPEAN SUPER-STATE

are not

'xenophobes'

or

'Little Englanders'

of the overheated Eurofanatic imagination.

On the contrary many Eurosceptics like their European neighbours and find much to admire in their culture. They merely want to carry on governing themselves in their own country -because they have an enduring attachment to

DEMOCRACY

And the EU is fundamentally an anti-democratic project, based on the belief that the individual nation is the source of the ills of the world and that by contrast supra-national institutions offer the solution to all its problems.

It is that absence of democratic transparency which is now corrupting not just

EUROPEAN POLITICS

BUT

OUR OWN.

The fresh outbreak of

 'Tory  sleaze'

 over the

EXPENCES GRAVY TRAIN

is rooted in

BRUSSELS

where corruption is the accepted way of

EU life.

Yesterday the Irish government said that a 'NO' vote over the

EU CONSTITUTION

would be a crisis for

EUROPE.

WHAT RUBBISH!

The plain fact is that the EU has brought about a crisis for

DEMOCRACY within EUROPE

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD RE-NEGOTIATE OUR PLACE

WITHIN IT.

Politicians, however, run a mile from any such suggestion. The terror of acknowledging the

TRUE NATURE

of what has happened, in case he is required to address it, has propelled David Cameron into a cul-de sac.

[With regard to the political intentions of David Cameron we have always believed that he was an EU 'sleeper ' in the wings ready to take over if Tony Blair needed replacement. That is why it has been impossible to get any concrete assurances as regard renegotiating the

LISBON TREATY

We would like to be proved wrong about our suspicions but up to now we can see no reason to change our minds.]

His pledge to allow the British people a vote on the constitution is worthless since -as he has only now admitted explicity -once the treaty is ratified it will be almost impossible top do anything about it.

But since his party has warned that the

EU CONSTITUTION

will spell the end of

BRITISH SELF-GOVERNMENT

this turns Mr Cameron into the Hamlet of the European debate - an awesome talent for speeches denouncing

TYRANNY

but a complete inability to act against it.

Mr Cameron is paralysed by fear of reigniting the Tories' internal civil war over

EUROPE

But the Tory Europhiles are now moth-eaten has-beens who have lost the argument with the

BRITISH PEOPLE.

 

Opportunist

The fact is that Parliament is now so emasculated it is becoming the equivalent of Westminster regional council in the

REPUBLIC of EUROLAND.

Why , therefore, should we bother to vote for politicians who will have

NO POWER

except to do the bidding of the Brussels bureaucrats imposing their

UNDEMOCRATIC RULE

over the

BRITISH PEOPLE?

IT IS TIME TO END THIS CHARADE.

Whatever happens to the

CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY

in

IRELAND

or

ANYWHERE ELSE

BRITAIN MUST NOW RENEGOTIATE ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU

The politician who does so will be a

HERO to the NATION

Which is why Mr Cameron should ignore the faint-hearts and sued -shod Eurofanatics in his ranks.

THIS COUNTRY MUST REDISCOVER ITS

IDENTITY

AND

SENSE OF PURPOSE

OR ELSE

IT IS FINISHED.

IT CAN ONLY DO SO IF IT REGAINS THE POWER

TO RULE ITSELF.

The issue is quite simply whether 

DEMOCRACY in BRITAIN

 has a future at all. It could not be more fundamental

If Mr Cameron were to say he would renegotiate Britain's place in Europe, he would silence all the mutterings that he is a blank page, an opportunist, a follower rather than

A LEADER.

He would immediately establish himself instead as a

STATESMAN of the FIRST RANK

Come on, Mr Cameron: the PEOPLE would not only be with you, but are simply desperate to hear a politician say that he will fight to preserve what so many of our fellow citizens down through the centuries have

DIED TO DEFEND.

*

[This essay was as usual no disappointment to us who have followed the work of Melanie Phillips for a number of years and never disappointed with her assessment on any subject under the sun. This article was timely and no doubt it would have had many dithers as to the future of Europe decide that a

 FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

is better for the world than the Undemocratic super -state which as history has shown are doomed to failure as we have who witnessed the Blitz in our childhood have observed since .

We thank again Melanie Phillips and the Daily Mail for  such a timely call - to - arms which was answered by the majority of voters in Ireland for a DEMOCRATIC EUROPE of a Family of Free Nation States for the betterment of EUROPE and the WORLD.]

 

[Font altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

*

THE TREATY OF TREASON

*

ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT IS MOST PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL STATES

*

Empires Have Gone And Most People Now Live In Nation States-said Lord Shore.

 

*

A Constitution millions have died for is at greater risk than at any time in it's over a Thousand Years of History.

*

Nor Shall My Sword

*

Don't Let Them Destroy Our Identity

*

WHY can't we have the right to be English

*

Why Are We English Made To Feel Guilty

*

The Soul of England

*

 

The Spirit of England

*

The Queen and EU Constitution

*

Thoughts on St George's Day -Who are the English

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, to Edward Heath, prior to the acceptance by Parliament of the "Treaty of Rome"1972.

*

What History Tells us About Our History with the CONTINENT.

*

I Say We Must Not Join Europe-Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery.

*

Could England Survive Outside Europe?-YES!

*

The Truth About A Federal Europe

*

Our Basic Liberties And Freedoms -To Be Surrendered To A Foreign Power.

*

The Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution For Europe.

*

The Rotten Heart Of Europe by Bernard Connolly.

*

[There Are Hundreds Of Bulletins Of A Similar Vein In Our

 Bulletin File

 

Thank You for Calling!

 

[Glad to be back! -Our Website has been down since the 18th May because our server had been victim to a hacker. For a time however some items from 2007 were shown for a short period. This attack supports our contention that some do not like our frank comments about the EU and  proves we are doing our duty to pass the information to the general public to decide.]

 

JUNE 15-2008

 

COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

*

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE 2008

 

H.F.1702

 

 

[A LESSON OF HISTORY]]

 

SATURDAY

ESSAY

BY

SIMON JENKINS: Dictators failed to unite Europe's ... - Daily Mail

OCTOBER 20,2019

 

ON AUGUST 6, 1806, a herald in full regalia rode across Vienna to the city's Jesuit church. He climbed the tower blew his silver trumpet and summoned the crowd to silence. he then announced that the Holy Roman Empire was dead.

After a thousand years of existence, Europe's oldest union was being wound up-courtesy of Napoleon. The crowd wept.

Might it happen again? History tells us that whenever Europe tries to act in unison, it screws up. The Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne left an empire that collapsed in ruins. Ferdinand of Bohemia tried to create a single Roman Catholic empire, and unleashed the Thirty Years War in the 17th century. Napoleon brought most of Europe under his rod, an millions died until Wellington did for him at Waterloo.

 The Allies punished Germany after the First World War, and so brought Hitler to power. Today's European Union mishandled Russia after 1989 and paved  the way for the reign of Vladimir Putin.

Anyone who believes the EU is so modern, united and peace-loving that it will deftly handle Britain's departure should read history and shudder.

 Ever since somewhere called Europe came into being under the Ancient Greeks, two forces have driven this continent forward.

One is the  inability of the descendents of its original migrant tribes to live in peace with their neighbours. The other is the attempt of one power

 [GERMANY TODAY]

after another to seek to dominate and unite those disparate tribes.

 

Rome  tried. So did successive popes, Holy Roman emperors, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler and now, dare I add, the leaders of the European Union. Some of these attempts were well-intentioned; most were not so'

There is no question they together forged a continent that is globally outstanding.

Today, Europe is wealthy, stable, mostly liberal and a magnet to the world's migrants, rich and poor alike. Whether this was  because of or in spite of a history of ceaseless conflict is an open question, But so, too, is whether half a century of stability can survive any new breakdown in unity.

WHEN I first studied Europe's history, I searched for themes that have glued together its various forces. First was the potency of ancient Mediterranean culture. Greece under Pericles was a kingdom of reason, fascinated by the human condition as expressed in art, literature and civic politics.

Rome was a sort of opposite, a realm of law and order, the wielding of power over the entire Mediterranean basin. 'These be your arts, O Rome, 'said Virgil, to impose the ways of peace,' The operative word was impose.

As Roman rule disintegrated, it mutated into that of the Christian Church.

Christianity was ostensibly a doctrine of universal love and peace, but it soon became a cauldron of rivalry and disunity. It split Rome from Constantinople, and proved so quarrelsome that a third of Christendom-in the Levant and Africa-became Muslim and has remained so ever since.

 In 1216, the bid of Pope Innocent III to declare himself sovereign lord of Europe bred endless conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, based in Germany. So we can conclude that as a glue of union, religion was a failure. By the 16th century the Reformation had split Innocent's Roman church in two, between Protestant north and Catholic south.

This in turn led to the Thirty Years War-the cruellest devastation of Europe before the 20th century. From the wreckage of that first great European War ever more potent nation states -notably France, Spain and Austria.

The new cause of disruption was not religion but dynasty. Louis XIV sought perpetual war with his neighbours. Russia flexed its territorial muscles. Frederick the Great of Prussia declared that 'national enlargement is a fundamental law of life'. To him, Europe was synonymous with struggle.

Nothing seemed able to bring peace to the continent: not the vitality of the Renaissance or wisdom of the Enlightenment, not great thinkers and writers like Petrarch, Shakespeare. Locke, Voltaire or Goethe.

Napoleon's attempt to unite Europe under French rule led to

5,000,000 DEATHS

The victorious nations at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, a few months after Waterloo valiantly attempted a

'Concert of Europe'.

In future, they ordained, difference would be settled around a conference table not the battlefield.

Peace lasted for a century, while Europe plunged into a different form of aggrandisement-that of overseas imperialism

 

 

 

By the end of the 19th century, the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and Germans ruled an astonishing half the world's population and 85 per cent of its trade

Some might have hoped that such expansion might leave Europe itself in peace. Yet no sooner had it strutted the globe as a champion of progress then it fell victim to two of the world's most horrendous conflagrations.

The idea that the 'Kaiser's war' and then 'Hitler's war were random Prussian monstrosities was absurd. They resulted from a failure of political imagination and leadership across all of Europe, whose turbulent nations seemed incurably belligerent.

 By 1945, Europe was in self-inflicted ruins. Its peoples were starving, its cities destroyed and a centuries-old edifice of cultural achievement was crippled. Though Fascism had been defeated, the price was half a continent enslaved to Communism, and the other half dependent on American protection.

There is no doubt that the subsequent half-century saw  Europe at its best. It rebuilt itself, displaying a sincere desire for there never to be a war ever again

 A Common Market was formed in 1956 under the Treaty of Rome. This treaty grew and flourished, until a free trade area covered virtually all non-communist Europe. The continent seemed genuinely at peace, under the embrace of 'ever closer union'.

 But as this half of Europe prospered and cohered, it also slid into the morass of bureaucratic centralism. And here is where the lassons of history were ignored

 

The ambition of the Brussels  elite was curiously reminiscent of the medieval church. It became a quest for ever-tighter control of its adherents, and a disregard for the political mood of member states

The first moment of truth came with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This ended the wartime division of Europe, to which the EU reacted like a conquering power. It enticed Russia's old Warsaw Pact allies into the EU and NATO, and left Moscow dangerously isolated.

When Boris Yeltsin warned that advancing NATO deep into Eastern  Europe meant 'the flames of war could break out again across Europe, the EU laughed.

The result was Vladimir Putin, vowing to 'make Russia great again' under  his kleptomaniac rule.  In the U.S., the balance of power between a central superstate and its various subordinate states was embedded in a constitution, written in blood. I Europe, that balance was left to evolve.

The EU ignored the risks it was running, not just in mishandling Russia, but in readily opening its borders to the immature democracies of Eastern Europe.

[And not forgetting the arrival in Germany of the once East German official Frau Merkel.]

After Maastricht in 1992, which effectively pledged the continent to become one giant federal entity, majority voting in the EU council eroded the authority of NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS.

Europe seemed the plaything of French bureaucrats and German bankers.

[HITLER WOULD BE PROUD]

 

 

Once more, the hard-learned lessons of the past were disregarded in the zealous pursuit of a new Nirvana. For example, the continent's longest confederation was the Holy Roman Empire. Voltaire may have called it not holy, nor Roman nor an empire-but its respect for the treasured autonomy of dozens of German princelings contrived to keep the German people's at peace with their neighbours for a millennium. Europe gained in the process, the wealth of the Rhine and the Baltic, the radicalism of Luther and the genius of Bach and Beethoven. That union collapsed only when Napoleon in France and then Bismarck in Germany could not tolerate what they saw as affront to their imperial ambitions.

The collapse of a united Europe did neither tyrant any good, but it did turn Germany from a peaceful confederacy - a kind of giant Switzerland - into a belligerent power under the supremacy of warlike Prussia.

The lessons must be obvious. Attempts at European union fail when they lose respect for the

IDENTITY

AND

AUTONOMY

of the continent's ancestral communities

You cannot ram union, let alone

GLOBALISATION

down people's throats. Diversity lies at the core of Europe's collective experience, but it is jealously guarded diversity.

Europe can never be subsumed under a single power structure. Union can only be a light-touch and consensual.

The EU's greatest mistake was to move beyond ever-closer trade to an ill-defined' ever closer union'. Above all, it lay in demanding that member states accept open borders.

That may have seemed a small matter to the globe-trotting cosmopolites of Brussels. But control over immigration meant control over the

CHARACTER and RATE of CHANGE of LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

To the member states of Europe this was a critical area-of sovereignty

[sacrosanct]

The character of one's society is not to be bartered merely for tariff-free trade.

Unlike previous unions in Europe, the EU is a collection of self -determining democracies.

Already by 2010, anti-European sentiment was growing and consent crumbling. Turnouts in EU elections plummeted from

60 % to 40 per cent.

Populist politicians-anti immigration and often anti EU-emerged in the UK. France, Italy, Germany and former communist states. The 2008 financial crisis saw the Eurozone's GERMAN MASTERS  inflict terrible damage on GREECE and SPAIN.

Then in 2016, the UK shattered the equilibrium. Its people voted -narrowly- to withdraw. Europe's union face d a fissure, and a deep one.

There was nothing new in Britain detaching itself from the rest of Europe. It had 'left' after the Hundred Years War that finally ended in the mid-15th century and after Henry V111's defection from Rome nearly a century later. It refused to join the Common Market in 1957, and only combined under NATO to benefit from America's nuclear shield.

Now, once again, Britain has said

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

We should have no doubt of the reason. Political Europe has not found an answer to the question that defied all earlier attempts at union. How can this fragmentary continent be united without lurching either towards debilitating central authority or towards disintegration

Since the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, the EU has lurched towards the former. Now, with the rise of a reactionary populism, it is lurching towards the latter

There is hardly a member state that would dare imitate Britain and hold a Referendum on EU membership. But that is insufficient consent for union.

With or without Britain the EU must find a way of returning substantive sovereignty to its 

MEMBER STATES

not least over their borders. If it does that, who knows, Britain might rejoin.

If it fails, Britain will not be the only defector. The EU will go the way of its many forerunners - to

DISINTEGRATION and DANGER.

*  *  *

 

SIMON JENKINS: Dictators failed to unite Europe's ... - Daily Mail

OCTOBER 20,2018

 

A SHORT History of Europe:

From Pericles to Putin by Simon Jenkins. Viking, £25 (20pc discount), visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640, p&p is free on orders over £15. Spend £30 on books and get FREE premium delivery. Offer valid to 27/11/2018

shop

H.F.1733

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

     9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA

LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND

100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

 
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 

 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

 

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

A REMINDER!

 

 

 

[ A MATTER OF FACT!]

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years. To call our DEPARTURE from the EU  a DIVORCE is a PERVERSION of the FACTS!  - A MARRIAGE if we are to call it THAT is INVALID if its DOCUMENTATION is  FALSE or obtained by BRIBERY and /or FRAUD.

  NO-MARRIAGE-NO CONTRACT-NO COMPENSATION

FOR THE EU TO EXPECT A GOLDEN HANDSHAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO REWARD THEM FOR THE WICKED; ATROCIOUS; DREADFUL; INFAMOUS; OUTRAGEOUS; PERVERSE; SINISTER; VILLAINOUS; EVIL; CONDUCT OF MANY POLITICIANS WITHIN THE EU, SOME AS MENTIONED BELOW.

*

 

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH  RIGHTS  and LIBERTIES . Possibly the reason could be that there would be a REVOLUTION if the PEOPLE knew the TRUE FACTS?

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR

TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charcol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

WHERE corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them - and that he did all this on behalf of a

FOREIGN POWER.

which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

The European Union Collective:
Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

2010

 

*  *  *

ADDED DECEMBER,2018

[FIND OUT MORE OF YOUR WORLD THAT WILL SHOCK

YOU.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.F.1335/1-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU

 

 

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE

 

 

 
 

 

 

MAY-16 victory

JUN-16

REFERENDUM

JUL-16 AUG-16 SEP-16 OCT-16 NOV-16 DEC-16 JAN - 17 FEB-17
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

SEP 19 OCT-19 NOV-19 DEC-19 JAN-20

FEB-20

MAR-20

APRIL-20

MAY-20 JUNE-20
JULY-20 AUG-20 SEPT-20 OCT-20 NOV-20  FREE OF THE EU

DEC-20

AFTER  48 YEARS

JAN-21

A FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

THE

WORLD OUR OYSTER

 

 

 

 

 
 
   - JANUARY -  PART 4- 2020 -    

 

 

 

      

NOVEMBER- HOME-

PART 2   -  PART 3   -PART  4  - PART 5 -   PART 6  - 

- (1994 -Official Website - MARCH-PT 5- 2019 )-

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019          MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019         MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019        MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

       MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME PAGE 2--2019

 

*

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012