- (1994 -Official Website - JUNE - PT3 -2019 )

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 1-2019      JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 2-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 3-2019        JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 4-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019        JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-HOME-2019

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

H.F.1842

*
 

TREASON

 

'Fellowship in treason is a bad ground of confidence'

EDMUND BURKE

comment image

See: 80 Comments

[WE were surprised a matter of some months ago when we saw the close warm greeting between Mrs May and Angela Merkel when they met to discuss BREXIT. WE expected that they would have kept at arms length ,at the time, that  a distance between them would have given more confidence to Brexiteers that the negotiations would not be a 'SELL OUT' which in some areas such as our Fishing Fields and the sovereignty of our sea lanes... we now have our suspicions. ]

APRIL 9,2018

As the picture above clearly shows it has been decades of association between Theresa May and  Frau Merkel who was a civil servant under the  Communist East German Government.  May's treasonous Cabinet plan appears to have all the hallmarks of the mindset of the German Chancellor.  May has admitted that she is in close contact with her once teen age friend so we should'nt be surprised if more bad news follows?

AUGUST 7,2018

HOW CAN YOU TRUST THEM

ONLY A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP TO A TRUE BREXIT BELIEVER CAN ENSURE A CLEAN BREAK

FROM

HITLER'S

 PLANNED SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

OUR FUTURE PROSPERITY MUST BE IN OUR HANDS AS A FAMILY OF NATION STATES IN OUR OWN ISLAND HOME. IT IS A LEGACY FROM THE PAST THAT MUST BE HANDED INTACT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS-IT IS NOT OURS TO DISREGARD- AS TRAITORS WITHIN IN OUR GOVERNMENT  AND CIVIL SERVICE DID SO IN 1970's . 

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN HANDED THE LEADERSHIP TO WINSTON CHURCHILL in 1940. SO LIKEWISE THERESA MAY SHOULD HAND THE LEADERSHIP IN 2018 TO A TRUE BREXITEER TO ENSURE THAT

JUSTICE IS DONE!

SEPTEMBER 6,2018

H.F.1525/1

 

 

Benjamin Fulford 5-27-19… “As Theresa May loses battle of Britain,

 West Coast oligarchs sue for peace”

New weekly report from Ben. All I will add here is that this one is extremely fascinating. Suggest “holding on to hat”, if wearing one.

“The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

“…U.S. President Donald Trump has spent the Memorial Day weekend in Japan, in part to avoid assassination as moves begin to end the long political deadlock in Washington, D.C., Pentagon and Japanese right-wing sources say.

“…why the resignation of May is crucial to breaking the political deadlock… in 2016 the Rockefeller / Clinton oligarchs asked their Rothschild counterparts in the UK to circumvent U.S. law in order to spy on Trump and concoct the Russiagate scandal to impeach him. May’s resignation means the British Nazi…-allied oligarchs who fought against Trump are now all being purged from the British military / intelligence / political power structure, according to British royal family sources. This purge will be accompanied by a similar purge in the U.S.”

As Theresa May loses battle of Britain, West Coast oligarchs sue for peace
By Benjamin Fulford, White Dragon Society, May 27, 2019

The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

May 27, 2019

 

H.F.1853/1

 

*
 

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

 

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: You stupid people. You got it wrong again.You were supposed to vote for candidates determined to STOP BREXIT, or at least STAY AT HOME and leave Britains future to the [shameless- so-called] experts... - Daily Mail

 

 THIS IS NOT

politics as usual, there

has been

an

ERUPTION

 

 

... For what it's worth,I wouldn't vote for anyone who stayed in the Cabinet and supported May's

DISMAL, DEFEATEST'

DEAL

, former Brexiteer Gove included.

Can't we just cut to the chase and put them all on a ballot paper and THEN let the Tory faithful [if there are any still around]pick the bones out of it? Be honest how long does it take to run  a leadership election?

Saturday night TV talent shows manage to make votes happen in an instant, using the red button. Why not the

CONSERVATIVE PARTY?

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, there's something remarkable going on.

In the space of a few weeks, the

BREXIT PARTY

 has gone from nowhere to a

THIRD OF THE VOTE

On Thursday, they fielded an impressive, eclectic slate of candidates from diverse backgrounds, and were rewarded with millions of votes -unlike the entitled, professional malcontents who make up

NO CHANGE UK

Can they kick on from here and became a proper, rounded, party, as opposed to a single issue pressure group? They've certainly got the talent and, er, momentum.

The upcoming Peterborough by.

ERUPTION-election might be the acid test.

 WE may be about to see a long-overdue realignment in

British Politics

 

As Bob Hoskins, aka Harold Shabnd remarks in the Long Good Friday: there's been an

 

ERUPTION

 

Not before time. So well done everyone who backed the

BREXIT PARTY

[On that most momentous DAY]

Thursday,25 May,2019

 TAKE A BOW,

BRITAIN.

 

*

 

...Full article

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS]

Tuesday, May 28,2019

H.F.1854

 

*

HOME

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-June 27,2008]

DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East.

Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM.

Consider two examples.  the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by

BRITAIN to BEIJING

 it had

NO DEMOCRACY

at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully.

Our own experience also has much to tell us.

BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

More than

3000

 NEW OFFENCES

have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly

300 POWERS OF ENTRY.

Much of this is due to the

EUROPEAN UNION

whose

DIRECTIVES

are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives.

WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team

AN OFFENCE.

Another side of our

'democracy'

demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being

PROMISED REFERENDUM

on

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

resulting from the

LISBON TREATY

The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to

FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL.

I am not making a party point.

FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON

IMMIGRATION.

especially from the

NEW COMMONWEALTH.

 While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously

REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT

throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope

THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.

Consider, also, the strong public demand for

CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED.

Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the

'PRISON REFORM'

people -with the result that

CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES.

What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions.

IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT THE LAW WILL INFLICT

(and that's if you are even caught)

then

CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK

AND

PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED.

The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by

TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER

the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first.  If this urge is not there when they start their political careers

THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER.

THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE.

But the catch here is that most politicians

 THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.

THEY FORM AN ELITE

WHICH LISTENS TO

OTHER ELITES

Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say

THEY FORM A CASTE.

 

Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will.  They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the

NATIONAL ELITE

- the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.

 

For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame).

Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an

ELECTION

As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free

ONLY

 ON

ELECTION DAY.

But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between

TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS.

And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public

WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING..

-and make similar insincere

PROMISES

makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by

PUBLIC WILL.

 

BUT  the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE.

BUT WHY NOT?

The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like  the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . .

To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM,

MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.

 

*

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

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public
 

 *

HOME

[brought forward from June-2008

AUGUST-2008

*

[ 'IN JANUARY 2018 we can look back over 10 years and see that the situation with regard to many matters mentioned above has got progressively WORSE! Whether it is IMMIGRATION-POLICING-LAWS...The only GOOD NEWS is that we are only just over a year away from leaving the monstrous soon to be containment camp know as the EU SUPER-STATE a plan of ADOLF-HITLER in 1940 for GERMANY to dominate Europe in the PEACE .]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

[brought forward from June-2008

H.F.1449

 

 

*

 THE DOWNFALL

OF

A ONCE DECLARED

 IRON LADY

AND

HER ARDENT AND PASSIONATE PROMISE

 IN 2016

 

'BETTER A

NO DEAL

THAN A BAD DEAL'

*

'BREXIT MEANS BREXIT'

*

'TO LEAVE

THE EU

ON

MARCH 29,2019'

AS we had previously stated

COMPROMISE

should never be considered

when the return of our ancient freedoms given away by a so-called

 CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT

IN

 1972

to be reclaimed in

March 2019

in answer to a people's vote in a

REFERENDUM

 in

JUNE 2O16

 

when an overwhelming

17.4 MILLION PATRIOTS

VOTED FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR ONCE

FREE COUNTRY

FROM THE CRUMBLING CONFIDENCE TRICK

calling itself the

EUROPEAN UNION

soon to be a

SUPERSTATE

*

 

'Trust not him that has broken faith.'

SHAKESPEARE

*
Could the European elections herald the end of the EU - Eurosceptic parties all across the EU look like doing well!.... - Daily Express

https://www.express.co.uk/.../expresscomment/.../european-election-2019-vote-end-eu-comment-ross-clark

*
AGITATION

Agitation prevents rebellion, keeps the peace, and secures progress. Every step she gains is gained forever. Muskets are the weapons of animals. Agitation is the atmosphere of the brains.-
Wendell Phillips. Am.orator

*
Eurosceptics are fighting for the return of freedoms once secured by MAGNA CARTA and the PETITION of RIGHT.
 

 

 

Benjamin Fulford 5-27-19… “As Theresa May loses battle of Britain,

 West Coast oligarchs sue for peace”

New weekly report from Ben. All I will add here is that this one is extremely fascinating. Suggest “holding on to hat”, if wearing one.

“The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

“…U.S. President Donald Trump has spent the Memorial Day weekend in Japan, in part to avoid assassination as moves begin to end the long political deadlock in Washington, D.C., Pentagon and Japanese right-wing sources say.

“…why the resignation of May is crucial to breaking the political deadlock… in 2016 the Rockefeller / Clinton oligarchs asked their Rothschild counterparts in the UK to circumvent U.S. law in order to spy on Trump and concoct the Russiagate scandal to impeach him. May’s resignation means the British Nazi…-allied oligarchs who fought against Trump are now all being purged from the British military / intelligence / political power structure, according to British royal family sources. This purge will be accompanied by a similar purge in the U.S.”

As Theresa May loses battle of Britain, West Coast oligarchs sue for peace
By Benjamin Fulford, White Dragon Society, May 27, 2019

The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

May 27, 2019

 

H.F.1853/1

 

 

H.F.1849

*

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.

 

*
 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2017

 

Tax burden to hit worst level for three decades: HMRC will take 37 per cent of national income - and we could face years more austerity 

  • Experts have warned that businesses face the heaviest tax burden for 30 years
  • It will be the highest level since 1986-87, when Margaret Thatcher was in power
  • However, it seems Britain will still be running a deficit of £21.9billion at that time 

 

Families and businesses face the heaviest tax burden for more than 30 years as austerity extends into the next decade, experts warned yesterday.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said tax revenues will reach 37 per cent of national income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher was in power.

But Britain will still be running a deficit of £21.9billion at that time as the Government spends even more on public services, welfare and other projects than it earns in tax. Describing the outlook as 'awful', IFS director Paul Johnson said: 'Another parliament of austerity is the sad prospect.'

The bleak prognosis undermines hopes of tax cuts or spending giveaways in next month's Budget. It also makes clear the huge challenge ministers face in getting Britain back into the black.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said tax revenues will reach 37 per cent of national income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher (pictured) was in power

Chancellor Philip Hammond has pledged to balance the books 'as early as possible in the next Parliament'.

The IFS expects the age of austerity to extend well into the next decade but it said a surplus – which would be the first since 2000-01 – was unlikely before 2024-25.

 

'I wouldn't put a lot of money on achieving that,' said Mr Johnson. 'It will be very difficult to get there.'

The comments came as the IFS published its annual Green Budget, an independent analysis of the state of the economy and the public finances ahead of the Chancellor's Budget next month.

It showed borrowing this year of £68.2billion will be higher than in all but 13 of the 60 years before the financial crisis struck in 2008 and the fourth highest of the world's 28 advanced economies. The national debt is at its highest level as a share of national income since 1965-66 and higher than that faced by all but five other advanced economies.

This is despite a string of painful tax rises and 'by far the longest and biggest fall in public service spending on record', the IFS said.

The report added: 'After six years of 'austerity' the deficit this year will still be higher than it was 80 per cent of the time in the 60 years before the financial crisis while debt is now at its highest level as a proportion of national income since 1965-66. And there is probably more uncertainty now over the future prospects than at any point in the last 60 years.'

The IFS warned that the UK faces 'relatively disappointing' economic growth rates in the coming years – making it even harder to balance the books. Oxford Economics, which compiles the economic forecasts for the IFS in the Green Budget, has pencilled in growth of just 1.6 per cent this year and 1.3 per cent next year.

Andrew Goodwin, one of its economists, said: 'The economy is proving to be far more resilient than many economists had feared after the vote to leave the EU.

 

Chancellor Philip Hammond (pictured) has pledged to balance the books 'as early as possible in the next Parliament'

 

'However, we expect it to endure a softer patch over the next few years. Of late, growth has been heavily reliant on the consumer, but this looks unsustainable given that the sharp depreciation of the pound is likely to result in a period of much higher inflation, squeezing household spending power.'

He warned that the economy would be 3 per cent smaller in 2030 than it would have been had Britain voted to stay in the EU.

Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'This study points to a serious problem. For all the talk of austerity and killing off the budget deficit, the Government has made precious little progress. The problem is not that we tax too little but spend too much.'

A Treasury spokesman said: 'The Government is committed to repairing the public finances. That has required some difficult decisions on spending, but we are determined to deliver efficient public services which provide maximum value for every pound of taxpayers' money.' 

 

RELATED ARTICLES.Here!

 

Tax burden facing British families is the highest it's been for 20 years ...2018.

By Hugo Duncan, Deputy Finance Editor For The Daily Mail ... cent of national
income in 2019-20 - the highest level since 1986-87 when Margaret Thatcher
was in power. ... IFS director warns tax will rise to highest level for 30 years .....
she's 'selling out' her sibling in her first post-Royal Wedding interview

 

HOW FAMILIES ARE CLOBBERED

 

4.7m People pay income tax of 40% or more, up from 3.1 million in 2010

 

 

 

£1,671 The average Band D council tax bill after a 5.1% increase in April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

28% Proportion of the income tax take that comes from the top 1% of taxpayers

 

 

 

 

£9.5bn Amount that home buyers paid in stamp duty last year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

READ MORE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4201974/Tax-burden-hit-worst-level-three-decades.html#ixzz5H7bi6nMi
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

MAY 29,2018

H.F.1560

*

 

 

[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

*
Frederick-Forsyth

 

 

A Euro-fanatic enemy within is real danger, says ... - Daily Express

 

June 7, 2019

 

ADMIRERS of this page  in the mandarinate of the Civil Service could probably hold their AGM in a phone booth, but one has one's squirrels who whisper from the foliage.  The latest muted chatter is worrying. It seems there may be a quiet conspiracy of senior bureaucrats trying to tie our country into the

EUROPEAN DEFENCE UNION

a scheme to tangle us into subordination on defence issues even if Brexit succeeds -which they fervently hope it won't. Their excuse is to secure  lucrative defence contracts into the forseeable future.  The real consequence would be utterly different - a submission to use

OUR MILITARY and "INTEL" clout on BRUSSELS' INSTRUCTIONS

WHILE PICKING UP MOST OF THE BILLS.

It is no secret that the EU's most fervent members pay a fraction of the real costs of

KEEPING THEM SAFE

In real life they batten on Nato for a peppercorn contribution-some thing Washington is thoroughly fed up with. But if we could be inveigled into a huge contribution in exchange for what seem to be a few contracts, job done.

We see magnificent shots of our two new aircraft carriers, but elsewhere we have been cutting for years and our manning levels are DIRE.

 We need the Atlantic alliance more than ever since Stalin. But for some EU-centricity is beyond a wish -it is a religion and they are seemingly at the core of all this. They know but seemingly do not care that 50 per cent of true defence-what keeps us sleeping sound in our beds at night -is the unrelenting share-out of crucial "intel" with the

FIVE EYES

(The UK and US plus CANADA, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND)

That would close down if we shared what we have with the whole EU.-a requisite of the EDU-European Defence Union. the above is true, it borders on

TREASON

because it is being hidden from our

GOVERNMENT

which, by the by, we still elect.

But there is a leak inside their citadel.

THE DAM MAY BURST SOON.

Over three ghastly May years the secret power has achieved far more clout.

OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MUST ADDRESS THIS URGENTLY

Friday, June 7,2019

 

The dangerous European Army idea marches on in ... - Daily Express

 

Brexit is simple if we just get off ...

Brexit is simple if we just get off our knees, says FREDERICK ...

Treachery is at heart of the civil ...

Treachery is at heart of the civil service, says FREDERICK ...

Frederick Forsyth

Frederick Forsyth says: The backstop was deliberately ...

Ann Widdecombe

Children should be taught to think for themselves, says ANN ...

Brexit must have been ...

Brexit must have been sabotaged, says FREDERICK FORSYTH ...

The clapped-out old banger of ...

The clapped-out old banger of socialism says FREDERICK ...

H.F.1862

*

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

 

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

ENGLAND FILE

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

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

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

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 

 

 

 

 

 BROUGHT-FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER-2005

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

 

SO WHY DIDN'T WE?

*

 

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 COUNSEL

 

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

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

 

 

  [BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005.]

 

H.F.1295-FREEDOM IS OUR RIGHT!

 

 MAIN ARTICLE BELOW BROUGHT FORWARD FROM MAY, 2006

 

[As we have said many times over the past decades governments fail to learn lessons about key matters vital to the public at large such as LAW & ORDER-IMMIGRATION-and a host of other matters which should have been finally resolved to the satisfaction of the GENERAL PUBLIC many years ago. The reason there is this constant CHAOS is that MINISTERS tread softly because there is always a shortage of FINANCE. Well! we  know where there is a mountain of GOLD in the so-called FOREIGN AID BUDGET! to supply resources to SECURITY-NHS-PENSIONS-ROADS and other ESSENTIAL NEEDS of the PEOPLE. BUT there will be NO CHANGE until PR -PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION is introduced into our POLITICAL SYSTEM. REMEMBER-THE GANG OF THREE or is it now the GANG of TWO have no fears of not alternating as a future government so it is IMPORTANT that the PEOPLE have other chooses to keep our POLITICAL SYSTEM in GOOD HEALTH. Soon we will be FREE of the EU and the their JUSTICE SYSTEM and their other ABOMINATIONS but unfortunately we still have the CURSE of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS with us which destroying the very FREEDOM of SPEECH and PERSON which our ANCESTORS fought for those centuries AGO.  WE see the once VOICE of the PEOPLE the once PARTY of the COMMON MAN in TURMOIL because of its links to a FOREIGN POWER. We have raised the QUESTION where are the FRIENDS of ENGLAND in our WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT?  yet there is a LOBBY of FRIENDS of ISRAEL in BOTH MAIN PARTIES with at least 80% of CONSERVATIVE MP's members. WE ASK should such INFLUENCE be PERMITTED in our HOUSE OF COMMONS.  This is NOT a RACIAL ISSUE but one of FAIRNESS to ALL NATIONS on our PLANET EARTH. WE have also raised the question of UNDUE INFLUENCE in the AFFAIRS of our ISLAND HOME and the difficulty of being CANDID of the MATTERS of the MOMENT of that FOREIGN POWER.       We have to ask ourselves if there was no FOREIGN LOBBY GROUP in PARLIAMENT there would have been no CRIES of RACISM echoing in our HALLOWED HOUSE in WESTMINSTER and what a great RELIEF that would be TO ALL CONCERNED.]

*  *  *

What PLANET are JUDGES living ON?

 

*

Daily Mail

Wednesday, May 31-2006.

 

by

 

Melanie Phillips

 

ARE OUR senior judges simply living on a different planet from the rest of us lesser mortals? Our most senior judge, The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, has launched yet another judicial broadside against apparent evils of imprisonment.

In Lord Phillips’ UNIVERSE, it appears that PRISON is NOT the PLACE for CRIMINALS.

 

Instead, wherever possible judges should pass community sentences -which he admits will not be tolerated by the public unless they include ‘significant punishment’ -because ‘the sensible place for rehabilitation is the community.’

 

EXCUSE ME?

COMMUNITY SENTENCES FAIL TO REHABILITATE CRIMINALS. THEY RESULT IN AN EVEN HIGHER RATE OF RECIDIVISM THAN JAIL SENTENCES.

 

This is hardly surprising, since community sentences seem to be hardship-free zones.

According to a recent report by the

Chief Inspector of Probation

-burglars and robbers in London are being set to restore antique furniture or make costumes for the Notting Hill carnival.

[You couldn’t make it up if you tried]

 

And thousands of criminals sentenced to unpaid community service do nothing at all some days.

 

When they turn up, there are no probation staff to supervise them, so they are simply sent home. And those who don’t who don’t even bother to turn up are NOT taken back to COURT and re-sentenced.

 

It may amaze Lord Phillips to learn that ‘significant punishment’ means going

 

TO PRISON.

 

YES, overcrowding means prisons don’t function properly. But the remedy for that is

 

TO BUILD MORE PRISONS.

 

YET our senior judges harbour an obsessive animosity towards prison, doubtless because of the way Human Rights doctrine has so muddled the way we look at the very concepts of

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.

 

Lord Phillips’ remarks, however were more bizarre still. One reason prison numbers are rising, he said, was that drug users were deliberately committing crimes to get into prison drug programmes. He had come across prisoners offered community sentences who preferred to go to prison so that they could get treatment.

 

Offenders

 

What on earth does the Lord Justice have under his wig? There is no proper evidence for this at all.

 

Indeed, an investigation by MPs said last year that fewer than half of all jails had drug treatment courses, that ONLY one in ten prisoners who use drugs got places on drug treatment programmes, and that half of those who did go on courses NEVER FINISHED THEM.

 

As for supposedly non-existent community drug treatment programmes, they do EXIST-

but are pretty useless in turning offenders away from crime.

 

In a recent report, the Commons Public Accounts Committee observed that drug treatment orders were ‘more like a

GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD’

than a rehabilitation programme.

 

 

Only 25 per cent of those who accepted them ever completed them.

 

It is deeply worrying not only that a senior judge should make such odd and ill-informed remarks, BUT that the JUDICIARY should assume it knows better what policies should be pursued.

 

Yesterday, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf [The burglars’ friend] expanded upon such arrogance.

Apparently making a coded attack on the Prime Minister for his criticisms of a judge over the immigration ruling, Lord Woolf condemned politicians for ‘knocking’ individual judges, because it was ‘very damaging’.

 

So lets get this right. Judges may make comments, which are not only wildly inappropriate because they are intensely political, but also reveal themselves to be woefully OUT OF TOUCH.

 

Yet then they loftily inform us that we should not criticise them for doing so, because they apparently reside on some celestial plane above public debate.

 

Of course, in principle politicians and judges should have a Chinese wall between them. And it was once clearly understood that politicians and judges stood on either side of the wall.

 

But the problem is that the judges have torn up that understanding and are now getting involved in matters of POLICY such as the role of imprisonment or drug treatment, which ARE properly the territory of POLITICIANS.

 

The judges have simply grown too big for their wigs.

 

One of the main reasons is the Human Rights law. Lord Woolf robustly defended this yesterday and said that any resulting tension between GOVERNMENT and JUDICIARY was healthy in a democracy.

 

Weakness

But the fact is that Human Rights law has given the judges a weapon to undermine democracy, by setting up themselves rather than politicians as the people who should decide how the country should be ruled.

 

This first surfaced back in the 1980s, when senior judges decided that the long years of Tory government and the weakness of the opposition posed such a threat to democracy that the judiciary should take upon itself the mantle of opposition instead.

 

In the days before the passage of the Human Rights Act [1998], this took the form of challenges to immigration law through judicial review. Such attempts to change the direction of government policy through court rulings became known as judicial activism.

 

When Tony Bair came to power, instead of putting the judges back behind the Chinese wall he attached a turbo-charge to their already burgeoning judicial activism by introducing the Human Rights Act.

 

This change in the behaviour of judges was by no means restricted to Britain. Judicial activism had become a phenomenon throughout the

WESTERN WORLD.

 

In America, Australia, the countries of the EU and elsewhere, the judges -

Acting as a kind of judicial fifth column around the world - are arrogating to themselves power, which belong to the world of politics.

 

Earlier this year, in a little noticed address in London to the Law Commission, a prominent Australian judge, Michael Kirby - a key proponent of judicial activism- spelt out the judge’s agenda with unabashed frankness.

 

The institutions of government in both Britain and Australia, he said, had become unbalanced. Governments had become too powerful, civil servants and MPs had lost influence to political advisers and ministerial accountability was a thing of the past.

 

Amen to that.

 

BUT he went on to say that as a result ‘the very notion of “sovereignty” of parliament has become a somewhat inapposite concept’

 

There should be instead a new type of government led by judges and based on HUMAN RIGHTS LAW - which was already developing in BRITAIN.

 

So the remedy for politicians who were abusing their powers was to replace them by JUDICIAL POWER.

 

This was nothing less than an all-out attack on parliamentary democracy.

 

[Whatever is left of it after nine years of Tony Blair]

 

Yet Justice Kirby was given a platform by our principle legal reform body -the Law Commission - and before an appreciative audience, which included Lord Phillips, Lord Woolf and the Lord Chancellor.

 

Despised

 

English judges express similar alarming distain for democracy. Last year Lord Bingham, the Senior Law Lord, said that the Human Rights Convention existed to protect vulnerable minorities. Which were sometimes disliked, resented or despised.

 

It should therefore come as no surprise, he went on, that decisions vindicating their rights ‘should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.’

 

So majority opinion, on this account, was essentially illegitimate, and the role of the JUDICIARY was to use HUMAN RIGHTS LAW to do it down.

 

This unashamed justification of judicial supremacism is as anti m-democratic as it is arrogant. We are living through a kind of creeping judicial coup d’etat driven by a profound contempt for the

PUBLIC OPINION

-to which politicians are answerable.

 

It is parliamentary weakness that is to blame. Only if Parliament reasserts itself will the

 

RULE OF LAW

 

-     be rescued from

 

RULE OF LAWYERS

 

-who have so high-handedly hijacked it?

 

* * *

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

*

 

[Well it must occur to many in this country that the present sorry predicament of

 

OUR PARLIAMENT

 

- only benefits those in the Judiciary and of course the growing army of lawyers many of whom have grown rich on their human rights harvest which Tony Blair and his flatmate Lord Falconer have no doubt been sowing with hindsight for years. What better way to destroy an immemorial institution of over 700 in the making than to undermine it from within while professing that their attempts to govern are undermined by the JUDICIARY?

 

WHO CAN WE POSSIBLY TRUST?

 

THERE MUST SURELY BE A SEQUAL TO FOLLOW?

 

 

* * *

MAY/06

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1665BROUGHT  FORWARD FROM MAY-06

 

Why NO Treaty LIMITING EU powers CAN EVER be RELIED ON.

 

On the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome a leading barrister describes the role of the European Court of Justice in expanding the powers of the EU

 

by

Martin Howe QC

 

[Eurofacts 6th April, 2007]

Vol 12 No 13

 

What is the key feature that makes the Treaty of Rome different in kind from every other international Treat to which this country belongs, and quite possibly makes it unique in the world?

To this question, a lawyer can give only one answer:

the key feature is Community Law -a system of law that penetrates inside the member states and takes precedence over national laws in the domestic courts of member states.

Many treaties bind states with rules at the international or external level - but it is this internal penetration which marks out the

TREATY OF ROME

-as different from other treaties.

In fact this internal penetration is a classic characteristic, not of international treaties, but of the internal constitutional arrangements of

FEDERAL STATES.

And like a federal state, the

EUROPEAN UNION

-has its own

SUPREME COURT

the

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

-which has the

ULTIMATE POWER

-of decision over both

CONTENT and the SCOPE of COMMUNITY LAW.

 

Profound Changes

This court is not neutral or impartial interpreter of the rules.

The perspective of looking back over 50 years allows us to see clearly how profoundly the

TREATY of ROME

-has been changed from what it was in 1957.

I am not speaking here of the many changes of text which have been made by successive amending treaties such as the

Single European Act

Maastricht

or

Nice.

I am talking of the profound changes in the effective content of the Treaty which have occurred as a result of a process of so-called

"INTERPRETATION"

-of the

Treaty by the Court.

The key point that Treaty articles have direct effect inside the member states is nowhere stated in the

TREATY

-but was decided by the

EUROPEAN COURT

in the

Van Gend en Loos case in 1963.

It said:

"The treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations between the contracting states. This view is confirmed by the preamble to the Treaty which refers not only to governments but to peoples....the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law for whose benefit the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the Member States but also their nationals".

 

Sovereign Rights

 

Shortly afterwards in 1964 in the Costa v. ENEL case, the Court ruled that

COMMUNITY LAW

-over-rides conflicting national laws:

 

" The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights..."

[So since 1963 politicians who later claimed that there would be

NO LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY

-were lying and are still lying to the

BRITISH PEOPLE

We have only days ago put on our bulletin board some comments from Lord Carrington about the interference of the European Union in matters which should be none of their concern.

From the early days of the Treaty of Rome thousands of politicians have lied -From Macmillan-Edward Heath-Kenneth Clarke and every prime minister and government -with the only objections raised by Margaret Thatcher who only later realised the danger which she disregarded decades before and even Conservative MEPs today in 2007 still hold onto the hope that they can change the EU when the only thing worth having was given up over 40 years ago.

A dagger was derisively thrust into the heart of nation -state sovereign power by the European Court  in 1963/1964 and Britain alone of all States with its long history of over a thousand years of freedom should have kept faith with those who won that freedom so long ago.]

 

By 1970, in Internationale Handelgesellschaft, the European Court had declared its view that Community LAW should take precedence even over the constitutional laws of Member States -including basic entrenched laws guaranteeing

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

In the  1987 Foto-Frost case, the European Court ruled that national courts had no power to question the validity of Community measures and reserved that power exclusively to

ITSELF

-even though there is nothing in the Treaty or in general principles of

INTERNATIONAL LAW

-which would require

 STATES

-to recognise the

VALIDITY OF ACTS

-which are

OUTSIDE THE POWERS

conferred by the

TREATY

*

During the early period of the [so-called] Common Market, free market economists would have approved of the Court's activism in the field of free movement of goods.

BUT

-this activism became a

Poisoned Chalice

-since the Court made clear that it regarded a

 

EUROPEAN FREE MARKET

-not as an END in ITSELF , but simply a MEANS to a GREATER END.

Concrete Progress

The Court spelled out its thinking in 1992 in the

European Economic Area Agreement Case:

" An international treaty is to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but in the light of its objectives. ...The Rome Treaty aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.

Article 1 of the Single European Act makes it clear that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progresss towards European unity.

It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the Rome treaty on free movement and competition, far from being an END in THEMSELVES, are only means for obtaining those objectives.

... As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the COMMUNITY TREATIES ESTABLISHED A NEW LEGAL ORDER for the benefit of which the States have limited their

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

-in ever wider fields,

-and the subjects of which comprise not only the member States but also their nationals. [emphasis added]".

In the last sentence, the important change in wording from 1963 Van Gend case - should be noted. By 1992,

"limited fields"

 become

"ever wider fields"

-reflecting the Court's endorsement of the doctrine that there can only ever be a one-way transfer of powers from member states to the centre.

[Do you now understand Mr Nice Guy Dave and many of your MEPs who are always harping about retrieving

 POWER back from BRUSSELS]

The Court has also expanded powers of the Community over the external relations of the member states. It developed a doctrine of implied external competence - that the Community has power to make external agreements relating to fields over which it has acquired internal competence. Furthermore, under this doctrine, the member states lose their own powers to conclude international agreements relating to areas of policy over which the

COMMUNITY

-has attained an internal competence.

Under this doctrine, in 2002 the Bermuda Agreement between the UK and the US relating to trans-Atlantic air transport was struck down. British Airways at the time welcomed the fact that such arrangements would in future be negotiated by the EU rather than bilaterally. I must confess to a slight sensation of schadenfreude at British Airways' present reaction to what the EU has apparently succeeded in negotiating on our behalf.

Whilst the Court has liberalised the internal market, it has often used its growing powers over the external trade of member states in a way which inhibits the liberalisation across the external borders of the EU.

In the 1998 Silhouette case, it interpreted the

Trade Marks Directive

-as requiring member states to prohibit so-called

"parallel imports"

-of genuine trade marked goods from non-member states when the proprietor of the mark has not consented to the marketing of his goods into the Community. This enables trade mark proprietors to prevent the importation of their own genuine goods into the EC from other countries where they have placed them on the market (e.g. the USA), so enabling them to charge consumers within the EC a higher price than in other markets.

Similarly, in the field of regulations and technical standards, the Court has ruled in the 1999 Agrochemicals case that the UK is prohibited by Community Law from licensing

"parallel imports"

-from non-EC countries, even though the products are identical to agrochemicals licensed inside the EC and made by the same manufacture.

The economic rationale of this

"fortress Europe"

-mentally is baffling, and it cuts against

OUR

-global trade obligations under the

World Trade Organisation

on

Technical Barriers to Trade.

*

Onward Progress

Where the onward progress of European integration has been blocked by national vetoes, the Court has been willing to reinterpret the Treaty to make up for the lack of progress on the legislative front.

In a whole series of recent tax cases, the Court has invoked the general clauses of the treaty on non-discrimination to strike down national tax legislation. An important example is the 2002 Lankhorst-Hohorst case on tax credits on payments by a subsidiary to its parent in another member state. What is significant is that the Court departed from its earlier cases which had decided that such arrangements were compatible with the Treaty.

The Treaty had not been changed, but its meaning, according to the Court, had. Thus , the effective harmonisation of direct taxes proceeds step by step at the hands of the Court despite the UK's theoretical veto on this area under the Treaty.

More recently in the 2005 environmental protection case, the Court decided that the EC can, under its first-pillar supranational law-making powers, specify and impose criminal offences and penalties in the very wide fields where the EC has an existing competence. The remarkable thing about this decision is that, if it is right, the EEC had these powers over criminal law from the day the

TREATY of ROME

-was signed on 25th March 1957.

Yet if this had been suggested to those who signed the Treaty in 1957, or to those who signed Britain's

 Accession Treaty

-in 1972, they would have laughed

 

We see, with the perspective of 50 years, how powerful has been the effect of the rolling process of reinterpretation of the

TREATY of ROME

-carried out by the Court over that period.

WHAT CONCLUSION SHOULD WE DRAW FROM THIS?

If we believe that it is right to halt or reverse the ongoing process of the transfer of powers from the UK to the European institutions, then we should recognise a simple point.

We saw how the so-called Social chapter opt-out negotiated at Maastricht was rapidly undermined by the abuse of

HEALTH and SAFETY POWERS

-under the treaty to by-pass the UK's veto on the

Working Time Directive.

 

THIS ABUSE OF THE TREATY WAS OF COURSE SANCTIONED BY THE

 

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

 

If we remain subject to Community law, and to the European Court's interpretation of the Treaties, no agreement or treaty defining or limiting the powers of Europe can be relied upon -simply because it will be reinterpreted by the Court, over time, to expand those powers again.

[Conservative MPs and MEPs please note the above and adjust your records accordingly and remember that the ECoJ has you all by the nose -though many of you are still unaware of how little you can do as you put it- with your supposed influence inside the EU.

As to the excuses of the Pro-EU Conservative MP' and MEPs that they were misled from the beginning we know that this was a lie  as shown from publication of details of that era. and the following view of:

 Jean Monnet document on the European Coal and Steel Community, June 1950, quoted in Memoirs, 1978 confirms that statement.

"The withdrawal of a State which has committed itself to the Community should be possible only if all the others agree to such withdrawal and to the conditions in which it takes place. The rule in itself sums up the fundamental transformation which the French proposal seek to achieve. Over and above coal and steel it is laying the foundations of a European federation. In a federation no Stat can secede by its own unilateral decision. Similarly, there can be no Community except among nations which commit themselves to it with no limit and no looking back'

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

[' A MATTER OF FACT!

 A REMINDER TO REMAINERS WHO IN THEIR MILLIONS REFUSED TO PUT FREEDOM AND COUNTRY-CULTURE AND CONSTITUTION

FIRST!]

H.F.1424

H.F.1651

 

 
[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 Churchillian speech from  1862

How a once political party in support of our institutions and ancient Constitution has betrayed it's past and

SOLD the  PEOPLE  and COUNTRY into SLAVERY.

 

" TRUST THE PEOPLE"

 

 

What is the Tory democracy

that the Whigs [Liberals] should deride it and hold it to the execration of the people? It has been called a contradiction in terms; it has been described as a nonsensical appellation. I believe it to be most simple and the most easily understood political denomination ever assumed.

The Tory democracy is a democracy which has embraced the principles of the Tory party.  It is a democracy which believes, that an hereditary monarchy and hereditary House of Lords are the strongest fortifications which the wisdom of man, illuminated by the experience of ages, can possibly devise for the protection, not of Whig privilege, but of democratic freedom.  The Tory democracy is a democracy which adheres to and will defend the Established Church, because it believes that Establishment is a guarantee of

STATE MORALITY,

and that the connection between

 CHURCH and STATE

imparts to the ordinary functions of executive and law something of the divine sanction.  The Tory democracy is a democracy which , under the shadow and under the

PROTECTION

of those

GREAT and ANCIENT INSTITUTIONS,

will resolutely follow the path of administrative reform.

[Well ! over the past 40 years we have seen this same supposed supporter and protector of our accustomed institutions and rights and liberties stealthily stolen by the so-called Conservative Party having signed EVERY EU Treaty put before them and completed their TREACHERY on March 5-2008 having supported the

TREATY of TREASON

THE

LISBON TREATY.

*

Lord Randolph Churchill continues:

What is the great and wide difference which distinguishes the two great political parties who endeavour to attract the support of the

ENGLISH PEOPLE?

It has been well and wisely said - but I do not think it can be too often repeated  - that the Tory party clings with veneration and affection to the institutions of our country. [Until the early 1960's]

The Radicals regard them with aversion and distrust and will always give multitudinous and specious reasons for their destruction. But how can we, the Tory party, give no good convincing reasons to the people for the faith which is in us?  We do not defend the Constitution from mere sentiment for the past or from any infatuated superstition about Divine Right! or hereditary excellence.  We defend the Constitution solely on the grounds of its utility to the PEOPLE.  It is on grounds of utility alone that we go forth to meet our foes, and if we fail to make good our ground with utilitarian arguments and utilitarian ends, then let the present combination of

THRONE

LORDS

and
COMMONS

be for ever swept away.

*

 

[AS has happened with the connivance of the so-called Conservative Party in the last 40 years with the so-called Conservative party the arch traitors  with New Labour and the LIBDEMS in 2008.   Their signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 -by the Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd who after signing the TREATY stated to his colleague Francis Maud

'We'd better find out what we've signed'

IT WAS the OPEN DOOR to the present UNITED STATES OF EUROPE]

 

TO BE CONTINUED

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining used-Comments in Brackets.]

 

We shall return to the SPEECH shortly in the meantime we draw your attention to the last paragraph:

 

I do not think that electoral reform is a matter of national emergency.....[The Two Reform Bills had been a great success but further changes were to follow]  But you may be sure that the

ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

will endure and thrive, whether you add two millions of electors or two hundred to the electoral roll, so long as the

TORY PARTY

is true to its past, mindful of its history, faithful to the policy that was bequeathed to it by Lord Beaconsfield [Benjamin Disraeli]. The future of the Constitution, the destinies of the Empire, are in the hands of the Tory Party; and if only the

LEADERS of the PARTY in PARLIAMENT

will have the

COURAGE of their CONVICTIONS

GRASP their RESPONSIBILITIES

and adapt their

POLICY

to those

RESPONSIBILITIES

and if they are supported and stimulated by you who are here tonight, and others like you in our large towns, that future and those destinies are great and assured.  To rally the PEOPLE around the THRONE, to unite the THRONE with the PEOPLE, a loyal THRONE and a PATRIOTIC PEOPLE.

THAT IS OUR POLICY AND THAT IS OUR FAITH.

Lord Randolph Churchill.

*

 

[Now do you understand David Cameron that you and ALL so-called Conservative leaders  since the 1960's

BETRAYED YOUR ROOTS

and as a consequence

THE PEOPLE.]

 

*

 

 

 

A TREATY TOO FAR!

 

*

APRIL 23 - 2008

 

 

*

 

H.F.1858

 

 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-July-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-July-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW

 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

 

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

 

FEBRUARY-2016

 

 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

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 NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 

  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with Britian would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.

 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

 WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

 

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*
7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

 WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

 WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW

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

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
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!

WHAT YOU ARE ESCAPING FROM SINCE TRAITORS IN YOUR PARLIAMENT SIGNED YOUR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND

AWAY IN

1972

AND IN LATER TREATIES UNTIL YOU SPOKE YOUR MIND ON

 JUNE 23-2016

 A DATE IN HISTORY WHICH WILL BE ALWAYS REMEMBERED

BY ALL TRUE ENGLISHMEN.

 

*  *  *

HOW IT CAME ABOUT!

Mr Macmillan and 1961

Mr Heath and 1970

Mrs Thatcher and 1985

From Major to Blair, Maastricht to Nice

The Price We Have PAid

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1100 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS almost BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/ ****    REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****    THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****       FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/  ****   A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?     **** GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/  ****    A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES? ****   THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/  ****   GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND****   50 YEARS OF SURRENDER***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

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.

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

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY
****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****
New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
 
[ 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

 

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

 

 

 

 

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 1-2019      JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 2-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 3-2019        JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-PART 4-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019        JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

JUNE-FREEDOM-NOW-NEW-HOME-2019

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012