- (1994 -Official Website - SEPTEMBER PT 1 -2018 )--       

   SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018         SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

 SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY

*
 E U LEADERS

REJECT 'CHEQUERS PLAN'.

SALZBURG-20TH SEPTEMBER,2018

CAN'T YOU REMEMBER

THERESA MAY

17.4 MILLION

PATRIOTS

[MANY OTHERS JOINING THE BREXITEERS BY THE DAY.]

WANT THEIR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT COUNTRY

BACK

FROM

HITLER'S

SO CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[The EU Leaders are aware that to accept the Chequers Plan would encourage other discontented CAPTIVE NATIONS to follow a similar exit plan suitable to their own needs. BUTTIME IS ON OUR SIDE AND MRS MAY SHOULD REMEMBER HER CLARION CALL OUTSIDE NO10

BREXIT!

MEANS

BREXIT!

SO GET ON WITH IT!

We HAVE POSSIBLY HEARD THE LAST OF THIS MATTER AT HOME. SOME ARE SAYING SHE WAS 'OUTFOXED'. HOWEVER,ONE NEEDS CAUTION WHEN ONE IS DEALING WITH OUTCRAFTY?

SEPTEMBER 20,2018

H.F.1703

*
WHAT WE ARE ESCAPING FROM ON MARCH 29,2019

[Daily Mail-Monday, June 9,2008]

 

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!]

*

 

H.F.1702

 

*  *  *

 

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 . 

Chequer's Plan

 a

Cheater's Plan.

a

Culture of Deceit

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

*

 

 

*

 

LATEST!

 

60 Tory MPs to launch rebel Brexit blueprint

SOME 60 Eurosceptic Tories will this weekend publish their

BREXIT BLUEPRINT

for a Brussels deal as they urge the Prime Minister to

'chuck Chequers'.

The European Research Group, headed by Jacob Rees -Mogg will bring out a series of reports setting out how a 'clean' Brexit would work.

The plans will argue for Canadian-style free trade agreement, and present solution to the Northern Ireland question and complex issues like farming and fisheries.

It came as Boric Johnson stormed ahead as the Tories' preferred choice to be next leader-putting Theresa May under further pressure on Brexit. The ERG's 140 page manifesto will include a foreword by David Davis, the Former Brexit Secretary. Various chapters will be released over four days, starting on Sunday the 9th September ,2018

The group wants to neutralise the EU's criticism that ensuring there is no hard border with Northern Ireland means Britain must  stay closely tied to Brussels

It is understood the papers will address money and migration on Monday, followed by a key paper on Northern Ireland on Wednesday. Sources said the plans were intended to set alternatives to those presented by the Government and so force Mrs may to

DROP HER CHEQUER'S DEAL.

Downing Street insisted the Chequer's proposals were 'the only credible and negotiable plan which has been put forward'.

Government sources said it was clear a simple trade deal could not resolve the problems around the Irish border. 'The basic premise of the

BREXITEERS

is that there is a

FREE TRADE DEAL

on the table we can just pick up,' a source said.

'There is, but it is a Great Britain-only deal-we would be walking off the pitch in Northern Ireland.

Mr Johnson was photographed outside a Westminster restaurant yesterday following talks with Chief Whip Julian Smith as a poll revealed 35 per cent of grassroots members want him as the next party leader. The figure -up from 29 per cent last month-is more than double the figure notched up by his closest rival, Home Secretary Sajid Javid.

The only other MP to achieve support from 10 per cent or more in the poll by Conservative Home was Mr Rees-Mogg.

The arch-Eurosceptic said on Wednesday he believed Mr Johnson should be the next Prime Minister-calling the former

 FOREIGN SECRETARY

'absolutely first class'

-but added there was no vacancy at

No10

[Well! We will have to see about that , as it is most unlikely that Frau Merkel's longest and closest friend will co-operate in her own fall?

AS a reminder on that historic day when Prime Minister May spoke to the nation and confirmed to 17.4 million Brexiteers.-

'BREXIT MEANS BREXIT']

 

DAILY MAIL-Friday, September 7,2018

*  *  *

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1685

*

'The greatest glory of a free-born people is to transmit that freedom to their children'.-

Havard, William-Eng. actor and dram (1710-78)

*

'An enterprise, when fairly once began, should not be left till all that ought is won.-

Shakespeare.

*

As Britain faces biggest political crisis since the war this is what I see in my Brexit crystal ball

PETER OBORNE: As Britain faces its biggest political crisis since the war... this is what I see in my Brexit crystal ball

  • Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn clashed over Brexit in first PMQs of new
  • term 
  • Ex-Foreign Secretary is no longer living with Marina Wheeler after 25 years
  • Article 50 represented first act of irreversible Brexit process set to last until
  • 2019

Treachery. Betrayal. Sabotage.

 

Nothing less than the destruction of a Prime Minister. There’s been an explosion of feverish speculation over the past 48 hours about the collapse of Theresa May’s much-vaunted Chequers deal, and whether that would spell the end of her premiership.

Add to the mix the frenzied gossip about the fall-out from Boris Johnson’s divorce and the mood in Westminster could not be more inflamed.

Time, therefore, for an attempt at a calm appraisal of the raw facts about Brexit.

Above all, the most fundamental thing to remember is that just over six months — 203 days to be exact — remain until Britain must leave the EU under the provisions of Article 50. This is the European law invoked by Mrs May to trigger the process for us to leave after 46 years as a member.

 

There has been speculation that the collapse of May's Chequers deal could signal end for her

The Government is adamant that an exit deal is struck with Brussels before the leaving date of March 29 next year.

There is, however, no obligation that we exit with a deal. If ministers fail to strike an accord with the remaining 27 EU countries, Britain would trade with other countries in agriculture, textiles, banking, telecommunications etc on the basis of principles set out by the World Trade Organisation.

This is the outcome recommended by Brexiteer Tories such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson.

Mrs May, by contrast, agrees with leading business organisations and others who want Britain to trade with EU countries after Brexit based on mutually agreed terms.

Understandably, she has freftul nights over the possible consequences for British jobs and the country’s exports if there is no deal.

Hence her Chequers solution — which would allow Brussels a big say over British laws in return for British access to European markets — which was agreed with her Cabinet in July.

Whereas she sees her Chequers deal as common-sense, an increasingly large number see it as a betrayal. Much to Mrs May’s chagrin, her blueprint came under attack this week from Brexiteers and Remainers. This is why there has been such a tumult about whether her days in No 10 are numbered.

 

Theresa May leaves 10 Downing Street for Prime Minister's Questions at Parliament

I believe that the facts point to one conclusion: that she is secure — at least for the immediate future.

Most significantly, the timetable for Brexit works against a change of prime minister.

Let me explain. First, there will be a Cabinet meeting next Thursday to discuss Brexit strategy. Mrs May will demand ironclad loyalty from her ministers.

I predict she will get it. For ministers realise what is at stake — particularly as the PM is due to meet fellow European leaders in Salzburg on September 20.

This Austrian summit offers her a vital opportunity to appeal over the heads of Brussels’ chief Brexit negotiator, the intransigent Michel Barnier and his recalcitrant colleagues.

I have been told that Mrs May calculates her proposals will meet with a far warmer reception from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other national leaders. I believe she will be proved right.

Next, the Brexit countdown will focus on British domestic politics — and the much-ballyhooed ‘challenge’ to Mrs May’s leadership of the Tory Party by Boris Johnson.

It has been widely reported that his supporters will use the Tory conference in Birmingham next month to try to engineer a revolt against the Chequers deal.

However, Tory grassroots members realise the stakes are so high that I predict they will rebuff the challenge. What’s more, I believe Mrs May will triumph and her Chequers deal with survive, albeit a little scuffed.

The fact is, she is respected by those at the heart of the Tory Party in the shires in a way that no other leader has been since Margaret Thatcher.

Party activists have genuine affection for her and see potential rivals as flash, egotistical opportunists.

 

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson seen leaving his Oxfordshire home this morning

After the drama of the party conference season, attention will then concentrate on the summit of European leaders on October 18.

According to the official Brexit timetable, this is when Mrs May must agree a deal which will take this country out of the EU.

However, those familiar with the protracted negotiations say that a deal is unlikely to be struck and that an emergency summit will be scheduled for November.

This would be the last possible date that a deal can be struck — because of the time-consuming ratification process which requires all 27 member states to sign up before Britain formally quits next March.

Of course, the last scene of the last act of the Brexit drama —when Mrs May takes any deal back to Westminster — will be her moment of greatest danger.

Inevitably, it will mean a confrontation not only with those still sore about Brexit, die-hard Remainers, those demanding a second referendum and a Labour Party eager to exploit her weakness, but it also risks a confrontation with Johnson, Rees-Mogg and their cabal of Tory Brexiteers.

The latter Brutuses may think this offers the chance to wield the knife. But a close study of the leadership rules of the Conservative Party shows that they would be harbouring false hopes.

The rules state that at least 48 Tory MPs — representing 15 per cent of the total number — must write letters to activate a confidence motion in Mrs May. If those 48 letters are mustered — and my soundings certainly suggest that such a target could be achieved — party rules stipulate that there would then be a confidence vote in Mrs May via a secret ballot of Tory MPs. Only if Mrs May failed to gain a majority would she have to resign.

Yet my crystal ball tells me that if there was a confidence vote, Mrs May would survive by a large margin.

Again, my reasoning is based on the strictures of the political timetable.

If Mrs May lost a confidence motion, Tory Party rules state that a leadership contest must ensue — beginning with a series of ballots in which Conservative MPs would vote for their preferred candidate.

The two candidates with most votes would then fight it out among the party rank and file on a ‘one member one vote’ basis.

Whereas a confidence vote among MPs would take a few days, this party-wide leadership contest would last up to two months.

For it would require public hustings and ballots to be posted and returned.

 

If Theresa May was forced to resign as PM the Queen would ask Jeremy Corbyn to be PM

That is far too long a period of uncertainty at a time of what would undoubtedly be a national crisis.

During this period, a broken Mrs May would possibly remain as a stop-gap and lame duck Prime Minister — or worse, there would be a stand-in with zero authority.

What’s more, if Tory MPs ditched Mrs May, they would rightly be held in contempt by the public for dereliction of duty at the most pivotal moment in our national fortunes since World War II.

This is why I believe Mrs May will hang on until at least next spring. Indeed, much more likely than her defenestration, she will bring her Chequers deal back to Westminster for approval.

Of course, in this scenario, rebel Brexiteers could join with Labour and the SNP in voting down her deal.

If that happened, Mrs May would be obliged to resign. Then the Queen would have no choice but to ask Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the Opposition, to try to form a government.

If he failed to command a Commons majority — the most likely outcome — a general election would have to be held.

No Tory, however much they may loathe the Chequers deal, would want either a Corbyn government or a third general election in three years.

Be in no doubt: we are facing a possible constitutional crisis of the kind that takes place in Britain at most once a century.

To avoid this, I expect good sense to prevail. I expect Theresa May will strike a deal with Brussels — and, if she rides her luck, should remain PM until the next general election, which is scheduled for 2022.

  • Plans to strike a crucial post-Brexit trade deal with China have been jeopardised by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s decision to send a Navy warship to the South China Sea. This is said to be aimed at defending freedom-of-navigation in the region. Not surprisingly, Beijing sees it as ‘provocation’. Is this really the best moment to offend the world’s second largest economy? 

 

...One of the things is to try and understand it. We in England have enjoyed liberty and security for so long that we assume them as a matter of course, and forget that

" the price of liberty is eternal vigilance"

THE SMALLER DEMOCRACIES

by

SIR E. D. SIMON

LONDON-1939.

*  *  *

ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

It is quite impossible to understand accurately the principles of that Constitution without studying its history in all times; and an attentive examination of that history is fruitful of most important practical truths for government of men's conduct in the present day. It shows that this country alone of the European states has in all ages possessed the great benefit of a Legislature distinct from the Executive Government [EU], the Sovereign of England never having at any period had the power of making general laws.   But it likewise shows most clearly that this or any other institution can give little security to the liberties of the people,-little obstruction to the maladministration of public affairs.  The lesson taught by the history of our Constitution in all ages, is that unless the  people continue watchful over their own rights and their interests, the best constructed system of polity can afford them no shelter from oppression, no safeguard against the mismanagement of their concerns.  It may be very wrong to say that forms of Government are of no importance, and that the best system is the one best administered. But it is assuredly a truth to which all history bears testimony, that the chief advantage of free institutions is their enabling men to obtain a wise and an honest administration of their affairs; that the frame of Government approaches to perfection in proportion as it helps those who live under it to watch the conduct of their rulers, aiding them when they are right, checking them when wrong; and, above all, that no Constitution, however excellent, can supersede the necessity or dispense with the duty of constant vigilance."

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY HENRY, LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FRANCE

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF NAPLES

1844

 

*  *  *  *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

 WE WISH HIM EVERY SUCCESS IN HIS NEW ROLE.]

More!

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

H.F.1678

 

WE WELCOME THE NEW EDITOR

 OF

 THE DAILY MAIL

As Winston Churchill (a confirmed eurosceptic) said in WW2 at the height of the conflict to Adolf

HITLER

the instigator of the later EU

'DO YOUR WORST'

WE'LL

'DO OUR BEST!'

 
ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

293

In 1962,

Field Marshall Montgomery

 found Sir Winston Churchill sitting up in bed smoking a cigar. Churchill shouted for more brandy and protested against Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market which as we soon found out was in reality  HITLER'S plan for Europe under GERMAN Control.

 

SEPTEMBER 8,2018

 

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-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

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

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

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

*  *  *

 

 
 

IMPORTANT NOTICE!

PARTS:- HOME-5 & 6 HAVE REACHED THEIR FULL CAPACITY AND ITEMS WILL BE CHANGED ON A MONTHLY BASIS AS THE OCCASION ARISES. PARTS 1-2-3 WILL ALSO FOLLOW IN DUE COURSE . THIS SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE VIEWER IS KEPT UP-TO-DATE WITH PROGRESS UNTIL

ENGLAND'S INDEPENDENCE DAY

ON

MARCH 29,2019

 

WITH OUR EXIT FROM HITLER'S SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION

 

*  *  *

 

*  *  *

WHY I LOATHE  BRUSSELS
 

 

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

 MP Austin Mitchell passionately campaigned against the

E U.

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

HEART OF EVERY BREXITEER.

 

 

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

 

513

View
comments

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

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

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

 
 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Suddenly I was in demand again. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Remainers don’t help. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

*  *  *

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

 

A Message to Members of ALL Eurosceptic Parties- WE NEED YOU NOW!

 

The People of our nation are now in a final battle to save their Ancient Constitution which can only be successful if all members of all other euro-sceptic parties of what ever its position whether to the Right or Left of the political scene to put their own full weight behind the UKIP at the General Election in May 2005.

 

Only those who are interested in ‘empire building’ will seek to contest the forthcoming General Election in 2005.  All we are asking is that on this critical time in the life of our nation we need all hands to the wheel to show all politicians that their cosy game of power politics will take second place to the People’s right to claim back their inheritance before the so-called Democratic parties have the opportunity to finally sell us –and our Country.  

 

Those eurosceptic parties who put their own ambitions first before the safety of the Constitution which has enabled them to participate in the political arena will have themselves to blame if because of their obstinacy that all is undone and their ability to contest further elections will be placed in jeopardy by Brussels.

 

We hope that there will be a spontaneous resolve by all members of other eurosceptic parties to work together to achieve what we all want-an Independent Nation-State with control of our Borders and our Defence and the return of our Fishing Fields and so much more which will be within our grasp if we for this crucial time in our long history we think of ourselves as Britons and Unite Together for the Country we all Love.

 

Let us all show the politicians who over 33 years have drip–fed our ‘Rights and Liberties’ to Brussels that we now say ‘Enough is Enough’ and we now demand back that which has been taken from us by Deceit and Lies.

We are aware also of our DUTY to our Ancient Constitution and Country    

                         12/04

 

Don’t let your children and their children down –but protect their Inheritance- in trust from the past.

 

*

 

‘We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor for honour but for that freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.’

 

(From the Arbroath Manifesto sent by the Nobles and Commons of Scotland to the Pope in 1320)

*

TO PROTECT YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CONSTITUTION

 

VOTE

UKIP

 

THE PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO LEAVE THE EU

 

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

[ADDITIONS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1583

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 
 

LITTLEJOHN

 

 

Forget Davis, Forget Boris-Why hasn't Mother Theresa QUIT?

Never mind Boris, never mind David Davis. Why the hell hasn’t Theresa May resigned? She has repeatedly misled the British people and forfeited the privilege of being our Prime Minister.

We now know her oft-parroted ‘Brexit means Brexit’ was a sham, a meaningless soundbite calculated to deceive. Her vision of Brexit is Remain by any other name. Always was.

She has sold out the 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the referendum. She has betrayed the 80 per cent of the electorate who voted at the last General Election for parties committed to carrying out Brexit as advertised.

Almost 20 years ago, after Labour’s landslide victory, the odious federast Peter Mandelson, addressing a German audience, remarked smugly: ‘The era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end.’ For once Mandelson spoke the truth. But it has taken a Conservative PM to ignore the result of the biggest single vote for anything in our history.

 

Theresa May has sold out the 17.4 million people who voted Leave in the referendum 

If May gets away with this constitutional outrage, Britain will cease to be a proper democracy. She has signalled that the vested interests of big business, the Civil Service and the political class count for more than the views of voters expressed at the ballot box.

One hundred years exactly after the extension of the franchise, and 90 years after women over 21 were finally given the vote, our second female Prime Minister has decided that your vote isn’t worth the ballot paper it’s scribbled on.

The men, and women, in Whitehall, in Brussels, in the boardrooms, in the think-tanks, in the courtrooms, really do know best. So shut up and concentrate on the World Cup.

Watching wall-to-wall football was certainly my intention up until last Friday. I had planned to take an extended break, to forget all about the Brexit debacle for a few weeks. Then the news from Chequers filtered through to my sun lounger and stirred me from my stupor.

How could I relax while Britain was being sold down the Swanee? Which is why I am back in the paper sooner than I expected.

It was clear that May had called the Cabinet together to bury Brexit while the rest of the country was distracted by the exploits of Harry Kane and company in Russia.

What we saw on Friday was a revolution in reverse — the Government overthrowing the people. In this Looking Glass world, the so-called ‘rebels’ are the handful of principled politicians who are actually prepared to stand up for the electorate.

So desperate was May to force her capitulation through Cabinet that she even threatened to strip dissenters of their ministerial cars on the spot.

 

No wonder David Davis finally summoned up the spine to resign. He should have walked away months ago when it became glaringly apparent he was being undermined by Mrs May

How unbelievably petty. This wasn’t strong leadership, it was the worst kind of weakness.

Whatever happened to ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’?

More hollow rhetoric.

Then again, May is terminally weak. Regular readers will be aware that from day one I’ve never thought she was up to the job.

From the off, her heart hasn’t been in leaving the EU, in any shape or form, despite her fatuous ‘Brexit means Brexit’ mantra.

She’s bungled the negotiations, caved in to Brussels at every turn and gone out of her way to appease both the Civil Service and the Remain headbangers in her own party.

What else should we have expected from a woman who spent the entire referendum campaign hiding behind the sofa?

Her career has been characterised by indecision. She got the job by default, only because Boris was shafted by his ex-lieutenant Michael Gove. Over the weekend, Gove was at it again, siding with May’s sell-out against his fellow Leavers. So the man who said famously that the public was sick of ‘experts’ has decided to support the ‘experts’ after all.

 

She’s wasted two vital years. As I wrote a couple of months ago, it’s been two years of vacillation, obfuscation, cowardice and downright sabotage

Perhaps Gove still thinks he has a shot at becoming Prime Minister himself. Frankly, who cares?

This isn’t about individual ambition, much as the political class always manage to make everything about them. It’s about the fundamental principle of who determines our destiny — the British people or those we elect to represent us?

And ever since the result of the EU referendum was announced, the majority of the political class have worked cynically to derail our departure, to keep us in perpetuity as prisoners of an anti-democratic, sclerotic European superstate.

That’s exactly what the decisions taken at Chequers on Friday would do, even though we voted unequivocally to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders.

Independent sovereign nations do not collect taxes on behalf of foreign governments. Independent sovereign nations do not accept the jurisdiction of unelected foreign judges. Independent sovereign nations do not swallow wholesale rules made by unaccountable foreign bureaucrats. Independent sovereign nations are at liberty to conclude free trade deals with any country in the world.

But if May gets her way, none of that will apply. Britain will still be subject to European directives and the rulings of European judges. That’s not Brexit by any stretch of the imagination.

No wonder David Davis finally summoned up the spine to resign. He should have walked away months ago when it became glaringly apparent that although he was nominally in charge of negotiating Brexit, he was being undermined by the Prime Minister and her Remainiac placemen in the Civil Service.

Davis has gone about his business with optimism and good humour, despite being faced with an obdurate Michel Barnier, the EU’s Monsieur Non. He has until now remained loyal to May and has been repaid with a stiletto between the shoulder blades. After Friday, his position was untenable.

 

As for Boris, at least he’s done the decent thing and not left Davis swinging in the wind. How could he possibly remain part of Government hell-bent on destroying his vision of an independent, freebooting, global Britain?

It was Bojo’s optimism, his enthusiasm, his can-do attitude which helped convince so many people to cast off the shackles of the EU and take a leap into the future. My view was that he had earned the right to have his shot at the top job. He’s far from the bumbling imbecile his enemies like to pretend he is.

After all, he ran London for eight years — far better than the present incumbent. And if he’d screwed up spectacularly, then we still wouldn’t be any worse off than we are today. We needed a swashbuckling, strong, confident Prime Minister, who actually believed in Brexit, to lead us forward.

We got Mrs May. She’s wasted two vital years. As I wrote a couple of months ago, it’s been two years of vacillation, obfuscation, cowardice and downright sabotage.

Now her ‘vision’ of Brexit is no Brexit at all, a wish-list so watered down some people might conclude it’s not worth leaving the EU. Either that, or it is designed deliberately to make it easier for us to rejoin a few years down the line.

Which was probably her intention all along. But this wasn’t what we were promised and it isn’t what we voted for. May has turned Britain, one of the world’s great economies and military powers, into an international laughing stock, a pushover, incapable of surviving independently.

How does she square that with her Christian conscience? How can she live with the knowledge that she has betrayed the British people? Every week this vicar’s daughter parades her piety, pictured leaving the Sunday service at her local church in Berkshire.

Who knew her role model here on earth was Judas Iscariot?

Forget Boris, forget Davis. If Mother Theresa had a shred of decency, she would be the one resigning. 

1.3k

View
comments

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CHANGES IN TEXT...ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1612

 
 

Boris Johnson slams Theresa May over Brexit compromise

'More unpopular than the poll tax': Tory Remainers join Boris Johnson in slamming May's Chequers plan for Brexit but PM hits back that critics have 'no new ideas'

  • The former Foreign Secretary said the UK was 'lying flat
  • on the canvas' in talks
  • He said the negotiations were a 'fix' which could only
  • lead to victory for Brussels 
  • His intervention heaped pressure on Mrs May over her
  • Chequers plan for Brexit
  • Downing Street dismissed Mr Johnson's intervention as
  • having 'no new ideas' 

Tory Remainers joined Boris Johnson in launching a searing attack on Theresa May's Brexit strategy today.

The Prime Minister is facing a pincer movement from both wings of her party after the former foreign secretary accused her of flying the 'white flag' in negotiations with the EU.

Europhile former minister Justine Greening piled in to jibe that the Chequers plan was 'more unpopular than the poll tax'.

However, Downing Street hit back that critics of the premier's blueprint - which would see the UK follow EU rules on goods and collect some taxes for the bloc in order to avoid friction at the borders - had 'no new ideas'.

Mr Johnson also came under fire from some angry senior figures who branded him a 'great charlatan'. 

In his latest incendiary intervention, Mr Johnson complained that the UK was 'lying flat on the canvas' in negotiations with Brussels, insisting Mrs May had 'not even tried' to play hardball.

 
 
 

Boris Johnson (pictured left) has launched a scathing attack on Theresa May's (pictured right) Brexit strategy, saying the PM had 'gone into battle with the white flag fluttering'

 

Mr Johnson was branded a 'great charlatan' by Conservative Remainer Sarah Wollaston

Mr Johnson, who resigned over the Chequers compromise along with former Brexit secretary David Davis, wrote in his Telegraph column that the negotiations were a 'fix' which could only lead to victory for Brussels.   

The Tory heavyweight compared withdrawal negotiations between Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab and the EU's Michel Barnier to a rigged wrestling match.

He said: 'Out of their corners come Dominic Raab and Michel Barnier, shrugging their shoulders and beating their chests - and I just hope you aren't one of those trusting souls who still thinks it could really go either way.

'The fix is in. The whole thing is about as pre-ordained as a bout between Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy; and in this case, I am afraid, the inevitable outcome is a victory for the EU, with the UK lying flat on the canvas and 12 stars circling symbolically over our semi-conscious head.'

Mr Johnson accused 'some members' of the Government of deliberately using the Irish border situation to 'stop a proper Brexit' and effectively keep Britain in the EU.

He said that the real 'scandal' was 'not that we have failed, but that we have not even tried' on Brexit.

 

David Davis (pictured on GMB today) reiterated his call for Chequers to be scrapped altogether, arguing that the EU must give ground as the 'biggest loser' from no-deal Brexit would be Ireland

The blistering intervention comes as Mrs May faces growing opposition on Tory benches to the Chequers Cabinet compromise on the Brexit strategy which triggered the resignation from the Government of Mr Johnson. 

What is in Theresa May's Brexit blueprint?

These are some of the key features of the Chequers plan being pushed by the UK government:

  • A new free trade area in goods, based on a 'common rulebook' of EU regulations necessary. This will require the UK to commit by treaty to match EU rules
  • 'Mobility' rules which will end automatic freedom of movement, but still allow UK and EU citizens to travel without visas for tourism and temporary work. It will also enable businesses to move staff between countries. 
  • Continued UK participation in and funding of European agencies covering areas like chemicals, aviation safety and medicines
  • A 'facilitated customs arrangement', removing the need for customs checks at UK-EU ports. It would allow differing UK and EU tariffs on goods from elsewhere in the world to be paid at the border, removing the need for rebates in the vast majority of cases. In theory this allows Britain to sign trade deals.
  • Keeping services - such as banking or legal support - outside of the common rule book, meaning the UK is completely free to set its own regulations. It accepts it will mean less trade in services between the UK and EU. 
  • Continued co-operation on energy and transport, a 'common rulebook' on state aid and commitments to maintain high standards of environmental and workplace protections. 
  • A security deal allowing continued UK participation in Europol and Eurojust, 'co-ordination' of UK and EU policies on foreign affairs, defence and development.
  • Continued use of the EHIC health insurance card. 

With Parliament returning from recess tomorrow, the PM is facing huge pressure to change course from Tory hardliners - amid claims that election strategist Sir Lynton Crosby is involved in a 'chuck Chequers' campaign.

But the PM's spokesman shot back: 'Boris Johnson resigned over Chequers. There are no new ideas in this article to respond to.

'What we need is serious leadership with a serious plan - that is exactly what this country has with this prime minister and this Brexit plan.'   

Mr Barnier has stated he 'strongly opposes' the UK plan because 'cherry-picking' would mean the end of the European project.

But Mr Johnson said Britain faced getting 'two thirds of diddly squat' for its divorce bill.

He said: 'They may puff about 'cherry-picking' the single market. There may be some confected groaning and twanging of leotards when it comes to the discussion on free movement. 

'But the reality is that in this negotiation the EU has so far taken every important trick.

'The UK has agreed to hand over £40 billion of taxpayers' money for two thirds of diddly squat.

'We will remain in the EU taxi; but this time locked in the boot, with absolutely no say on the destination. We won't have taken back control - we will have lost control.'

The comments followed claims from former Brexit secretary David Davis that Mrs May had positioned herself for 'open sesame' on further Brexit climbdowns after saying she would not be pushed into compromises 'that are not in our national interest'.

Mr Davis warned that the Chequers blueprint was 'actually almost worse than being in' the EU.

But he insisted today that Mrs May should not be forced to resign for putting forward 'wrong' proposals - and took an apparent swipe at Mr Johnson by criticising 'personality' politics. 

Asked if Mrs May should resign, he said: 'No, we don't need any more turbulence right now. What matters in all of this is not the personality politics, it's the outcome at the end.'

 
 

Joining the attack on Mrs May, Justine Greening (file image) - who has urged a second referendum on Brexit - said 'no one wants' the Chequers plan

Home Secretary Sajid Javid also joined in the criticism.

He told a press conference in London: 'The thing that is helpful is for us all to support the Prime Minister with her plan and make sure it is getting affair hearing with the EU.

'And those who think there is a different way then they need to properly set out what alternatives there might be.

'But right now this is a plan that has been put forward by the UK Government and it is still being considered by all the bits that make up the EU and let's see what they say.

'But that is the plan and that is the one that everyone should be uniting behind.' 

Senior Tory backbencher Sarah Wollaston laid into Mr Johnson more bluntly on Twitter.

'No surprise to see the great charlatan blaming others for a mess of his own creation. 

Damian Green, a close ally of Mrs May and her former deputy, complained that Mr Johnson was not being 'serious'.

'I don't think using words like surrender and so on is cogniscant of the seriousness of the situation.

'These are hugely important months for the future of the country and its prosperity.' 

 

The Tory heavyweight compared withdrawal negotiations between Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab (pictured at Parliament today) and the EU's Michel Barnier to a rigged wrestling match

He insisted Mrs May's position was 'difficult but not impossible' .

'We're walking a narrow path with people chucking rocks at us from both sides,' he said. 

Mr Green said he believed the Chequers plan would end up winning support. 

'Everyone is going to have to face the fact that the British Government has got a plan... no-one else in the EU has suggested a plan that is in any way workable,' he said. 

One Tory Remainer told The Times they were being privately assured that the Chequers plan would be softened further.

'They are telling me, 'We know this is difficult. We know we may have to move further.' 

Joining the attack on Mrs May, Ms Greening - who has urged a second referendum on Brexit - said 'no one wants' her plan.

'The Chequers deal is now more unpopular with the British people than the poll tax was,' she told BBC Radio 4's World at One. 

'The PM cannot waste the next two months shuttling around Europe pretending nothing has changed, trying to land a deal no-one wants.'

Fellow Europhile Nick Boles said Mrs May's proposals were almost certain to end in 'humiliation'.

'This is the first time I have broken with my Prime Minister but she is wrong on this,' he said.

'She has not succeeded, let's be clear, but we have a prime minister and I want her to deliver a better Brexit - the kind of Brexit I have set out in my plan.'

 

Home Secretary Sajid Javid (pictured in London today) also joined in the criticism of Mr Johnson, insisting all Government MPs should rally behind the Prime Minister 

Mr Boles said: 'We can't get to Nirvana in one step. I'm suggesting we reject the current withdrawal plan in its entirety.'

He added his proposal for parking Britain in the European Economic Area while a future trade arrangement was finalised represented 'a much superior option'.

'What I want is a plan that's workable,' he added, not a 'humiliation' by the EU. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the influential European Research Group of Tory MPs, said the Chequers plan was 'certainly not' the best way forward.

Mr Rees-Mogg, in Brussels for the Brexit Select Committee's meeting with Michel Barnier, told Sky News there were 'hundreds of suggestions' for the basis of a deal with the EU and 'it's a question of choosing which of the many is the best'.

'It is certainly not Chequers,' he said. 

In more evidence of Cabinet tensions yesterday, International Development Secretary Liam Fox took a swipe at the Treasury over gloomy predictions on the consequences of a no-deal scenario.

Dr Fox told the BBC: 'Can you think back in all your time in politics where the Treasury have made predictions that were correct 15 years out, I can't, they didn't predict the financial crisis that happened, no-one could.

'So this idea that we can predict what our borrowing would be 15 years in advance is just a bit hard to swallow.

'To say what a GDP figure would be 15 years ahead is not a predictive power that I've known the Treasury to have in my time in politics ... I don't believe it is possible to have a 15-year time horizon on predictions on GDP.' 

Where do the main players and the key institutions stand on Theresa May's Brexit plan?

OPPOSED 

Former Cabinet ministers Boris Johnson and David Davis, who both quit over the details of the plan.

Tory Brexiteers, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, who insist it will leave Britain worse off than remaining a member.

Tory Remainers, such as Justine Greening, who complain it means Britain leaves the single market and customs union, threatening jobs and trade.

Labour, who say it fails their six tests to ensure the Brexit deal has the 'exact same benefits' of staying in the single market.

The EU Commission, whose negotiator Michel Barnier has said the plan undermines the single market and would destroy the EU. 

French President Emmanuel Macron, who said while he wants a strong relationship with Brexit Britain, it cannot come at the cost of the EU unravelling.

IN FAVOUR 

Prime Minister Theresa May, who says the Chequers plan delivers on the Brexit vote while offering a good deal for both Britain and the EU.

Former Cabinet ministers Amber Rudd and Damian Green, who are Theresa May loyalists and desperate to prop her up against rampant Brexiteers.

Tories in the Brexit Delivery Group of backbench MPs, which is determined to get to exit day without tearing the Conservative Party apart.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May has found support for her Brexit plan hard to come by

 
 

Tory rebels vow to trash May's Brexit plan: Ex-ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Priti Patel among 20 MPs taking stand against Chequers 

Conservative rebels including Iain Duncan Smith and Priti Patel have joined a backbench campaign to wreck Theresa May's Brexit plans, it has emerged.

The Stand Up 4 Brexit group has apparently recruited around 20 Tory MPs including the ex-Cabinet ministers in an effort to sink the PM's Chequers compromise.

Mrs May's limited control of the House of Commons means even a small rebellion from her own backbenchers could prompt a government defeat.

Stand Up 4 Brexit's aims include the end of free movement and opposing plans to keep Britain aligned with EU standards on goods, The Times reported.

 
 
 

Conservative rebels including Iain Duncan Smith (left) and Priti Patel (right) have joined a backbench campaign to wreck Theresa May's Brexit plans, it has emerged

David Davis, who resigned as Brexit secretary over the Chequers plan, also vowed to vote against Mrs May's proposals.

The PM's plans were 'actually almost worse than being in', he said.

However Mr Davis said he did not believe a change of party leader was needed, following claims that election strategist Lynton Crosby was planning to install Boris Johnson in Downing Street instead.

He said: 'It is absolutely possible to dump Chequers without changing leader and that's the best way to do it.

'Anyone who conflates getting rid of Chequers with changing the leadership is confusing their aims'. 

 
 

 

H.F.1683

 

Brexit hardliner Rees-Mogg calls on Theresa May to 'chuck Chequers' and tells grassroots Tories the PM must stand up to EU threats

  • Rees-Mogg last night wrote strongly-worded letter to local Tory party
  • chairmen
  • He said Theresa May should stand up to Brussels bullies and 'believe in
  • Britain'
  • Letter came ahead of Raab's paper on how UK will cope if negotiations
  • collapse

537

View


comments

Hardliner Brexit campaigner Rees-Mogg tells grassroots Tories: Believe In Britain and stand up to the Brussels bullies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg last night called on the Prime Minister to ‘chuck Chequers’ as he told grassroots Tories the UK should not fear a no-deal Brexit.

In a strongly worded letter to the chairmen of local Conservative parties, he said Theresa May should stand up to ‘bullying’ from Brussels and ‘believe in Britain’.

Mr Rees-Mogg’s forthright message came just as Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab prepared to publish a series of papers on how Britain will cope if negotiations with the EU collapse.

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (pictured) last night called on Theresa May to stand up to ‘bullying’ from Brussels and ‘believe in Britain’

Mr Raab will say today that he is confident a good withdrawal deal is ‘within our sights’ – while insisting ministers are ready if talks fail.

But in his letter last night, Mr Rees-Mogg, chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, said Britain had nothing to fear from a no deal because Brussels needs a deal more than we do.

This is because, if no deal is reached, the EU will not receive the £40billion ‘divorce settlement’ Britain has promised to pay.

Mr Rees-Mogg – seen as a Tory leadership candidate if Mrs May falters – called on her to ditch the Brexit plans agreed with her Cabinet at Chequers last month, writing: ‘It is time to face down vested interests in the establishment and put democracy first.

 

‘Yet most of all, it is time to chuck Chequers, respect the referendum, be out of Europe, take back control and believe in Britain.’

On what promises to be another dramatic day for Brexit:

 

North East Somerset MP Mr Rees-Mogg said Mrs May’s Chequers deal was the ‘wrong deal for Britain’ and does not ‘implement the will of the British people’, adding: ‘The white paper does not respect the result of the referendum and does not give us control of our borders, laws and money. Chequers will tie our economy and our future to the EU indefinitely.’

He wrote: ‘This is why the Prime Minister should “chuck Chequers” and instead seek a Canada style free trade agreement with the EU to make the most of the global opportunities that lie ahead.

‘The United Kingdom does not need to do a deal with the EU. The EU needs to do a deal with us at all costs. No deal means no divorce bill – handing a £40billion Brexit bonus to Brussels. It is time the Government realised that the EU stands to lose much from no deal being agreed and stopped being cowed by the EU’s threats.’

 

Mr Rees-Mogg’s letter came just as Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab (pictured) prepared to publish a series of papers on how Britain will cope if negotiations with the EU collapse

Mr Rees-Mogg concluded the letter to all Conservative Association chairmen by saying: ‘Please feel free to circulate this letter and briefing note to members and your constituents to assure them that the Prime Minister has alternatives, and that if the bullying stance of the EU continues we can leave on 29 March 2019 with either Canada or WTO terms. We believe in Britain.’

As part of its no-deal planning, the Treasury will today commit to guarantee EU funding promised to poorer regions such as Cornwall and parts of northern England, as well as scientific research.

The plan is one of the ‘technical notices’ published today by Mr Raab, laying out how Britain will cope if talks with the EU collapse.

Mr Raab will also accuse Brussels of being irresponsible by refusing to work with the UK to prepare for a potential no-deal.

It is understood one of the papers will guarantee funding for scientific research under the ‘Horizon 2020’ scheme. And farm payments under the Common Agricultural Policy will also be maintained.

A source said: ‘The Government will commit to the Northern Powerhouse by maintaining the structural fund.’

Mr Raab will say the series of technical briefings will ensure the ‘smooth, continued functioning’ of the UK economy in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexit Secretary will also say the Government will take ‘unilateral action’ to maintain continuity if negotiations break down.

In the event of a no-deal, the UK will ‘continue to behave as responsible European neighbours’.

In a speech, Mr Raab will state: ‘I remain confident a good deal is within our sights, and that remains our top, and overriding, priority. If the EU responds with the level of ambition and pragmatism, we will strike a strong deal that benefits both sides.

‘But, we must be ready to consider the alternative. We have a duty, as a responsible government, to plan for every eventuality.

‘These technical notices – and the ones that will follow – are a sensible, measured, and proportionate approach to minimising the impact of no-deal on British firms, citizens, charities and public bodies.’

Mr Raab will say the UK, in the event of a no-deal, would ‘diverge when we are ready, on our terms’ from the EU.

The Brexit Secretary will explain there have already been planning discussions between the Bank of England and the European Central Bank for no deal and called for talks to begin on data protection and between port authorities.

‘For our part, if the negotiations fail, we will continue to behave as responsible European neighbours, partners and allies,’ he will say.

Under current plans, the technical notices will be published in batches, starting today and running through September.

But Labour’s Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer dismissed the documents as a distraction, saying a no-deal would be ‘catastrophic’. 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!

 

H.F.1678

 

Patriotic, optimistic and a world expert on trade deals: Why Theresa May must listen to top aide Crawford Falcone on Brexit (and not the rest of the defeatist civil service)

328

View
comments

 

For those in despair over the lack of progress on Brexit, as our political class trade blows and the entire process becomes bogged down in a quagmire of their making, there is a small corner of a government department that they can turn to for cheer.

It is the office of Crawford Falconer, Chief Trade Negotiation Adviser at the Department of International Trade, a man of immense experience in such matters. And, in contrast to the doomsayers, his message about Brexit is one of almost unbounded optimism.

Rather than get het up about every scintilla of the negotiating process, he insists on looking at the bigger picture, saying: ‘Keep your eye on the end game.’

 

It is the office of Crawford Falconer, Chief Trade Negotiation Adviser at the Department of International Trade, a man of immense experience in such matters. And, in contrast to the doomsayers, his message about Brexit is one of almost unbounded optimism

Thrive

He is convinced that after a period of psychological and economic adjustment to being outside the EU, Britain’s fortunes will thrive. He cannot understand why people are ‘so negative about our future’, and says the world is ‘begging’ to do trade deals with us.

Some will scoff, of course, saying his upbeat comments are simply the pipedream of a pro-Brexit ideologue.

But that could not be further from the truth. For Falconer is a man with 25 years of experience in international trade negotiations. He was New Zealand’s ambassador in Britain (although born in Scotland, he was brought up a Kiwi), as well as his adopted country’s permanent representative to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

His knowledge of the working of the Geneva-based organisation is crucial, considering its role trying to tear down trade barriers, lower tariffs and resolve commercial disputes between nations. Indeed, the fact is that if Britain leaves the EU without a deal, all our world trade relationships will be in the hands of the WTO.

Yet his verdict on a post-Brexit Britain could not be more upbeat.

‘The opportunities are enormous,’ he told the Sunday Times. ‘There are so many, where do I start? In ten years, maybe even quicker, people will look back and say: “Oh, why were we so negative about our future?” ’

Nor is his optimism dimmed by Mrs May’s Chequers deal. He believes that once outside the EU, whether after a soft or a hard Brexit, the Government will be much better placed than the doom-mongers behind Project Fear claim.

He says we’ll benefit from a ‘change of direction’ — not least because Brexit has forced businesses to focus on the potential of selling services and goods outside the EU.

Indeed, his enthusiasm is so infectious it makes you think that if he was in charge of Brexit, the whole thing would be wrapped up by now.

And far from being pie-in-the-sky, his reasoning is based on solid evidence.

The Washington-based International Monetary Fund forecasts that over the next ten to 15 years almost all significant global growth will originate outside Europe.

By 2020, China’s middle class — who are powerful engines of economic growth — will have expanded to 600 million people. India’s already numbers up to 300 million. It is estimated there will be 1.1 billion African middle classes by 2060.

Envied

Those populations, Falconer explains, will be desperate for British services and goods.

‘The world is the UK’s oyster,’ he says. ‘We produce the best professional services in the world. Our banks are the best in the world. Our insurance companies the most reliable. Our architects, our designers, our lawyers, our accountants: they are world-class.

‘We have intellectual property rights to die for. It is these services that the fastest-growing economies in Asia and Africa crave. The world is begging for the UK to be able to trade with it. We’ll be pushing on an open door.’

He sees huge export opportunities in goods from cars to aircraft wings and foodstuffs. ‘The world is crying out for protein and safe food generally. In East Asia, that’s what they want. They don’t trust their domestic production, with good reason. The UK makes world-class produce. We can now negotiate with countries in a way that’s specifically tailored to getting our salmon and our venison on tables.’

 

For those in despair over the lack of progress on Brexit, as our political class trade blows and the entire process becomes bogged down in a quagmire of their making, there is a small corner of a government department that they can turn to for cheer

He’s right. Even amid the present political stalemate, Britain’s exports of professional and financial services to the rest of the world (including the EU) climbed from £36.9 bn in the first quarter of 2017 to £37.8 bn in the same three months of this year.

As well as a being a powerhouse for financial services, Britain is home to Europe’s top four research universities and dominates in sectors such as popular music, computer gaming, video and publishing.

We’re world-beaters in pharmaceutical and aerospace research. Our technology know-how is envied across the globe, with Chinese, Japanese and American digital firms constantly on the prowl to buy our leading innovative firms.

In the past six months, Chinese firms have invested £1.7 bn in UK technology.

Every businessman or woman worth their salt is fully aware of the opportunities available by exploiting this huge competitive advantage.

And Dr Liam Fox and his Department of International Trade colleagues are determined to do so. Post-Brexit, they argue, Britain can take advantage of all this.

Of course, following two world wars, Britain has benefited hugely in economic terms by sharing trade interests with other members of the EU.

But the fact is that, despite Brussels bravado about the efficacy of a Single Market, EU member states have suffered over recent years because their Brussels rule-setters have been too inward-looking. They are obsessed by trade within the EU — to the detriment of the potential of wider possibilities across the whole world.

In contrast, the Department of International Trade looks outwards. In pursuit of the deals Britain must strike post-Brexit, Fox has travelled more than 300,000 miles. He may be mocked for trying to woo trade partners by giving them Union Jack cufflinks, but this ignores the hard work that his senior officials such as Crawford Falconer have been doing.

Bluster

 

Freed at last from the shackles of Brussels, what Dr Liam Fox and Crawford Falconer want is for Britain to seize the ‘enormous opportunities’ ahead. And for our political leaders to stop all their squabbling

Their outward-looking drive is vital at a time when Donald Trump has launched an international trade war by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods and taxes on imports such as steel and aluminium from EU countries. Indeed, the fear is that we are heading for trade wars on a scale not seen since the Thirties.

I am not so pessimistic. Too few people realise that behind all his bluster, Trump’s goal is not to sabotage the world’s trading system but to spark a new round of negotiations which will lead to tariffs being reduced in the long run.

Indeed, his policy is already having success. China and India have lowered tariff barriers in response to his threats.

Meanwhile, German car manufacturers have made it clear they want to negotiate tariff-free trade between the U.S. and Europe for motor vehicles.

The shape of global trade is changing before our eyes — and it is trade outside Europe that we must encourage.

Anyone who listens to those who want the UK to stay in the EU would think that Brexit was a crazy act of self-harm.

The truth is otherwise. Ever since the Brexit vote, our economy has prospered. Unemployment is at its lowest level since the Seventies.

Freed at last from the shackles of Brussels, what Dr Liam Fox and Crawford Falconer want is for Britain to seize the ‘enormous opportunities’ ahead. And for our political leaders to stop all their squabbling.

*

Patriotic, optimistic and a world expert on trade deals: Why Theresa May must listen to top aide Crawford Falcone on Brexit (and not the rest of the defeatist civil service)

THE HONOURABLE COURSE AT THIS CRUCIAL HOUR IN THE LIFE OF OUR NATION WOULD BE FOR THERESA MAY TO RESIGN  TO ALLOW A BREXITEER TO FINISH THE JOB- WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY .]

No legacy is so rich as honesty.-

Shakespeare

*

Honesty is the best policy.-

Franklin

*

Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face.-

Marcus Antoninus.

*

 

ENGLAND DESERVES BETTER.

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

H.F.1640

 

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

PUTTING extra police on the beat, cuts violent crime, robbery and burglary, figures showed yesterday.

 

The areas of London flooded with officers after the July terror attacks recorded a drop in such offences.

 

Experts said the data proved that increasing Bobbies on the beat deters criminals.

 

In the wake of the attacks, the Metropolitan Police put up to 4,000 officers on the streets of Central London at one time, including 3,000 who are armed.

 

Dramatic cuts in street crime and burglary were logged for these areas in July, compared to the same month last year.

 

In Camden, robbery was cut by 12.2 % and burglary by 8.2%.

 

Westminster recorded a 30.2% cut in burglary and a 6.9% drop in robbery.

 

This compared with increases in the London area as a whole, where violence was up 4.1 %, robbery up 22.8% and burglary 4.7%.

 

Crime expert David Green director of the Civitas think-tank, said the police response to the terror attacks had provided an ‘accidental experiment.’

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said:

 

‘The problem is that the numbers put on the streets following July7 are simply not sustainable. What we need now is a huge increase in police’ [Bobbies on the Beat]

 

Mr Brennan added that slashing police paperwork could also boost numbers on the beat.

 

Government statistics show police are spending 53% of their time on frontline duties.  The rest is spent stuck behind desks or attending court.

 

Mr Green added that the figures showed officers could not be concentrated in one area. Six outlying London boroughs had a 50 % jump in muggings in July compared with last year.

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

[The above figures prove what we have been saying for many years that there is a need for the local bobbie to be returned to the beat where he CAN become familiar with his patch and prevent crime, which some Chief Constables say, is NOT possible.  But the events in London since 7/7 show a different picture.]

 

To continue:

 

-       Officers were shifted from those areas to boost police numbers in Central London.  [No Police –Greater Crime]

 

Commander Simon Foy, the Met’s head of performance, said:

 

‘After the 7 July and 21 July attacks we had a responsibility to have a huge police presence in Central London.’

 

[We ask the WHY the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said after the bombings that the 3000 officers sent to Edinburgh to protect the most protected man in the world had NOT been a problem for London at the time.]

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

‘We never abandoned the suburbs and we have been determined to get the ground back’.

 

[This statement contradicts itself-if the Suburbs were NOT abandoned WHY is there NOW a DETERMINATION to GET THE GROUND BACK]

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission announced an Independent Inquiry last night into the leaks from the Jean Charles de Menezes investigation.

 

Bill Taylor, formally Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, will look into how documents from the Commission’s inquiry found their way into the media.

 

It follows the publication of letters to the Home Secretary from the Police Federation calling for an inquiry into the leaks.

 

[What we are sure is far more interesting to receive will be the Report on the run-up to and aftermath of July 7 in respect of the actions or otherwise of the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair and others under his command.]

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

 Daily Mail on September 6, 2005  from a concerned citizen in Essex.

IN HIS first statement on arriving in Office in July, our new Police Chief told criminals visiting Essex to

 

‘Bring their toothbrushes because they won’t be going home’ (Mail).

 

He ordered his officers to arrest at least 600 criminals in his first week in charge.

[JULY]

 

On Thursday, August 4, after 11pm, a young man was stabbed as he walked home.  Fleeing from his attackers, he arrived at our front door, cornered by a gang of youths. 

 

My husband managed to get him inside as his assailants kicked at our front door shattering the glass with a heavy plant top.

 

My husband was threatened through the broken window, but managed to hold the door shut.

 

Meanwhile, I relayed all this to the 999 operator, explaining that we had two young children in the house.

 

The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and my husband had no doubt that had he not opened the door that night, this 17-year old boy would have been seriously injured or killed by the gang, who ran off once they realised the police had been called.

Half an hour after the incident, we had a phone call from police to say there had been a sweep of the area but no one was found.

TWENTY MINUTES later another phone call said there was ‘concern for welfare’ in Benfleet and we would have to wait longer.

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

By which time my husband had taken the young man to Accident & Emergency.  The two officers spoke to me briefly of ABH, GBH, even attempted murder, I pointed out possible evidence on the front door.

 

I wasn’t expecting Helen Mirren and her swarm of forensic experts

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

Weeks later no one contacted my husband and no one had been to see if there is any evidence on our front door.

*

[Sounds familiar in Blairdom –where talk and spin are the order of the day and the concern for the victim is the last think that concerns them.

 

With the LAW & ORDER in a shambles possibly the only way to improve things is to have an elected Sheriff to toughen-up Law Enforcement]

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used –comments in brackets]

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

WITH BILLIONS WASTED ON ILLEGAL WARS- AND THROW AWAY FOREIGN AID AND MP'S ENJOYING THEIR  SPLENDID EXPENSES AND SALARIES - COST OF BENEFITS -NHS-HOUSING...FOR MILLIONS OF REFUGEES AND ILLEGAL MIGRANTS .     WITH A POPULATION OF OVER  51 MILLION IN ENGLAND WE NOW HEAR THAT OUR GREEN BELT WILL NOW BE BUILT ON.    LOOKING AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST DECADES IT COULD BE BETTER IF ONE JUST CHOSE ANY 600 PEOPLE (AFTER BOUNDARIES CHANGE) OFF THE STREETS TO LOOK AFTER THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS. THEY COULD HARDLY DO ANY WORSE THAN THE SHOWER WE HAVE HAD IN PARLIAMENT-WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. THEY STAYED TOO! LONG! A ONE TERM SERVICE BY MORE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THEY WOULD BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR PATRIOTISM AND COMMON SENSE THEY WOULD GIVE 5 YEARS SERVICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND THEN RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE  OF AN INDEPENDENT MIND THAN WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THESE PAST YEARS AND MORE DEMOCRATIC FOR A COUNTRY OF ENGLAND WITH ITS DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS GIVEN AWAY IN 1972 BY LIES AND DECEIT LEAVING OUR COUNTRY IN THE WILDERNESS OF A DEMONIC CREATION PLANNED BY HITLER IN 1943 IN ORDER FOR GERMAN DOMINATION OF EUROPE. OUR ENEMY OF TWO WORLD WARS WITH A HISTORY OF CONFLICT AND CARNAGE THROUGHOUT THE AGES!-

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1345

 

 

 

Let's get on with it! DOMINIC RAAB's Brexit war cry as he says it's time to take back control of our borders, our laws and our future

 As I head to Brussels today for more Brexit talks, I have the words of many Mail readers ringing in my ears:

 

 

'Let's get on with it.' 

 

 

 

It has been more than two years since the referendum, and I know many people want us to get on and deliver on the verdict of the British people. Taking back control of our money, our law, our borders – and our country's future.

We are well on the way to delivering exactly that. As the new Brexit Secretary, I am relishing the challenge. 

Our White Paper, published this month, spells out our vision in more detail and I will be in Brussels today for further negotiations with Michel Barnier.

 

Dominic Raab says he is relishing the

 

challenge of getting on 'taking back

 

control of our money, our law, our

 

borders – and our country's future' as

 

the new Brexit Secretary

Our plan sets out a principled and pragmatic Brexit. One that sees us outside of the political institutions in Brussels that so many of us campaigned to leave.

Not only do we have a plan, we are delivering it. In Parliament, above all the din, we are getting the legislation in place to deliver Brexit.

The EU (Withdrawal) Act passed last month will mean we take back control over our laws and guarantee a smooth legal transition for businesses and citizens.

ast week our Customs Bill, which gives us the power to make trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, passed the House of Commons.

In the negotiations with the EU, 80 per cent of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed. Mr Barnier and I will be discussing how we complete the remaining 20 per cent, including guarantees to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

 

he UK plan would establish a new free

 

trade area for goods with Europe, ensuring our manufacturers, our small businesses, and the people they employ, continue frictionless trade with the remaining EU countries.

I was at one such manufacturer, a family business run by Tom Hainsworth, on Monday. They helped make the uniforms for the Battle of Waterloo. It's a firm with a rich history, and under our proposals, a bright future.

At the same time as securing our trade with the EU, our plan also allows us to go out and strike global trade deals with old friends and new partners around the world – bringing jobs to the UK and providing cheaper goods for our consumers.

On security, we are focused on maintain the operational capabilities that keep our people safe across Europe. 

That means the UK participating in key crime-fighting agencies, such as Europol, and sharing vital information that helps keep dangerous people off our streets.

We have a plan with ambition, the energy to deliver and we are working hard to resolve the outstanding issues with our EU friends. I trust that ambition, energy and pragmatism will be reciprocated.

Of course, there is no deal unless we agree the whole deal – it must work for the UK and the EU.

We are striving for the best deal. But in case our ambition and energy are not matched, we are stepping up our preparation for no deal.

We are hiring up to 1,000 more Border Force staff to police our border. Starting this summer, we will publish dozens of notices to industry and consumers on the steps we would need to take if we do not agree a deal, to avoid disruption to transport, trade and supply chains.

Leaving the EU with no deal is not what we want. A good deal would be better for the UK and the EU.

But while there are a few who might wallow in pessimism or have us cower in a corner at this historic crossroads, I am confident Britain's best days lie ahead.

That is because I am stubbornly optimistic about our country, and I am confident in our people. In the coming months, we will rise to this challenge and galvanise our resolve.

With ambition, hard work, and energy – on all sides – we can strike the right deal for the UK. Come what may, we will be ready for

Brexit.

*  *  *

 

 

PRINCIPLES.

'Principle  is the passion for truth and right.-'

 

Hazlitt

 

*

'He who merely knows right principles is not equal to him who loves them.'-

 

Confucius

 

*

 PERSEVERANCE

 

'An enterprise, when fairly once begun should not be left till all that ought is won.-'

Shakespeare

 

*

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held.

Wordsworth

*

VICTORY

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word : Victory-victory at all cots, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.- WINSTON CHURCHILL. May 1940.

 

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

293

In 1962,

Field Marshall Montgomery

 found Sir Winston Churchill sitting up in bed smoking a cigar. Churchill shouted for more brandy and protested against Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market which as we soon found out was in reality  HITLER'S plan for Europe under GERMAN Control.

MR RABB

 

We could not reason with Hitler in 1938 just as we cannot with EU's Hitlerian descendants of his kind in 2018. Your resolve is no doubt well-meaning but you have shown the traps but not the iron determination and single purpose to extricate our country fully from the

BEAST OF BRUSSELS

ON

 MARCH 29,2019

 

ONLY A CHANGE OF PRIME MINISTER TO A  FIRM BREXITEER WILL ENSURE OUR FULL EXIT FROM HITLER'S SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

A WARNING FROM HISTORY

 

COMPROMISE

 

'From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights has been abandoned.  I insist that this shall cease.  The country needs repose after its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles.-

Charles Sumner-Am.States.(1811-74)

 

*

     

    ROBERT HARDMAN: The Brussels bully hailed as a ... -

     

    Daily Mail

     

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../ROBERT-HARDMAN-Brussels-bully-hailed-scheming-blend-baddies.html

    1 day ago ... The real power in Brussels is now wielded by Martin Selmayr, ... is perhaps best
    known in Britain for reportedly leaking the details of a key Brexit ... be quite so in
    thrall to an unelected German academic-turned-lawyer- ... has his way, it will be
    not so much a deal as a punishment beating.' .... YOU MAY LIKE.

     

* *  *

Let's get on with it! DOMINIC RAAB's Brexit war cry as he says it's time to take back control of our borders, our laws and our future

 

COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CHANGES OF TEXT ETC.-ARE OURS!]

H.F.1637

 
 
ONE THIRD OF BEAT BOBBIES AXED IN JUST THREE YEARS.

 

 

‘Plastic bobbies’ are used to investigate burglary and vandalism as cash-strapped forces ‘run out of fully-trained staff’

  • One in three beat bobbies
  • have been axed in only three
  • years, figures reveal
  • The Home Office findings come amid a
  • huge surge in violent crime 
  • They will raise fears in Whitehall that forces
  • are retreating from the front line

203

View
comments

 

One in three beat bobbies have been axed in only three years amid a huge surge in violent crime.

Home Office figures reveal that more than 7,000 traditional neighbourhood police officers have been reassigned to other duties or quit since March 2015.

The findings will raise fears in Whitehall that forces are retreating from the front line, and that the days of Dixon Of Dock Green-style bobbies pounding our streets are gone for good.

 
 

One in three beat bobbies have been axed in only three years, figures reveal

The news will further harm public faith in the police at a time when officers have come under fire for failing to attend the scene of many crimes.

The fall comes amid spiralling violent crime in ‘Wild West Britain’, as highlighted by the Daily Mail.

Last month the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that police recorded 5.5million offences in the year to March, a rise of 45 per cent compared with 2015. Violent crime in England and Wales has almost doubled from 778,000 offences to 1.4million over the same period, while murders have increased from 539 to 736 and knife offences have soared from 26,065 to 40,147.

Senior officers have insisted that bobbies on the beat, who protect communities and gather intelligence, play a crucial role in solving crime. A more old-fashioned policing policy has seen Durham Constabulary become the best force in the country for achieving justice, with 18 per cent of crimes detected compared with 5 per cent in similar-sized forces.

Analysis of official figures by The Sunday Times found that the number of neighbourhood police officers fell from 23,928 in March 2015 to 16,557 this year, a drop of around a third.

Over the same period, the number of police community support officers, or PCSOs, has declined by around 18 per cent from 12,370 to 10,139.

Police officer numbers have dropped from around 143,700 in March 2010, a few weeks before the Tory-led coalition won power, to 122,400 this March.

Lord Stevens, the former Scotland Yard commissioner, said the figures were ‘incredibly alarming’, adding that public confidence in the police was linked to ‘officers on the street in uniform’.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Sir Ed Davey said: ‘This looks like the death of the traditional beat bobby by stealth.’

The Home Office insists that 92 per cent of officers are ‘front-line’ but they include more than 40,000 in ‘non-visible’ roles such as office-bound intelligence analysts, custody officers and operational support officers and nearly 9,000 in other support roles.

The Government says it has protected overall police budgets in real terms since the 2015 spending review. Despite this, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has acknowledged pressures and pledged to fight for more money.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Forces are changing how they deliver local policing so that they can respond better to the changing nature of crime. They recognise effective community engagement is more than just having a visible police presence.

‘Most have already set out plans to either protect or increase front-line policing this year.’

 
 

The forces using PCSOs to investigate burglaries

Police forces are using PCSOs to investigate crimes including burglary and vandalism as they ‘run out’ of fully trained staff.

Senior officers at more than a third of forces are directing the civilian officers to respond to calls for help from the public.

The police and community support officers, who do not have powers of arrest, are expected to pass inquiries on to detectives if they become more complex.

PCSOs, nicknamed ‘plastic policemen’ by their detractors, have been investigating burglaries in the West Midlands, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire and Cleveland.

One PCSO published CCTV footage of an intruder caught on camera at a social club in Aldenham, Hertfordshire.

 

Police forces are now using PCSOs to investigate crimes including burglary and vandalism

In Surrey, a PCSO urged residents to be vigilant after three break-ins at properties in Banstead and Hooley. In Lincolnshire a PCSO asked for help to solve a shed burglary and damage to a nearby fence.

Simon Kempton, of the Police Federation, which represents rank and file police officers, said: ‘This is policing on the cheap. Chief constables are simply running out of properly trained people to send to jobs.’

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has criticised chief constables for failing to provide adequate training for PCSOs’ expanded responsibilities.

Hertfordshire Police said regular police officers, special constables, civilian investigators and PCSOs ‘all have a valuable role in offering a reassuring presence to the public [and] helping to fight crime and anti-social behaviour’.

 

Advertisement

‘Plastic bobbies’ are used to investigate burglary and vandalism

‘Plastic bobbies’ are used to investigate burglary and vandalism as cash-strapped forces ‘run out of fully-trained staff’

 

H.F.1663

 

 

Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world: Demand for action to close 'appalling' gulf with other countries

 

  • Largest study of cancer survival ever puts UK towards bottom of global league
  • Study, published in The Lancet journal, analysed records of 37.5million patients
  • The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high as in the UK 

 

 

Thousands of British cancer patients are dying early because NHS survival rates are trailing behind the rest of the world, a report has found.

The largest study of cancer survival ever conducted puts the UK towards the bottom of global league tables for several common cancers.

Health charities last night called for urgent action to close the 'appalling' and 'unacceptable' gulf with other nations, blaming slow diagnosis and poor treatment.

 

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries (stock image)

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries.

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries.

The UK falls in the bottom half of the league table for seven cancers and only comes in the top ten for two. For years campaigners have warned that British survival rates are way behind those in Europe and the US, and studies suggest 10,000 deaths could be prevented each year if the UK merely hit the European average.

But the analysis shows Britain is also left trailing by developing nations such as Jordan, Puerto Rico, Algeria and Ecuador.

 

 

 

 

he data, from 2010 to 2014, shows that only 6.8 per cent of British pancreatic cancer patients survive for five years after diagnosis, putting the UK 47th out of the 56 countries that had full data for that cancer.

The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high, at 11.5 per cent. But the UK is also surpassed by Latvia, South Africa and Argentina. For stomach cancer the UK comes 46th out of 60 countries, with only 20.7 per cent surviving five years, worse than Romania, Turkey and Malaysia.

 

d for ovarian cancer, which affects 7,400 British women a year, the UK comes 45th out of 59, with only 36.2 per cent surviving five years. Some countries achieve nearly double this survival rate.

Katherine Taylor, chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action, said: 'This study highlights how appalling ovarian cancer survival rates are in the UK. Women deserve better. We need earlier detection and better treatments and we need them now.'

The study shows survival rates have slowly improved over recent years – but in other countries they have sped ahead.

For myeloid cancers, survival rates over the past 15 years have increased by 6.4 percentage points in Britain, but have risen by 17 points in the Czech Republic and 27 points in Sweden.

For oesophageal cancer, UK survival increased by 4.2 points, compared with 8.3 in Japan and 12.7 in Korea. Researcher Professor Michel Coleman, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the NHS has seen improvements in breast and rectal cancer survival – but money needs to be spent to see the same elsewhere.

'The proportion of GDP spent on healthcare is lower than other countries,' he said. 'We need to increase the spending on health services and stabilise the NHS rather than reorganising it every six months.'

He said he was particularly worried about pancreatic cancer rates, adding: 'Greater international efforts are needed to understand the risk factors for this rapidly lethal cancer and to improve prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment.'

 

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries (stock image)

Anna Jewell, director of operations at Pancreatic Cancer UK, said: 'It's simply unacceptable that people's chances of surviving this disease beyond five years is still so low, and has improved so little when compared to the progress achieved in other cancers.'

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Cancer is a priority for this Government and survival rates are at a record high – around 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been had mortality rates stayed the same as in 2010.

'We know there is more to do, and NHS England is implementing the recommendations of the independent Cancer Taskforce to save a further 30,000 lives a year by 2020.'

The NHS stressed that the study uses data collected before a new cancer strategy was launched in 2015.

An NHS England spokesman said: 'Figures show that cancer survival is now at an all-time high in England, as a result of better access to screening, funding for effective new treatments and diagnostics and continued action to reduce smoking.'

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: 332489/Cancer-shame-UK-survival-rates-lag-rest-world.html#ixzz56bxRcJWh
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*  *  *

 

 

  [WE ASK WHY ARE WE STILL SEEING CHARITY ADVERTS ON OUR SCREENS OF CALLS FOR WATER AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NEEDS WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE BILLIONS CONTRIBUTED BY BRITAIN AND OTHER NATIONS IS STILL NOT SOLVING THIS TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE. OBVIOUSLY AS WE KNOW AT HOME IT IS THE WASTAGE OF VALUABLE RESOURCES ON DANCING GIRLS AND WHATEVER. THE BRITISH PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FIRST CALL ON AID AS THERE IS ENOUGH LEFT WITH OTHER OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTIONS IF USED SENSIBLY FOR THE REST OF THE POOR IN THE WORLD. LET'S GET OUR PEOPLE WELL AND NOT USE AID AS A COMPETITION AND ALL WILL BENEFIT AT HOME AND ABROAD. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT APART FROM DEFENCE IS THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR SOON TO BE RETURNED WORLD RENOWNED DEMOCRACY.]

 

 

 

H.F.1467-

 

 
BRAINS FOR BREXIT

 

 

 

 

Brains for Brexit! Meet the historians, philosophers, QCs and ex-MI6 boss who make up the 41 top-thinkers fighting the tide of Remain 'propaganda'

  • New site briefingsforbrexit.com challenges view all academics want to Remain
  • Economists, lawyers, philosophers, historians and social scientists are involved
  • Website will challenge 'ludicrous' claims on economic consequences of Brexit 

 

 

1k

More than 40 of the country's top thinkers have launched a pro-Brexit campaign to fight the tide of Remain 'propaganda'.

Leading economists, lawyers, philosophers, historians and social scientists want to challenge the impression all academics oppose leaving the EU.

The group, which includes Remain voters, has criticised the contempt shown by those seeking to reverse the referendum result who regard large numbers of Leave supporters as 'unworthy of consideration'.

Trying to overturn that vote 'would outrage democratic sovereignty, cause dangerous and lasting dissension, and make the United Kingdom an international laughing stock', they said.

A new website, briefingsforbrexit.com, will challenge 'ludicrous' claims about the economic consequences of leaving.

It is the brainchild of two Cambridge academics, the historian Professor Robert Tombs and the economist Dr Graham Gudgin.

Other figures who have signed up to the project include former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, the Labour peer Lord Glasman, the Oxford law professor Dr Richard Ekins and Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, The Sunday Times reported.

Dr Gudgin, an emeritus professor at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Tombs, emeritus professor of French history at Cambridge and the author of The English And Their History, both voted in favour of entering the Common Market in 1975, but backed Leave in the referendum, concerned about centralisation of powers in Brussels. 

Professor Tombs said: 'To every crisis that comes along, the answer is always more centralisation, never less.'

Dr Gudgin said he came up with the idea for the website 'during one of those terribly pessimistic weeks. When Theresa May wasn't going to last until teatime and there was definitely going to be a second referendum.

'Together we thought, 'Gosh, we ought to be better organised than at the last referendum'.' 

 
 

He added: 'Nobody who appears on the BBC and says 'this is going to be a catastrophe' is ever asked what their view is based on.'

Professor Tombs said his motivation was the 'whole tide of propaganda about how awful everything was, how awful everything was going to be, and we didn't believe this.

'We realised quite a lot of other people didn't believe it either.' They criticised the contempt shown by many Remainers to those who voted Leave.

Professor Tombs said: 'Graham and I have working-class or lower middle-class backgrounds. 

'I do feel you just can't write off a large part of the population as being unworthy of consideration.'

He said he voted Leave because he feared the EU would break up or become 'much more centralised,' adding: 'We've seen how that works in Italy and Greece: A political choice is defeated by sheer weight of economic pressure – if you do this, your currency or economy will collapse.

 

I don't think that would last and I don't see how it could have a good end. I don't think we either want to be, or ought to be, a party to that.'

Professor Tombs said his research found that the narrative of the decline of post-imperial Britain in the mid-20th century – one of the driving forces behind the decision to join the EU – was a myth. 

'I think, speaking as a historian and as a patriot, we were taken into the EU on a misunderstanding of our situation,' he said. 

'It would have been better in the 1960s and 1970s to continue to ask for a free trade agreement.

'I don't think most people understood the full implications of what we were signing up to politically.'

Their analysis of British growth in per-capita GDP since 1952 showed it was better before we joined the bloc than after. Dr Gudgin said recent Government figures which purported to show huge falls in growth in most regions of the EU after Brexit were 'ludicrous'.

 

He led a team of academics who proved that the assumptions behind the Project Fear papers produced by the Treasury before the referendum were wrong, and failed to take account of the fact that Britain was almost the only EU state that had more trade outside the EU than inside.

He criticised its 'extreme assumptions' which led the Treasury to 'an exaggerated estimate of the impact of Brexit'. 

The two academics said there was a rush of interest from other researchers after their project was conceived – but some Brexiteer academics were afraid to go public for fear it would hit their promotion prospects. 

Many universities get a lot of money from the EU, leading to many academics taking a 'narrow, corporatist view'.

Dr Gudgin said: 'One of our contributors said he was told by a younger pro-Brexit colleague that his professor had told him that people who voted Brexit were the sort of people who sent his relatives to concentration camps.'

Professor Tombs added: 'I thought one thing we academics were paid to do was help explain things to people, but universities have become so simple-minded about this.' 

 

 

 

 

H.F.1484-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT-NO SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMANY TO DOMINATE EUROPE IN THE PEACE.

 

 
 
 
 
 

News for DAILY MAIL-UK pays worst state pension in the developed world

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension in the developed world with a basic payout of £122.30 a week

  • The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West 
  • Former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get worse 
  • Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70 

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found.

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings – and last night former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get even worse.

Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70, while future payments could be cut even further to avoid needing massive hikes in national insurance, Baroness Altmann said.

 

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found

The league table revealing Britain's pension shame was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which analyses the world's industrialised nations. 

Out of all the countries compared, Britain comes bottom – even behind poorer nations such as Chile, Poland and Mexico.

While the UK's state pension is worth just 29 per cent of average earnings, in France the equivalent figure is 74.5 per cent. 

Germany's state pension is worth 50.5 per cent of average earnings, while in the USA it is 49.1 per cent. 

The most generous state pension in the world is in the Netherlands, where the payments are slightly higher than average earnings.

 

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings. File photo

Baroness Altmann warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it. 

She said: 'We are one of the world's leading economies, but our support for the oldest in society is not fit for purpose.

'In April 2016, major reforms to the UK state pension were supposed to have made the system affordable for the future, reducing its generosity. Beyond the 2030s, the new state pension will be lower than the old system for most people and the lowest paid, predominantly women, will lose significantly from the new system.

'Despite this, the Government has been advised that the costs of paying state pensions will soar so much over the next 20 years and beyond that further cuts could be required.'

From later this year the state pension age for women will rise from 63 to match men at 65, and will reach 66 for both by 2020.

Baroness Ros Altmann (pictured) warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it

The Government's economic forecasters, the Actuary's Department, believes it will become 70 in the 2050s and 71 in the 2060s.

This would mean that anyone aged 30 or below now will not get their state pension until they are 70, while those under 20 will have to wait until they are 71.

Baroness Altmann added: 'The Government actuary believes that just funding the UK's exceptionally low state pension will require reducing payments in future or dramatic tax rises. Policymakers face difficult decisions and are also likely to need to increase the state pension age further.'

The former pensions minister called on the Government to do more to address the crisis, including making private pensions more attractive so that more people are willing to pay a portion of their wages into their own fund.

'To avoid burdening younger generations with significant tax rises, it is vital that more is done to boost private pension saving,' she added. 'Auto-enrolment is a good start, but the pensions industry needs to attract more customers to pay more into their pensions.' 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5379521/Britain-pays-retirees-worst-state-pension.html#ixzz56thYQdgc
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[IT IS IRONIC THAT IT WAS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHICH INTRODUCED THE STATE PENSION  OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO BY WINSTON CHURCHILL YET AS SHOWN ABOVE IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY BOTH THE MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES TO THE PRESENT LEVEL AS THE POOREST PENSIONERS OF THE 24 DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH A PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE WAGE OF 29PER CENT-WHEREAS THE TOP NATION NETHERLANDS PAYS 100.6 %. WITH THE CITY MILE BEING BAILED OUT WITH 45 BILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.]

-A GREEDY SQUARE MILE AND PARSIMONIOUS STATE PENSION YET OUR OVERSEAS AID IS SQUANDERED AND WASTED WITH THE CHARITIES IN THE MAIN GAUGING THEMSELVES WITH HIGH LIVING-AND NOW WE HEAR EVEN PROSTITUTION IS CONSIDERED A PERK OF THE JOB.  THERE APPEARS NO ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT OF CHARITIES TO ENSURE THAT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE FOR THE TRUE NEEDY NOT FOR FUN AND GAMES AND TERRORISTS OR HIGH LIVING OF THOSE RECEIVING THE TAXPAYERS HARD EARNED REMUNERATION WHILE MANY OF THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE IN GREAT PAIN AND MANY DYING WHICH COULD BE GREATLY REDUCED IF CHARITY BEGAN AT HOME.  TO BOAST OF BEING THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO OVERSEAS AID WHILE A GREAT NUMBER OF OUR CITIZENS PARTICULARLY THE POOR AND A NUMBER OF THE ELDERLY  ARE SUFFERING IN ORDER THAT THE TOP OF THE FOREIGN AID LIST IS MAINTAINED.

HOW IS IT THAT THE OTHER 23 NATIONS CAN PROVIDE A HIGHER STATE PENSION? WHAT IS PREVENTING WESTMINSTER FROM BRINGING OUR STATE PENSION UP TO AT LEAST THE AVERAGE OF THOSE ON THE LIST BELOW WHICH CONTAINS MANY NATIONS WHICH CAN HARDLY BE  CONSIDERED RICH COMPARED TO THE UK. IS IT THAT IN THOSE COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE ARE

 PUT FIRST! - NOT LAST?

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC PURSE WITH THEIR OBSCENE RATES OF SALARY AND GOLDEN PENSION-POSSIBLY SO LONG AS THEY ARE COMFORTABLE THEY HAVE NO THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO PAID FOR THEIR LAVISH LIFESTYLE?

PAYOUT AS PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE WAGE
Netherlands   -  100.6%

Portugal        -   94.9%

Italy             -  93.2%

Austria         -  91.8%

Spain             -  81.8%

Denmark        -  80.2%

France            -  74.5%

Belgium          -  66.1%

Finland         -  65%

Czech Republic-60%

Sweden         -  54.9%

Canada          -  53.4%

OECD average=62.9

 

Germany    -    50.5%

USA            -    49.1%

Norway      -    48.8%

Switzerland    -    44.9%

New Zealand   -  43.2%

Australia     -    42.6%

Ireland        -   42.3%

Chile         -     40.1%

Japan           -  40%

Poland       -      38.6%

Mexico         -     29.6%

UK  -  29%

Source-OECD

 

H.F.1478

 

 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

-'WE ARE AT HEART

AFTER ALL AN INSULAR - STUBBORN FREEDOM-LOVING ISLAND PEOPLE']

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

. Even Remainers now back a 'hard' Brexit: Most Brits want to regain full control ...
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail and Kate Ferguson For Mailonline ... a straight
choice between that and no deal, with 58 per cent backing it.

 

Most Brits want to regain full control of our borders and to become free of meddling EU judges, survey reveals

  • Most polled want the UK to become free of EU judges and full border control 

  • Two thirds said they would prefer 'no deal' rather than a soft Brexit, poll found

  • Findings boost for Theresa May who says no deal is better than a bad deal

Most Remain voters now back a Brexit that gives Britain a clean break from the EU and control back of our borders, a major study has found.

Many of those who voted to stay in the European Union also now believe the country should only pay a small ‘divorce bill’ and stop EU judges ruling over the UK.

The results are a major boost for Theresa May’s Brexit stategy - and suggest diehard Remainers, such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable and former prime minister Tony Blair, have overestimated support for backtracking on Brexit. 

Full artical


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782712/Most-Brits-hard-Brexit-new-survey-finds.html#ixzz4pXWhGZDU
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

.'..We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of the fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.  The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech would betray you

'An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth, to argue another Englishman into slavery'.

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

+4+5+6+7+8+9+10

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
NHS

NATIONAL

 HAPHAZARD SERVICE

Have you had occasion to visit your A&E department in your home town with an urgent letter from your GP requesting that an urgent blood test was required with  immediate results because the patient only month's away from her 90th birthday, had a suspected blood clot in her lower leg, which needed to be investigated without delay. Obviously, one would have considered such an occurrence as dangerous to the person concerned-therefore the urgent need for immediate confirmation of the patients condition.

The patient arrived at the hospital at 8pm and had still not been seen by a doctor or any of the nursing staff at 10pm whereas the couple were under the impression that a system was introduced a few years ago in order that an assessment could be made as to the urgency of treatment in individual cases but it soon became obvious that no such system was in place so that after 2 hours the husband of the patient asked the counter staff when his wife would be attended to and with no confirmation that his wife of 89 would be able to see any nursing staff informed them that he would take his wife home. This prompted the reply that they would get someone to attend to his wife immediately. But it was after midnight before the couple could leave the hospital because of further delays until the examination and treatment was finally completed.

The impression that was gained was that even with a letter from the GP there was no assurance as to the time as to when the first assessment is made by the nursing staff. In fact the husband was told that the requests from GPs was looked on as wasting the time of hospital staff because it was mentioned that Surgery's had the capability to do blood testing in house rather than bother the overburdened A&E. But obviously if the facilities meant a delay in obtaining the necessary information then A& E would be the obvious place to send patients with a letter stating the reasons for urgent assistance.

The husband lost his cool when he realised that his frail and underweight wife with pain and discomfort in her lower leg and tired because of a number of unsettling nights with the husband also experiencing the concern of his wife's condition -was in the middle of an vendetta between the SURGERY and A&E and was most vocivorous  about the delay in investigation and  treatment for his wife , being placed in the middle of the dispute.

One thing was most obvious that without foreign doctors the NHS would collapse over night but there is also the question that the patients concerns are not understood and as a result this adds to that difficulties experienced by the lack of financial resources for the NHS whereas at the same time people in other countries have the use of cash machines and whatever enjoying the 'goodlife' from our  BLOATED FOREIGN AID while patients receive a

THIRD WORLD HOSPITAL SERVICE at HOME!

 

NHS is 'worse than healthcare in Ireland, Spain and Slovenia' in ...

 

Why I've ditched statins for good - Telegraph

How to lower your cholesterol: Just add THIS to your diet | Health ...

Statin Alternatives - Better Nutrition Magazine - Supplements, Herbs ...

Natural alternatives to statins - Saga

6 natural alternatives to statins - Delicious Living

natural statins

natural statins in food

how to eat garlic to reduce cholesterol

cholesterol levels

how to lower cholesterol

what can i take instead of statins

natural statins uk

foods to lower cholesterol

 

 

H.F.1656

AUGUST 23-2018

WARWICK-ENGLAND

 

H.F.1671

 
 
BREXIT

ANNOUNCEMENT

ARTICLE 50 LETTER

DELIVERED BY

'HER MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR

TO

BRUSSELS

ON

MARCH 29-2017

*

ON

THE FINAL STRETCH

 TO

 FREEDOM

OF THE

PEOPLE AND NATION STATE OF

 ENGLAND

[TIME ELAPSED SINCE REFERENDUM IN JUNE-2016

 12 MONTHS

 

JULY-2017- AUG-2019 (?)

JULY 23-2017.

*

 

[No 1]

 

    DAILY MAIL

     

    -MAY: EU MIGRANTS CAN STAY IN UK


    Daily Mail
    May says 3.2million EU citizens CAN stay in Britain after we leave
    Daily Mail - 14 hours ago
    May insists her offer to let three million EU citizens stay after Brexit is 'fair' ... All of
    the 3.2million EU nationals currently in the UK will be allowed to stay ..... in case
    there is a late surge of migrants arriving as Brexit approaches.

    JUNE 23,2017

H.F.1226 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 

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-JulyPART-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

 

 

 

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

 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

YESTERDAY  was a HISTORIC DAY for OUR COUNTRY. BY a RESOUNDING MAJORITY of 384, the COMMONS swept away [our  past 45 years of tutelage within an undemocratic-unaccountable-unbearable-corrupt-expensive- strait-jacket Europe.]

 

THIS was a historic day for our country. At 7.30pm yesterday by a resounding majority of 384, the Commons swept away the last serious obstacle to freeing Britain from the chains that have bound us to an unelected, unaccountable Brussels for 45 YEARS.

True, we can still expect dirty tricks from the 114 who, to their shame, voted  against implementing the

PEOPLE'S WILL.

Of these , this newspaper will not waste ink on cursing SNP members, whose fantasies of SCOTLAND as an independent EU nation state gave them a spurious excuse for defying the UK majority.

AS for the rest, no criticism is too harsh for those Labour MPs who represent solidly Brexiteer constituencies, but voted to

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

So, too, do the creeps who in 2015 backed the call for a binding referendum, but voted last night against implementing its result.

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

-that flip-flopping representative of the moneyed elite, suckled on the [thirsty] breast of Brussels.

IN 2008, it was he who led demands for an in/out referendum on Europe (as we demonstrate on the opposite page-

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

E Pluribus Unum?

 

This is banned but separation is not

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

The Roots of New Labour

Labour confirms that multiculturalism is bad

Diversity in the UK

A ranking of social evils 

Multiculturalism and truth

Nations are the unit of cultural diversity  

The Benefits of Immigration to the UK Economy

Against racism

The aims of Localism

 

 

 

 

 H.F.718/MULTICULTURALISM

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

LETTER TO THE LETTERS SECTION OF THE DAILY MAIL-MONDAY,AUGUST 25,2014

COMPLY or DIE

FOR generations, the British people have welcomed people of all nations to share their life and economy

It is true that not everyone liked the new arrivals, but the immigrants integrated, embraced democracy and contributed to society in what was essentially a Christian country and which was viewed as such by those incomers.

Recently, these dynamics have been changed drastically by the emergence of a belligerent, vocal, fundamentalist Islam. These are not ignorant peasants, but include intelligent, well-educated individuals, who are fanatical in their beliefs, unafraid to die and capable of using the civil liberties and human rights laws to pursue their objectives.

Why haven't the hard-working family-orientated Muslims, many of whom are second and third generation citizens, raised their voices and rejected them? The answer is simple:

FEAR.

Look around the world and see what Muslim is capable of doing to Muslim Families fear the radicalisation of their young and repercussions of raising their head above the parapet.

Fundamentalist Islam

is a

TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY

 where the choice is simple:

COMPLY or DIE

You cannot blame law-abiding  and fearful Muslims for

KEEPING QUIET

when the British authorities are unwilling or incapable of action because the very laws EUROPE  has passed to protect DEMOCRACY and eliminate racism are CLEVERLY manipulated by

EXTREMISTS to pursue their own AGENDA

How many church bells have been silenced because Muslims were offended by the sound of them? How many people have been told not to wear crosses in the workplace because it could be considered offensive to Muslims?

The question is which Muslims?

 Certainly not my neighbours.

Women are permitted in this country to walk about in public with their faces entirely covered but this is not a requirement of the KORAN as interpreted by most Muslims and not a requirement in a great many Muslim countries

Radical religious teachers are allowed to indoctrinate Muslim children, young men and women are persuaded to go and fight abroad for

 TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS

and then return as full citizens with their rights intact.

Are the British authorities so blind that they cannot see what is happening under their noses. Perhaps when the flag of the

CALIPHATE

is flying above civic buildings they will realise thety have the choice of

'COMPLY or DIE'

Name supplied, Manchester

*

[The majority of politicians turn a blind eye because they need the votes and until the Human Rights legislation is scrapped and we leave the EU it is very unlikely that anything will change.   We understand the reluctance of many Muslims to keep under cover knowing the character of the opposition but with such a dangerous situation at the present time it is going to get even worse in the near future so it is most vital that democratically minded Muslims must  fight for what they believe in- as there is no other way out of the present impasse except that they

VOTE FOR UKIP

who want

OUT OF THE EU AND THE  HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SCRAPPED .

*

AUGUST 25,2014

H. F. 54

 

*  *  *

 

A MAN of VISION-A LEARNED PATRIOT for whom LONDON DOCKERS MARCHED on WESTMINSTER in his SUPPORT-HISTORY has VALIDATED his FEARS.

*

 

Words

Enoch would never have uttered

 

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail- Friday, November 9, 2007]

 

 

THERE is a long standing form of moral evasion popular among politicians - and some journalists too - which has always intrigued me , if only for its

IMPUDENCE

It involves Enoch Powell's so called 'river of blood' speech in 1968, whose recollection has forced the resignation of the Tory candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. The speech itself, incidentally, was notable for understating the prospective immigrant population.

 

'Ah, yes, you see,' the cry of the political elite has long run (I read it again last week),

'It was that speech , that phrase, which made rational discussion of immigration impossible.'

Note the implication that these people had been indulging in a rational debate on immigration only to be thrown off course by Powell's hand-grenade.

Let me assure you with every fibre of my being that a rational discussion was just what leading politicians were avoiding.

THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

by both front benches

-which drove Powell to fury.

Far from making thoughtful debate impossible, his speech and reaction made it

VERY URGENT

As an admirer and friend of Powell I was myself dismayed by that sanguinary phrase. But the real shock lay in the public reaction.

Dockers from the East End marched on Westminster demanding  to protest at

TED HEATH

sacking Powell from the Shadow Cabinet.

Opinion polls showed massive backing for Powell, to say nothing of the largest politician's postbag on record, in which the overwhelming majority supported him.

THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

sprang from the fact that the problem had become so daunting. Effective action would have to be on a major scale , admit to previous failures and would risk, indeed ensure, denunciation from every pulpit in the land (lay and clerical)

It was easier for politicians and commentators, all secure in their leafy suburbs, to assure the public that the problem would be solved by

INTEGRATION

NOW, however, the genie was out of the bottle. So in the 1970 Tory manifesto Heath promised

'No further large scale permanent immigration'.

BUT

of course, there was.

 

The 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act

 

TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE

had allowed those already here or able to secure work vouchers to bring in their families and 'dependant relatives'.

THEY CAME IN SWARMS

 

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

UNCLES

and

SISTERS

and their

COUSINS

and their AUNTS.

They came from the sub-continent where birth certificates were far form common and anyone could claim a blood relationship. Money readily changed hands. So that Tories changed the law to say that only

Spouses

Fiances

and

Fiancees

would be allowed.

 

But by 1976, the level of intercontinental match-making had reached such a level the Foreign Office dispatched a senior official to the sub-continent to assess the

PROBLEM.

He observed that allowing in married and affianced partners would open up a whole new group of applicants -'subsequently entitling

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

and allegedly distressed

RELATIVES

to seek entry.

IT WOULD BE LIKE BAILING OUT THE OCEAN.

 

SO AN EFFORT was made to tighten up the rules but it was -how did you guess?

TOO LITTLE-TOO LATE

Since Heath's promise

TO CLOSE THE DOOR

more than

3,000,000

non-British immigrants have arrived

IN THIS COUNTRY

And traffic in spouses between such places such as

BRADFORD and BANGALORE

HAS CONTINUED APACE

 

Two other factors have long overhung any rational debate on

IMMIGRATION

Most obvious, in an echo of the Salem witchcraft trials, has been the tactic of pointing at someone and shrieking

'RACIST'

-the sin against the Holy Ghost - and even calling for

POLICE ACTION

Believe me , this accusation has long scared the wits out of

FLEET STREET EDITORS

-their legal departments

media commentators generally and politicians of every shade.

IT HAS BEEN CENSORSHIP BY ANOTHER NAME

-the public has been duly cowed.

A technical problem has added to this because the word

RACE

is SHORT -and EASY to FIT into a HEADLINE -while IMMIGRATION isn't. So arguments about IMMIGRATION were labelled in innumerable headlines as being about

'RACE'

The other problem which hindered meaningful debate was that immigrants had come to form a grouping of such

SIZE and IDENTITY

that politicians on all sides thought well worth wooing, indeed crawling to.

NOW

David Cameron has woken up, in intervals between sacking Tory front benchers and Tory candidates for 'racism' to the Government's vulnerability on

IMMIGRATION.

Ministers have trebled the number of work vouchers available to foreign workers over ten years to a level running at

150,000 a year

 

Cameron has no serious solution to

IMMIGRATION

but as the saying is, every bit helps.

 

The supreme irony of this week's fuss around Powell's 1968 speech is that recently had our supposedly internationalist Prime Minister promising

'BRITISH JOBS for BRITISH WORKERS.

Enoch would not have touched such a phrase with a bargepole.

*

 

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

*

[Under PR- Proportional Representation the Immigration levels would have been curtailed because the Government of the Day would feel obliged to take a stronger line in order to gather up the votes and back to power. But as we all know it has been this single-minded attitude of the tripartite in your

HOUSE OF COMMONS

to keep power within their grasp and to hell to any outsiders.

Most of the problems in our society over the past 40 years have occurred because of the determination of the party in power to take what they consider a more lenient line on policy whether it is

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

ABORTION

IMMIGRATION

and no doubt dozens of other matters which has resulted in absolute chaos in the above areas.

If they are able to claw in another small section of the community which will be ready voters they will change anything what ever the consequences to the people and the country.

We have been calling for the introduction of

PR in our PARLIAMENT

for many years as a number of bulletins on our website can testify but the very organisations that could achieve this necessary alteration -the numerous political organisations in our country appear not to be interested. And that is the PROBLEM

and until we change the system we shall see the constant over-regulation by the Government and the hair-brained schemes adopted by the so-called OPPOSITION which lays a path of problems in the future.

Of course if PR had been in place over the last four decades there would not have been the

WAR in IRAQ

or even

Mission Impossible in Afghanistan.

 

The Abortion Bill would only have passed if much greater safeguards had been put in place.

 

Immigration would have been freely discussed and sensible measures adopted to allow controlled entry ONLY and those who were prepared to INTEGRATE and NOT THREATEN the very existence of the COUNTRY that they were adopting.

 

Abolition of Capital Punishment Bill failed to honour the feelings in the country that if the Death Sentence was abolished that MURDER would mean a LIFE SENTENCE where the circumstances warrant it. Even before the abolition of the penalty over 50 per cent of murderers had their sentence commuted to life imprisonment and that didn't mean twelve or even three years or less today. The liberal establishment have much to answer for ,whether in believing that prisons should be five star hotels or that a fine that is never paid is the answer to the increased

MURDERS- GUN /KNIFE CRIME- BURGLARY- ROBBERY-THEFT-ASSAULT and whatever.

 

 

Our so-called Criminal Justice system would have been unable to treat prisoners as visitors and victims as criminals and there would have been Bobbies of the Beat- more prisons, and punishment to fit the crime.

Over the past 40 years the majority of your politicians in

YOUR HOUSE of COMMONS

 have been feathering their own nests to the point today in November 2007 there are many of them on a comfortable

£250,000 [at least] a year.

They fiddle their expenses-They lie about their expenditure-They lie about the true facts of the EU. In fact many of them lie about almost everything. They only work for a little over half a year .They have gold-plated pensions and they will be comfortable for the rest of their lives. As for what happens to their country as far as many of them are concerned our country had never existed.

Of course in such a bedlam there are a small group of men and women of

Honour and Integrity

who alas are ignored by their colleagues -some say they even detest them. Guilty secrets no doubt.

 

As for Europe the lies could not have been hidden if there had been eurosceptic parties at Westminster.  And the CONSPIRACY that has taken place since 1972 would not have been in place and our NATIONHOOD and COUNTRY threatened with extinction as will be the case in your Parliament in the early months of 2008.

*

THE ENEMY WITHIN IS YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH INTENDS TO SELL YOUR COUNTRY TO FOREIGN POWERS.

November-2007.

*

H.F.1594

 

 

*  *  *

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

E Pluribus Unum?

 

This is banned but separation is not

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

The Roots of New Labour

Labour confirms that multiculturalism is bad

Diversity in the UK

A ranking of social evils 

Multiculturalism and truth

Nations are the unit of cultural diversity  

The Benefits of Immigration to the UK Economy

Against racism

The aims of Localism

 

 

 

 

 H.F.718/MULTICULTURALISM

 

 

*  *  *

 

 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

 

H.F.1335/1-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU

 

 

 

 

 

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

 
 

 

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018          SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

 SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012