VOTE UKIP!-ON MAY 7-2015

 

 
 
 
MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN

 

 
     

VIEWERS -TOP TOPICS-WKLY/ARCHIVE

 

 

 

PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ PAGE FOUR &LATEST-

PAGE FIVE

 

A PEACEFUL ENGLISH REVOLUTION IS ON THE WAY-ALERT-1

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Who CARES about MORALITY?

 

In the Daily Mail on Wednesday the 1st December 2004 an article by Simon Heffer comments: -

 

Mr Blair says moral issues should not determine whether a politician is fit for office. How very convenient – and utterly wrong.

 

Mrs Thatcher became notorious for allegedly saying that there was no such thing as ‘Society’.  Now Tony Blair, seeking to cope with ministers who lead irregular private lives, has coined his own variant: there is no such thing as ‘Morality’.

 

Mr Blair, in order (he implies) not to be stern about the messy private life of his Home Secretary, David Blunkett, says his colleagues need not worry what they get up to provided they do their job properly.

 

This is typical of Mr Blair’s way of dealing with such difficulties.  First, he is trying to close down debate on Mr Blunkett’s conduct by ruling out any criticism based on personal morality.

 

This ignores the fact that very few people have tried to make an issue of Mr Blunkett’s decision to have an affair with a married women, and possibly to father her children: the issue is whether Mr Blunkett misused his position as Home Secretary to obtain favours for his former mistress.

 

But the second, and all too typical facet of Mr Blair’s conduct is that, for the umpteenth time since 1997, he appears to have rewritten the moral rules.

 

Imperil

 

Indeed, this seems to be the ultimate re-writing, for what he is now implying is that there is no conduct-short of downright criminality-that should imperil a minister’s public position.

 

But before debating that, we might consider the progress of the Blair moral doctrine since its instigator became Prime Minister back in the much more strait-laced and buttoned – up 1990s.

 

There was a time, only about five or six years ago, when sexual impropriety led to a rapid exit from office.

 

Who can forget former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies’s encounter with a man on Clapham Common one night, which led to his expulsion from the Cabinet the next?

 

Since then, though, sexual conduct has not been a cause for resignation. We have had openly homosexual ministers, ministers fathering children out of wedlock, and even the occasional heterosexual affair.  They have long mattered not a jot, it seems.

 

However, financial sleaze has been less easy to excuse.

 

Mr Blair has always been loyal to his friends, and never more loyal than to Peter Mandelson.

 

It took some time to convince him, but eventually the Prime Minister came to see that taking out a £373,000 loan on a house that was already mortgaged – without telling the existing mortgagee – was not a good idea.

 

Indeed, some people have been successfully prosecuted for such fraudulent behaviour.

 

However, within a year, Mr Mandelson was back – only to be forced to resign again, apparently for not being entirely straightforward about a passport he had sought to expedite for a rich Indian businessman.

 

So it seemed that being ‘economical with the actualite’ remained a cause for censure.

Yet, inevitably, Mr Mandelson returned again to high office, as European Commissioner, and now seems safe forever under the new Blair doctrine –whatever he might do.

 

Lying to the House of Commons used to be the ultimate offence for a minister.  As many political correspondents and journalists are aware, it happens now routinely, and is widely tolerated except in the most blatant cases.

 

Although it appeared that Stephen Byers, when Minister of transport, had clearly misled the House over the future of Railtrack, he survived for some time until his credibility was so wrecked that even Mr Blair had to accept he had become a liability.

 

Many would argue that the case in favour of the war in Iraq was an example of serial dishonesty by ministers, none of whom has offered to resign.

 

This would also seem to give the lie to the claim that while immoral behaviour outside the office might now be all right, within it, it is unacceptable.

 

Again, it seems that a case can be made to keep most ministers in office unless the police happen actually to be frogmarching them down the drive.

 

In the closed world of Westminster, such things no longer shock.

 

What politicians forget, however, is that among tens of millions of people they govern, there are many who remained troubled by certain aspects of moral behaviour in public figures.

 

Absurd

 

Mr Blair is probably right to say that the marital irregularities of the ministers should no longer cause them to leave office – even though it is only eight or nine years ago when the Labour MPs and shadow ministers were making hay at the expense of Tory MPs who had trouble keeping their trousers on.

 

However, to say that no immoral behaviour should affect the judgment of how a minister does his job is simply absurd.

 

Of course, it does not always suit Mr Blair to be casual about morality.  There is his alter ego – the slightly pious former public schoolboy, muscular Christian and church-going family man, so cuttingly parodied by Private Eye as the Vicar of St Albion’s.  When it helps him, he can be opportunistically turn on the holier-than - thou aspect of his character, which is very much what he did in advocating the war in Iraq.

 

Indeed, in his rhetoric about British interventionism abroad in general, he is quite clear in his own mind – or so it seems –about the dividing line between right and wrong.

 

At home, when talking about the need for tolerance and understanding of minorities, he can appear censorious of those who depart from the Christian or humanitarian path.

 

 And yet, there is the paradox not just of his dispensing with morality now in the case of his colleagues, but also in trying to foist a policy of dubious morality upon the public in advocating a round-the –clock drinking and a proliferation of super-casinos.

 

The truth is that it helps Mr Blair to pretend that there is no such thing as morality.

 

Despised

 

It means that however sordid the Blunkett affair might become, Mr Blair can maintain there is no need to sack the man.

 

And it also means that all those elephant traps into which Tory ministers were routinely falling are magically cleared out of the way of their New Labour successors.

 

All of this, though, avoids the fact that even today, people look to those who rule over them to set some sought of example of integrity and propriety, and to have credibility.

 

Thankfully, the credibility will be gauged by the public according to their own sense of morality, not by Mr Blair according to his sense of expediency.

 

That is why it is disingenuous of Mr Blair to expound his new doctrine.  It will inevitably, further undermine public confidence in a political class that is already widely despised for being second-rate and self –serving.

 

Mr Blair could simply have said it was unreasonable to judge Mr Blunkett on the basis of his unhappy affair with Kimberly Quinn.  Instead, with typical opportunism, he chose to use a sweeping statement, which put all ministers beyond considerations of mere personal morality.

 

Not only was this an idiotic, but also it demolished the very notion of politicians as leaders in society who, by virtue of their public office, can set an example in moral standards.

 

Little wonder that the reputations of politicians –along with standards of morality in society as a whole-are at such a low ebb.

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding used]    12/04

 

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

*

 

 

 
 
Elections in the British One Party State

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

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

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

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

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

 

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF

UKIP

 OR

 INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE

 

 

THE EDP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF BULLETINS  OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE CRITICISED THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY FAILED TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT THEY HAD NO WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANISATION.  THIS FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL TO NO AVAIL.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER CLOSE SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO AN ISRAELI SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR WEBSITE .    IRONICALLY IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO  TO COME UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO THE ILLUMINATI.   THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE  A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN.  THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE SUSPECTED  FOR MANY YEARS   THAT MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION MIGHT BE UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI.  IT IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL ITS POLICES AS THEY BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

  Our intention is not to benefit from this disaster as since the 1999 European Election we have NOT! accepted a DONATION! from ANYONE! and we closed membership also because we did not wish to split the vote for UKIP but have stated in the past that we would contest another election if it was ever necessary to enter into the affray again and with the reputation of UKIP under scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN!   As we mentioned some time ago we have been almost two decades on the campaign trail to free our once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the SATANIC EU and those who have for centuries have planned for an EVIL ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the WORLD'S POPULATION and therefore if we are right about those mentioned above they are not only TRAITORS to their COUNTRY but also a THREAT to WORLD PEACE.   However, of late, matters have NOT! been going well for the ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.

The Queen, Treason and the Coronation oath

Together with Churchill, King George VI saved our nation; he was a Monarch to be proud of. But his daughter the Queen is the only monarch to have broken all her coronation oaths, by signing these six treaties that abolish our common law, the British Constitution, the British and English nations, and our sovereignty. She has also committed treason, together with co-signatories Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Realising that under the five Treason Acts they should already be hanging by the neck until dead, Tony Blair and the Queen signed the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, which secretly abolished much of the crime of treason (s36.3) and reduced the penalty to life imprisonment - they didn't tell the MP's what they had just voted for.

1.4 million British Servicemen gave their lives for our independence. The Queen has thrown their sacrifices away and made them worthless.

At no physical risk to herself, she could have fulfilled her oath and duty as a constitutional check and balance, by refusing to sign the six treaties until an in/out referendum had been held. In the unlikely event the vote went against her, she was even more unlikely to lose her crown (not her life or a limb), and would keep her £9 billion plus palaces either way. Those servicemen's lives would still have meant something.

But she was always keen to sign; and said in advance she would sign the last treaty. Princes Charles, William or Harry can now never be King. You can't have a King without a Kingdom: they can only be princes of a region (principality) within Europe.

King Edward 8th was forced to abdicate because he was too overt as a German Nazi supporter. Mrs Simpson's divorce was merely the excuse. The Royal Family is a German Family - real surname Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Windsor is an adopted surname. All four of Prince Phillip's sisters married high ranking German Nazis. After they lost the war the EU was switched from a Nazi basis to a communist basis.

Between the ages of 12 and 22 Queen Elisabeth's political and constitutional tutor was Sir Henry Martin, a Fabian Communist. It seems clear she was well trained for her subversion and treason.

Because she waves and smiles at us most are fooled into thinking she's lovely; in fact the Queen is a member of the Illuminati, a Bilderberger, head of Freemasonry, is wholly pro the (German) EU, and has abolished this nation with ruthless determination. It is so obvious she cares nothing for Britain or the British.

The Queen's aspirations are not ours; she clearly serves a much darker master; the faith she defends cannot be the one we think it is. King George VI, the one recent monarch not indoctrinated with Nazi or Communist philosophy, must be turning over in his grave.

I ask that the law be enforced, and the Queen be tried for treason before 12 honest people, and not by our corrupt judges. And that the illegal section 36.3 Crime and Disorder Act be declared null and void, so that she can hang by the neck till dead.

The new EU Hitler doesn't have to get elected
Its worth noting that Adolf Hitler first had to get elected, if on a 35% minority vote, and then get his Enabling Act passed. An EU dictator has no such problems. Our EU rulers do not submit themselves for election now. And the Queen has already signed the Enabling Act (Civil Contingencies Act 2004).

The EU's Hitler will have a much easier rise to power, and will have the formerly British and French nuclear weapons from day one. Adolf Hitler killed 54 million people. The EU's dictator could kill a billion at the touch of a button, with no democratic checks and balances to answer to. How could any aspiring dictator resist the EU opportunity?

 

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

 

www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.l

 

A+MONARCH+THAT+BREAKS+A+CORONATION+OATH+

CANNOT+CLAIM+IMMUNITY+FROM+HIGH+TREASON+

BECAUSE+A+FIRST+MINISTER+SECRETLY

+CHANGED+THE+LAW

IN+1998.

THE+SACRET+OATH+IS+TO+THE+PEOPLE+

TO+PROTECT+THEIR+ACCUSTOMED+LIBERTIES+

AND+THOSE+OF+FUTURE+GENERATIONS+TO+COME

+IS +SACROSANCT.

 

 

HOME

DID YOU KNOW?

No 8

(Christopher Story of International Currency Review)

 

IS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN SOVEREIGN?

Under Article 17 of the collectivist Maastricht treaty , all residents of the European Union are citizens of the EU Collective.  It follows that Presidents and Monarchs are 'citizens of the

EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

as well

This provides the twisted rationale for President Herzog's vituperative dismissal of the relevance of the nation state, and for his insistence that it has outlived its usefulness, even though he continued to serve as President.

Dr Herzog's subversive remarks have special resonance for Britain, where

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

 is the

 SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUTIONAL HEAD

of the

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

She is the custodian, in her person, of the sovereignty of the British people which was passed to HER in February 1952 on the death of her father,  This was confirmed initially when the

QUEEN took the OATH of ACCESSION

and was finally solemnized at the QUEEN'S CORONATION in 1953 after HER MAJESTY had been recognized and universally accepted as the undoubted and rightful

 SOVEREIGN of the BRITISH PEOPLE

In November 2000 -after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief justice and other official office-holders and dignatories -asking:

Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?

HE RECEIVED NO ANSWER AT ALL

or else a non-committal weak, diversionary reply.

Mr Blair being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry  to the Home office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the

BLAIR GOVERNMENT

has been its Ministers' arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions.  Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point on occasion, of'

' standing the Queen up'

by failing to turn up on time., or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

[Further details to follow]

*

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy - contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

AUGUST-2008

*

 

WHAT IF ALL EU LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT AND APPROVED BY HER MAJESTY ARE INVALID BECAUSE AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automatically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne.  However, the Prime Minister's problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht treaty, the Queen is a 'citizen' of the European Union, Her Sovereignty has been usurped.  Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scandalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie

TRAITORS

and ought to be indicted for

TREASON.

But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a 'citizen' of the

EU COLLECTIVE

appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a 'mask' for emerging

'GREATER GERMANY'.

When, following the correspondent's letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether

Her Majesty is Sovereign

the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language:

'Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK's membership of the

EUROPEAN UNION

on the constitutional position of

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled.  It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister's view in the interpretation of the law, in this case the

Treaties of the European Communities and associated European Treaties and UK legislation.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the , as this is a matter for the appropriate courts , not Ministers.'.

It would accordingly appear unclear whether

Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign

-and by extension, whether any legislation passed by Westminster Parliament since  Britain made the mistake of joining the

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

in

1972

is

VALID.

For evidently  until the matter is decided by the 'appropriate courts', the question of whether

HER MAJESTY IS SOVEREIGN

and thus able to act as

HEAD OF STATE

and hence give the

ROYAL ASSENT

to

LEGISLATION

passed by the

WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT

remains in the air.

This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted under the

COLLECTIVE TREATY

all residents of the

EUROPEAN UNION

 are its citizens; and the

QUEEN

is a resident of the

EUROPEAN UNION

THEREFORE

if

EU law

 

has precedence over

BRITISH LAW

the

QUEEN

 being an

EU citizen

is

NOT

SOVEREIGN.

 

*

 

It may be asked: Why does no British Government ever take steps to have this matter clarified?

There are two possible answers to this question:

(1)    If the matter were to be resolved and it were to transpire that, indeed, The Queen is not Sovereign, then all legislation to which Her Majesty has given the Royal Assent since Britain acceded to the EEC is

NULL and VOID
 

because she had no power to give the Royal Assent, Alternatively:

(2)    Successive UK Governments since the beginning of the collapse in 1970 have preferred this issue to remain unresolved because if it were to be concluded by 'the appropriate courts' that The Queen is Sovereign, then correspondingly all EU legislation in the UK

is

NULL and VOID

because it is presupposed that EU law has precedence over UK law.

which cannot be the case if The Queen is Sovereign.

By contrast, if it does transpire the

The Queen is not Sovereign, then, certainly all legislation passed since Britain joined the EEC is indeed called into question.

Either way -whether The Queen is or is not Sovereign -the logic of the above leads to the conclusion that all EU law may be invalid in the United Kingdom.

Thus the the real reason this key issue has never been clarified is that the British Government's deceitful EU 'coup d' etat by installments'  policy would be exposed as illegal if the issue were ever to be addressed in the COURTS.  Furthermore, as reveiwed on page 209, the Treaty of Rome was reportedly

NOT SIGNED

-so the basis of all EU law throughout the

EU COLLECTIVE

may be open to

LEGAL CHALLENGE

on that ground alone.

It is concluded that EU law may have no standing in the United Kingdom and that successive conniving UK Governments have been

SHIRKING THIS CENTRAL ISSUE.

 

In an article published in The Times of London on 27th April,1996, Karl Lamers, whio was then foreign affairs spokesman for the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag, condescended to recognise that 'British doubts are deeply rooted.

The British concern is about the destruction of the national identity and the nation state, which is seen by the British as the only legitimate expression of the popular will.   Germans, by contrast, say that there has long been a supranational reality created by our European civilisation.  Common problems spawn common interests; our vital interests are identical

Whereupon Herr Lamers delivered a further broadside in Germany's psychological warfare offensive designed to help the stupid British to abandon their love of national sovereignty, which it is the central purpose of the European Union to

COLLECTIVISE:

'The  Euro-optimists take as their starting point the objective external reality.... The Eurosceptics (in Britain) deal with the inner, subjective reality of the consciousness of the British people.  It is if you like , the forces of Logic pitied against the forces of Psycho-logic.  It must be the task of democratic politics to help narrow this gap.  Otherwise politics will cease to be effective.  A community makes sense if it can begin to solve its existential problems.

If the nation state can no longer do that by itself, its failure undermines its political legitimacy'.

In other words, Britain had no right to continue existing as a nation state, and it must be 'brought to reason' so that it comes to full acceptance of German prescriptions and intentions without further. tedious prevarication

Note that, for Herr Lamers, the Pan-German position was 'logical', whereas the perceived British tendency to 'cling' to the nation state was 'psychological'. Once again here, the truth was turned upside-down.

The essence of Germany's continuing, updated strategy to realise the Germans, has never been in doubt - not least, since the German legislature adopted several amendments to the Basic Law (constitution) on 22nd December, 1992, in order to legalise' ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.  A new Article 23 was incorporated, the previous one having been repealed by the Unification T of 31st August 1990. The revised Article known as the 'ARTICLE on EUROPEAN UNION'. contains the following:

 

With a view to establishing a Unite Europe, the Federal republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union, which is committed to democratic[?], rule of law, social and federative principles as well as to the principle of subsidiarity, and ensures protection of basic rights comparable in substance to that accorded to the Basic law

To this end the (German) Federation may transfer sovereign powers by law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union , as well as amendments to its statutory foundations and comparable foundations which amend or supplement the content of this Basic Law or make such amendments and supplements possible shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) and (30 of Article 79.........

THIS MEANS that Germany can extend its sovereignty into Moravia and Bohemia, as provided for under the secret accord reached between President Gorbachev and Chancellor Kohl in Geneva , in 1990

As for Dr Professor Herzog, he faced both ways at the 1997 Konigswinter Conference, held in Berlin. In a welcoming speech, he suggested that 'Britons and Germans can build on common values, convictions and interests.  the debate on Europe can only reach a fruitful conclusion - that is to say, a conclusion acceptable to the German strategy elite- if we help gain acceptance for one idea, namely that the 'Europe of-Fatherlands' is possible.  The European nations can be Fatherlands and still integrate' 

 

 

[TO BE CONTINUED]

*

 

 

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy -

THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

 -contact the under-mentioned website]

 

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

 

 

SEPTEMBER-2008

*

 

TO ASSIST YOUR SEARCH WE HAVE INCLUDED THE LINKS BELOW

 

EUROPEAN UNION Q & A

1EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]   WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU

3]   THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]   THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[    THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]    COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]   OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]   MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]   OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10] VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]  THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]  PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14] THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]  A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

16]   WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-£4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]     100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007]

33]    BLAIR'S LAST TREACHEROUS ACT. THE 60,000 DOLLAR QUESTION IS WHAT WILL MR BROWN DO?-JUNE-2007]

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

35]  HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007

36]  SAVE YOUR ENGLAND! - SAY NO! TO REGIONS
 

37]   NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007-CLOSER TO YOUR HOME THAN YOU THINK  

38]    A WARNING FROM JAN-2005-TO PRESERVE THE NATION-STATES OF EUROPE-VOTE 'NO' TO THE NEW EU CONSTITUTION (D.T.)

49]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU. (D.M.)

 

[For hundreds of bulletins about the EU]

HOME

 

 

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

*

IS SENATOR RON PAUL- ILLUMINATI?

 

BENJAMIN FULFORD

 

More!

[WORKS]

*

SEEKTHETRUTHANDWISDOM

 

*

Bank Of England « The Banking Swindle

 

More!

 

More!

 

PATRIOT or TRAITOR to HIS COUNTRY

+More!

 

 More!

 

+(More!

 

 

THIS YOU MUST SEE IT CONCERNS

 YOUR

PLANET!

AND

 YOU!

 

 

NO NEED TO PANIC!

 

'Others shall sing the song,

Others shall right the wrong,-

Finish what I begin,

All all I fail of win.

Hail to the coming singers!

Hail to the brave light-bringers!

Forward I reach and above

All that they sing and dare.

 

The airs of heaven blow o'er me;

A glory shines before me

Of what mankind shall be'-

Pure, generous, brave and free,

I feel the earth move sunward,

I join the great march onward,

And  take, by faith, while living,

My freehold of thanksgiving.-

 

WHITTIER

 

MAY-2012

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

 

 

MAY-2012

 

*HOME-PT 2

 

HOME