Friday, March 14, 2008

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON AN OLD BLUNDER

Anyone remember 'The Brown Bottom'?

Between 1999 and 2002, Gordon Brown 'ignored advice' and sold a massive amount of Britain's gold reserve at rock bottom prices (average of $265 a ounce; as of right now, its at $1000 an ounce). It was estimated at the time that his action of selling 451 tonnes of gold at the very bottom of the 20 year bear market cost the UK taxpayer £2 billion. He apparently made a measly £1.88 billion ($3.48 billion) for the sale. He sold this off over 17 auctions.

In 1999 Britain had 746 tonnes of gold reserves. Brown sold 451 tonnes leaving us with only 295 tonnes.

And it gets worse. The gold had to be paid for in $USD (a stable and strong currency at that time) then Brown immediately converted the majority of the Dollars to Japanese Yen (and lost 20% on his investment before he reduced the Japanese Yen foreign currency reserve holding to a sensible level) and bought billions of the new Euros currency at great risk and expense to British taxpayers (said a part of a devious plot to prop up the Euro in it’s early days and accelerate the demise of the Dollar as the world reserve currency; this was laughed off at the time).

Obviously the way the gold was sold smacks of corruption and billions were thieved from the public in an arrogantly brazen manner, at least as arrogant and brazen as the way the UK public are being denied a referendum.

Gold sank by almost one-tenth on the back of Gordon Brown's decision to announce his sales ahead of time.

"I was surprised they had chosen the auction method," adds Martin Stokes, a former vice-president at J.P.Morgan. "It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market."

Clueless or not, however, it didn't matter. The Bank of England had no say - it only got to advise the government on HOW to sell the gold. The fact of the sale itself had already been decided by the Treasury. The Times told in 2007 that the government had defied all calls to release minutes and emails written at the time. And no-one found that the least bit suspicious? Talk about a lack of transparency in accounting!

A few questions here:

1) Did anyone bother to check who the gold was sold to? Was that ever disclosed?

2) Why on earth wasn't he removed from the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer? If you did something like that in the private sector, you wouldn't ever work in the financial industry again! Any business owner reading this would agree with me.

3) Since then, it was said that the gold would be converted into euros, dollars and yen...I'm wondering if anyone has reported what percentage conversion took place? Mostly euros, I'm guessing...besides, selling that much at that time had to have a very deleterious effect on the pound sterling, and a very positive effect on the euro...the timing is almost enough to suggest an act of deliberate sedition. After all, it dwarfs even Norman Lamont's "Black Wednesday", and that would take some beating.

Here's an article from that time:
LONDON: 6 July 1999 – The sale today of the first tranche of 25 tonnes of UK gold was a disaster for the gold market with the price falling to a new low, and for gold producing countries and for Britain, said the World Gold Council.
The result of the first auction by the Bank of England was worse than many feared, said the WGC. The price of $261.20 accepted by the Government was significantly below yesterday’s market price and more than $26 below the price on 6 May, the day before the Government announced the disposal of 415 tonnes from its reserve of 715 tonnes, through a series of bi-monthly sales.
At this price the people of Britain are being ‘short-changed’ by the Chancellor by a staggering £450 million ($600 million), “ said Miss Haruko Fukuda, Chief Executive of the WGC.
This is the economics of the madhouse. We are told that these sales are simply a restructuring of the portfolio so the government can invest the proceeds in other interest-earning assets.
And finally, in the highly unlikely event of him avoiding dismissal, why was someone widely viewed as a "financial idiot" allowed to take the post of Prime Minister? Anyone else smell a vast rat here? Apart from the fetid stinking pile that already seems to surround New Labour?

Here's a couple more article links for you.

Daily Telegraph May 8th 1999

The Times April 15th 2007

TAKING LIBERTIES

This is "Taking Liberties" an excellent documentary made when Tony Blair was still PM. It outlines how UK civil rights have been deliberately eroded away by the New Labour Government.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight
Part Nine
Part Ten
Part Eleven

You can also view their information and buy a copy of the documentary on DVD here.

UKIP OR BNP?

I'll be voting UKIP, because I'd rather vote for a party that doesn't have associations with violent neo-Nazi groups like Combat 18 in its recent history.

The fact the BNP restrict their membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian" tells me all I need to know about the end result of any policy they will put into effect.

The BNP aren't in the European Parliament fighting for our civil rights either, as far as I'm aware. It isn't even represented in the Westminster Parliament, being confined to 48 local positions nationwide.

Apart from anything else, no-one is falling for "New BNP" like we fell for "New Labour". I'm quite certain that there are some decent non-racist members of the BNP that have been drawn in by their latest spin campaign, but I don't think they're aware of the overall nature of their party. They believe it stands for united nationalism, when it obviously stands for and promotes division.

UKIP's principal aim is the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. It currently has 10 seats in the European Parliament and two in the House of Lords. It also has around 30 local councillors on principal authorities, town and parish councils. The party has around 16,700 members, making it the 4th largest party in the UK, while still remaining an independent democratic viewpoint. Plus, it hasn't stabbed the public in the back, and it doesn't advocate separation of constituencies by race, or discrimination against indigenous NON-caucasians.
And the UKIP doesn't have members that have a "scientific" belief in the "genetic hindrances" of races. It took a year for this person to "resign".

The BNP's constitution states that they are "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."

But is the UKIP strong enough?

If you don't believe that the UKIP is strong enough to make a difference in the next election, that's all the more reason why the entire country should be throwing their support behind them, and not the Conservatives, Lib Dems and New Labour.

The voting public of the UK is the TRUE political force in this country as empowered by our own laws - we hire our politicians and we fire them. We tend to forget that during long periods of one government being in power, and the three main parties don't actually REMIND us of that, do they?

Anyone can see that the leaders of our three main parties are all strongly pro-EU and practically identical nowadays; the only real difference is the level of political clout they wield. The recent referendum vote showed that to a greater or lesser degree, their MPs are more loyal to their parties than to the public - ALL of them should have voted for a referendum to give the public their say, and give us the chance to defend our sovereignty.

Those MPs in the LibDems and Labour that had to rebel against their own whips should jump ship and join the UKIP, because they obviously actually care about their constituents having a voice in this country.

And before you say "Well, the Conservatives largely voted for a referendum", I'll remind them that David Cameron is a self-confessed EU supporter, who doesn't so much want a referendum to give us a voice as to gather popularity votes, and give him time to negotiate a better deal for the Conservatives. It's obvious to me at least that he's NOT looking for the UK public to get out from under EU regulation, instead he's looking to get a slightly bigger slice of the EU pie.

To answer the "one policy party" accusations that are often brought up against the UKIP, it actually has a full domestic agenda, including reforms on taxation, energy and education. It also opposes the use of public money to fund political parties, and adopts policies of equality as opposed to diversity.

All in all, I'd advise you not to waste your vote and go with the UKIP instead. Check out their site over at www.ukip.org.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EU

Professor Anthony Coughlan is Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin and Secretary of the National Platform. He actively protests and campaigns against the encroachment of the EU within Ireland and points out its many damaging effects on the Irish Constitution. You can see personal statements by Prof. Coughlan as part of the online video here. This analysis was originally published on the day that the Treaty of Lisbon was signed in Brussels.

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does: 1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.

2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.

3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens.

6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.

7. It creates a new Union political President.

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens.

9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State:

The Treaty gives this new Union a State Constitution which is identical in its legal effects to the EU Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums.

It does this by amending the two existing basic European Treaties, the "Treaty on European Union" (TEU) and the "Treaty Establishing the European Community" (TEC). The former retains its name, while the latter is renamed the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (TFU). These two amended Treaties become the de facto Constitution of the new Union which they constitute or establish, although they are not called a Constitution. The EU has thus been given a Constitution indirectly rather than in direct form, as had been proposed in the Treaty which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in 2005.

The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community" (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.

2. The Treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens:

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name "European Union" at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 Member States.

At present these relations cover both the "European Community" area where supranational European law is operative, and the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs where Member States cooperate with one another on the basis of keeping their sovereignty and where European laws do not apply.

The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the "Union". Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California or New York, or Federal Germany to Bavaria or Brandenburg.

This new European Union can sign treaties with other States in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions of its Member States, just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.

The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister – to be called a High Representative – a diplomatic corps and a Public Prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European States have already done, including those outside the EU.

The Treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its Member States (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its Member States each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where Member States currently have a veto.

3. The Treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European "citizens" as at present:

A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.

Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to "complement" national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.

By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word "complement" in the sentence "Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship", so that the new sentence reads: "Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship." This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one's own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.

As most States only recognise that one can have a single citizenship, henceforth it is one's Union citizenship which will be regarded by other countries as primary and superior to one's national citizenship.

Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union we also owe it the normal citizens' duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national States and constitutions.

Member States retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. As such they will no longer be constitutions of sovereign States, just as the various local states of the USA retain their constitutions although they are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution.

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:

The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its Member States will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the Treaty:

(a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a State vis-a-vis other States and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended TEU);

(b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the "intergovernmental" powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended TEU).

It thereby gives a unified constitutional structure to the new Union which it will constitute or establish. The European Community disappears and all spheres of public policy will come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State. (One says "potentially" because further inter-State treaties would be required to transfer the minority of law-making powers still remaining with the Member States to the new Union in the future, or to shift powers back from the supranational level to the Member States – something that has never happened up to now. Supranational legislative acts would not yet be adopted in the sphere of Common Foreign and Security Policy and new treaties would be needed to change that. However the Commission, a key supranational body, will through the High Representative/Foreign Minister gain the right of initiative in the foreign policy field, so that even in the light of Art.11.1 TEU a de facto "supranationality" will be attained here);

(c) It makes us all real citizens of the new Federal Union which the Treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation States and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens:

The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution makes Members of the European Parliament, who at present are "representatives of the peoples of the Member States", into "representatives of the Union's citizens" (Art.9a, amended TEU). This illustrates the constitutional shift the Treaty makes from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens and their national states – the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union:

The Treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly "summit" meetings of Member State Heads of State or Government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.

Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be "intergovernmental" gatherings of Prime Ministers and Presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to "promote the Union's values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" and "ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions." (Art. 9 amended TEU). They will also "define the general political direction and priorities thereof" (Art.9b).

The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.

7. It creates a new Union political President:

The federalist character of the European Council "summit" meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years (two and a half years renewable once) (Art.9b).

There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go.

The federal character of the new President is emphasised also by the Treaty provision which forbids that person from holding any national office and which lays down that he/she shall "ensure the external representation of the Union".

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens:

All States have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new Treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union's constitutional structure (Art.6, amended TEU).

The Charter is stated to be binding on the Union's own institutions and on Member States in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because

(a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the "interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws" (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because

(b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens' rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.

This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that Court the final body to decide what people's rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national Supreme Courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – the latter Court serving all other European States, not just the EU members – which are our final fundamental rights Courts today.

The EU Commission can be expected in time to propose European laws to ensure the uniform implementation and guarantee of the rights provisions of the Charter throughout the Member States, even in areas which are basically outside the scope of Union competence. American constitutional history provides ample evidence of the radical federalising potential of the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union:

The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that "National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative "shall" implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.

National Parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.

The provision of the Treaty that if one-third of the National Parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by National Parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:

These are shown by:

(a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Art.33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Conclusion:

It is hard to think of any major function of a State which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its Member States go to war against their will. The Treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual Member States may "constructively abstain".

The obligation on the Union to "provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies" (Art. TEC/TFU 269 a), which means raising its "own resources" to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. Currently public expenditure and the tax measures needed to finance it remain overwhelmingly at national state level. This is because such social services as health, education, social security and public housing, as well as defence, policing and public transport – the government functions which cost most money – are still mainly at this level.

However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.

As regards the State authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union' s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the Member States and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member States will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU "State authorities" as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.

Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical Federal States which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher Federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth century Germany, the USA, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these Federal States – in the short historical time-span of some sixty years.

The key difference between these classical Federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their State authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable States are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people – a "We". In the EU however there is no European people or "demos", except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralised European Federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe's many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent and knowledge.

If there were to be a European Federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the National Parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU Constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.

By giving a Constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the "capstone of a European Federal State". For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the "first step in the federation of Europe".

The peoples of Europe do not want this kind of highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run virtually entirely by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents have agreed among themselves on no account to have referendums on the Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.

Only the Irish are enabled to have their say on it because of the constitutional case taken before the Supreme Court by the late Raymond Crotty. That action by that great Irishman stopped the State's politicians of that time from ratifying a previous European Treaty, the Single European Act, in an unconstitutional manner.

* * * * *

This document has been drafted in consultation with authorities on European and constitutional law by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland; Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792; E-mail: nationalplatformeuric@eircom.net

It may be disseminated or adapted in whole or in part by whoever wishes to do that, without any need of reference to or acknowledgement of its source.

NICK CLEGG WORKS FOR THE EU, NOT FOR US

I've been following the recent revelation that Nick Clegg is recommending reducing the number of MP's in Parliament.

He claims that this will "give power back to the people" and stating that this move will save £30 million pounds of taxpayers money.

He neglects to mention that if we pulled out of the EU by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, we would save a bare minimum of £12-£15 BILLION pounds of taxpayers money in membership fees. That's not even touching the added costs of compliance with thousands of one-sided EU regulations.

And obviously Mr Clegg hasn't studied the concept of a representative democratic government before. That's odd, considering he's a Minister of Parliament. Or perhaps not...because he was a European Minister of Parliament first, and nothing about the EU is representative or democratic.

He is pushing for "massive devolution of power", an advancement of the already dubious move by the Labour government to take power away from councils and the voting public and place them into "regional authorities" aka quangos, who are staffed by unelected officials appointed by Government ministers without a vote from the public.

This isn't the same system as local county councils, and doesn't put any power into the hands of the public whatsoever - it concentrates the power over many into the hands of a few who answer only to the Government.

This dilutes our voting power, as on average there is one Member of Parliament per 70,000 electors and under Clegg’s proposals this would increase to about one MP per 90,000 electors.

It directly advances the cause of an elective dictatorship in this country, and all the talk about giving power to voters is just that - empty words and doublespeak.

Just how stupid does he think we are?

WAKE UP BRITAIN, SO WE CAN CARRY ON!!!

I know this is an intimidating set of facts; the enormity of what's going on can overwhelm you, and make things seem hopeless. Please don't lose hope; we still have several opportunities to stop this.

April 2008 is when the Treaty of Lisbon passes into the House of Lords; June 2008 is when the Treaty goes up for an Irish national referendum. There's a lot of time left for us to put a spanner in the works and STOP THIS - if we wake up and start campaigning NOW.

While the government is openly ignoring us, they are aware of us, and they are TERRIFIED of us interrupting this process, because it means them not getting what they've been promised by the EU, and they will be held accountable to the public and the law of our nation for the crime of High Treason.

Why else would they be openly messing around with those laws?

Pupils 'to take allegiance oath'

However, take a look at this section:

"Lord Goldsmith has called for Britain's old treason laws to be scrapped or reformed. At the moment they include sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which is punishable by life in prison."

What this article doesn't say is that they also include the crime of HIGH TREASON for undermining your nation's sovereignty, and interrupting the line of succession! It's focusing on the aspect which seems trivial, to get our attention off of the fact that they are looking to change our oldest laws of protection.

And let's look at this article, related to Lord Goldsmith review of "Britishness", and his list of "Citizenship ideas", which he was commissioned to do by Gordon Brown.

Please note: Reform or scrapping of Britain's old Treason laws

So Gordon Brown asks Goldsmith to take a look at what Britishness is, to make recommendations, and he slips in scrapping the Treason Laws. Why? How does that define Britain, or make us more "British"? Whatever that is anyway.

Tony Blair also adjusted the treason law in 1998, as part of the Crime and Disorder Act, quietly commuting the sentence of death by hanging to life imprisonment. Buried in Section 36 of this Act, we find the following: Abolition of death penalty for treason and piracy.

This occurred because charges of treason were brought against him, and dropped before anything could be done about them. This was ILLEGAL, and the officials involved are guilty of Misprison of Treason.

EVERYONE has to know about all of this, and do something about it, in LARGE GROUPS. Form neighbourhood awareness schemes, inform people, inform friends, inform your whole street, inform your local church groups, football assocations, pub dart teams – wake up, get up and do something THAT WILL COUNT. Do your part for your country and its independence from the EU!

This isn't sedition or anarchy we're talking about here, this is promoting democracy in its purest form. It's more a public campaign for voting awareness and civic responsibility than anything else. Every single one of us is empowered with the right to do something to fix this RIGHT NOW, LEGALLY.

This is you as a member of the public of Great Britain standing up for your democratic rights as guaranteed by the British Constitution, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Settlement, the Parliament Acts, and the Magna Carta. These laws are your birthright, and were put into place precisely so we wouldn't have to have bloody revolutions or military coups.

Print out the information I've posted here on this thread and START SHOWING PEOPLE. Have them verify it for themselves using Google, make them understand this is a very real threat to our sovereignty and independence.

Take a look at referendumlist.com and find out whether or not your MP supports a referendum or not (some promised to, then reneged on that promise, betraying their constituents and obeying the orders of their party whips instead).

Write letters of support or protest to them, attend their surgeries in person along with your friends and family, DEMAND our referendum, and DEMAND we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

You have the legal right to do all of the above. The politicians have put themselves into a position of assumed power, but we, the voting public of the UK, have the absolute power to hire and fire them when we want.

Whatever you do, DON'T EVER ABSTAIN FROM VOTING - your vote counts and you need to make it count this time MORE THAN EVER. Speak to everyone you know and make sure that they're going to go to the ballots and vote these traitors to the public out.

Vote for UKIP when the elections come around, because they are already in the European Parliament doing whatever they can to break us away from the EU, exposing the truth about the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon, fighting for all of our civil rights and freedoms.

If you think I'm saying this out of some kind of bias, watch all of these, and judge for yourself if I’m wrong:

European Parliament: Members' Protest - 12.12.2007

Tony Blair gets busted

Nigel Farage on who's who in the EU commission

Budget Busters!

I don't know about you, wherever you are, but I'd much rather have a Prime Minister and a party that stood up for my country against the EU Commission and challenges the corruption in our political system than someone who rolls over and capitulates for every EU directive thrown their way!

I'll be voting UKIP when the time comes, not because it’s trendy, but because they are ACTIVELY DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC, unlike any of the other major parties right now.

I know that a large number of Conservatives voted for a referendum - but they aren't voting to remove us from the EU, which they should. David Cameron has always been pro-EU, and he's just trying to negotiate a better deal.

The Liberal Democrats performed a serious dereliction of their duty to the public by abstaining their vote. What politician would ever ask YOU to abstain a vote, especially for them? Now Nick Clegg is recommending we lower the number of MP's in Parliament, consolidating the power over many into the hands of a few; does that sound familiar?

And I'm not going to go into the open treachery of the Labour Party, and their continual refusal to give the public a referendum that they promised as part of their election manifesto. Not that they had the right to promise anything in the first place - IT IS OUR RIGHT TO HAVE ONE. They are following the directives of the EU to prevent a public referendum, which contravenes the entire concept of a representative government.

If the other older parties were genuinely concerned about YOU, they'd have told their whips to stuff it, and would have ALL voted for a referendum. These politicians have broken the public trust, and shown that they are more loyal to their parties than the voting public that hire them and pay their wages.

Talk to people around you, show them this information, spread the word and get people to WAKE UP!