WAKE UP AND CARRY ON

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON AN OLD BLUNDER

2008-03-14T19:30:00.001-07:00

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

2008-03-14T15:44:00.000-07:00

TAKING LIBERTIES

2008-03-14T15:35:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-03-14T13:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-14T13:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

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!!!

2008-03-14T11:30:00.000-07:00

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!

IF YOU THINK ALL THIS IS WRONG

2008-03-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

These aren't my beliefs, they are FACTS. Anyone who knows how to use Google can find them freely available for public distribution and verify every single part of this for themselves. If you don’t know how, or haven’t got internet access, I’m sure that you’ll be able to find someone who does and ask them for their help. Take the time to verify what I'm saying here.

I'm sure that this will receive the usual objections: "That couldn't happen here", "That wouldn't happen in England", “The EU’s just a trade agreement”, "you make it sound like the USSR", and most bizarrely, "our Government wouldn't do that to us."

Well, it can and it IS happening here, and usually it couldn't - unless the government betray the public trust and sell us out - which they obviously have.

The last ten years in the UK have been a miserable downslide and things need to get fixed. The voting public can start the process to do it.

Or…you can choose to remain asleep. Don’t tell people about this, don’t talk to your neighbours. Don’t write to your MP’s. Don’t stand up for your rights.

You can choose to trade away your country for the sake of VAT free shopping and cheap cigarettes...

You can choose to trade away your country by sitting in front of the telly instead of spending your time demanding your right to vote...

You can choose to take the sacrifice of every serviceman that has ever died defending our nation's independence, and flush it down the toilet...

You can choose to do absolutely NOTHING.

But please, if you do decide not to do your part, go away now and make a note of the exact date you read this.

You’ll know its time to read the note when your dole cheque goes away, and your taxes go through the roof. You’ll know when you can’t get a job, or you lose the job you have when the business you work for goes under because it can’t keep up with 111,000 EU regulations. You’ll know when you’re thrown into prison without trial because EU law has stripped away your rights.

When the EU moves to abolish all the civil freedoms of the UK and Europe with the legal powers that Brown, Blair and a host of other politicians have ALREADY given away to them for the sake of their personal gain, I want you to remember this.

At least one person who has a firm belief in the United Kingdom, and how great Britain is, told you it would happen - and that you should have done your part to stop it.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS?

2008-03-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

Once we DEMAND our MP's make sure we have a referendum, and DEMAND the police investigate charges of treason against our corrupt politicians to prosecute them, and DEMAND that the 1972 European Communities Act is repealed as soon as possible, we have to look at all the laws and regulations we've had imposed upon us by the EU, especially the ones that have been placed onto our statute books due to treason.

Once this is done with, we need to make sure responsible people amend the British Constitution in such a way that our sovereignty is never under threat from within again. I think you'll see the same reforms taking place all across Europe, once the scale of the scam becomes apparent.

We also need look at all the changes to our nation’s infrastructure that have taken place during our time connected to the EU, who they put in charge, and where all our money is really going.

As an example, as of right now, there is a whole vast network of approx 8500 “quangos” (Quasi Non-Governmental Organisations), made up of non-elected appointed staff, that have been put in place by Ministers to administrate over nearly every aspect of UK society. You might not even realise that they’re non-governmental, because of clever naming conventions.

It’s very important to understand that beyond the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (when it was still active under that name) or the Department for Communities and Local Government as it is now, the controllers of these bodies are not elected by the public, they are appointed.

Here’s a quote from “Directgov” (www.directgov.gov.uk):

“A public appointment is an appointment to the board of a public body. These are bodies set up by government ministers but are not part of a government department and provide independent advice or deliver some aspect of public service.

They play a real part in shaping and influencing national policy and decision-making. Some, like the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, provide advice; others deliver public services, like the Training and Development Agency for Schools.

Public bodies operate independently of ministers, although ministers remain ultimately responsible for them.”

So these many non-governmental bodies that operate independently of ministers, are playing a real part in shaping and influencing national policy and decision-making: on drugs, job training, transport, education, culture, media, arts, and many more aspects of our society.

They get to dictate what is taught in schools, what coins we have minted, transport regulations, what art we see, what media we read, what gets broadcast on our TV.

Examples are:

• The Learning and Skills Council (the UK’s largest quango), reporting to

The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Department of Children, Schools and families in England. It is responsible for planning and funding further education (post-16 education and training other than higher education) in England. It was established in April 2001, under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and as of 2006 has a budget of £10.4 billion.

• The Office for Fair Access (administrating fee structures for college students)

• The National College for School Leadership (that tells headteachers how they should teach your children)

• Jobcentre Plus (which controls employment and social security benefits),

• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which includes the regional sports bodies of Sport England; it “provides the strategic lead for sport through advising, investing in and promoting community sport in England.”

It also includes the British Broadcasting Corporation – the BBC. Consider the ramifications of having a non-elected body that was hired by ministers in charge of our largest and most respected media broadcasting channel.

• HM Inspectorate of Court Administration which “inspects the systems that support the Crown, county and magistrates' courts in England and Wales.” It also provides “assurance to Ministers and the public about the safe and proper delivery of these services.”

• The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority which “maintains and develops the national curriculum and associated assessments, tests and examinations; and accredits and monitors qualifications in colleges and at work and advises the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, on these matters.

• The Housing Corporation, reporting to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which funds and regulates all housing associations in England.

• The Quality Improvement Agency (which supports institutions that provide education, but which are not schools or universities. This covers a broad range of institutions, ranging from FE colleges, prison education, workplace training etc.

As you can see, they have been used to replace our public bodies, which have been abolish in order to “devolve power” to Regional and Unitary Authorities, where we used to have Local Councils. Really, this means that the government made our public bodies and institutions relinquish authority into the hands of a few people on their payroll, unelected by the public.

Currently, they collectively cost the UK taxpayer at least £170 billion pounds a year.

I think that bears some investigation, don't you?

* * * * *

As an example of how quangos can affect your every day life, let’s take the National Lottery. The Camelot Group’s license was granted in 1994, 2001, and 2007, and there was some controversy surrounding this in 2001 because it was discovered that the Royal Mail had a 20% stake in Camelot.

The National Lottery Commission, a section of the Government, was responsible for assigning who got the licensing, and regulating the lottery.

As of March 2007, it was announced that the National Lottery had so far raised £20 billion for “good causes”. The distribution of money to these “good causes” is not the responsibility of the Camelot Group – it is the responsibility of the National Lottery Distribution Fund or NDLF – administered by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

In addition, The Heritage Lottery Fund was set up by the government in 1994 to provide money for "projects involving the local, regional and national heritage". The fund came from the money raised by the National Lottery's 'Good Causes'. Since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund has given grants totaling approximately £4 billion to more than 26,000 projects.

Have you ever asked where your lottery money goes? Have you ever seen a public report precisely stating exactly what “good causes” benefit from cash injections from the Heritage Lottery Fund?

If not, then all you are doing is paying into a gigantic money-laundering system.

IS IT TOO LATE TO FIX THIS?

2008-03-14T11:22:00.000-07:00

No, there are still multiple chances to stop the Treaty being ratified, beginning with the Irish referendum in June 2008. If the Irish again vote no, that will deadlock the whole process and allow more time for the truth to come out.

There are currently millions of pounds going out to Ireland for advertising campaigns to prevent an Irish No vote from occurring again - it would be the ultimate nightmare for those trying to keep this under wraps.

Independent Ulster MEP Jim Allister in the EU Parliament

youtube.com/watch?v=wNV5_ChuwxU

Ireland's call - Vote no to Lisbon

youtube.com/watch?v=e4e4t3vqP4c

The Treaty also has to go through the House of Lords in April 2008, though thanks to Tony Blair's reforms, they will only be able to delay it a bit, perhaps until the General Election. Not difficult to understand why Tony was so hot on House of Lords reform now, is it? People just think of the House of Lords as a bunch of stuffy old blokes, but they're there to provide the checks and balances for the House of Commons, something they've done admirably for over 600 years. Again, you'd know that if you were taught it as part of History at school.

Replacing the Law Lords with a Supreme Court of the UK also compromises one of the oldest legislative protections we have against our own government selling us out, and Tony Blair also pushed hard for that as well.

Probably something to do with the fact that he is now front runner for the post of the European Presidency.

QUEEN RAISES FEARS OVER EU CONSTITUTION

2008-03-14T11:21:00.000-07:00

Queen raises fears over EU constitution

by Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph
15/10/2003

The Queen is growing more concerned about Tony Blair's plans to sign a European Constitution that she fears could undermine her role as sovereign.

The Telegraph has learnt that Buckingham Palace has asked for documents highlighting the constitutional implications of the EU's plans to be sent to her advisers.

Her worries came to light as Tony Blair prepared for an EU summit today in Brussels, where European leaders will begin final negotiations on the text of a new EU treaty.

As the head of state, the Queen sees weekly briefing papers from Government departments, including the Foreign Office, which has helped negotiate a draft text of the constitution with Britain's EU partners.

She also holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister at which she can raise issues that worry her. But sources say that the Palace has started to throw the net wider and has sought expert independent and critical views about the EU's plans.

It is believed that the Palace's concerns focus on whether the Queen's supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by article 10 of the draft text.

This states: "The constitution and law adopted by the union's institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

Many MPs say that this will rob the House of Commons of its ultimate authority to override decisions and laws made by the EU.

Last night Downing Street refused to comment on the Palace's request for more information about the constitution. But Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead, said: "It is wonderful that at last the Palace has got wise to this."

He said that in most respects the constitution would relegate the Queen to the role of a "glorified head of a county council".

"If it goes through unamended, the nature of Europe changes from an organisation that draws its powers from member states to one that has a legal character of its own and will be able to act as a state."

Michael Ancram, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "There is widespread concern at the effects of this constitutional exercise on British sovereignty which is not party political and is shared by people right across the political spectrum. It is vital that the implications of this constitution are fully understood. I believe that it should not be implemented without an affirmative vote of the people in a referendum."

Ministers say they are not worried by article 10, which they insist does not represent a material shift of power to the EU. They maintain that it merely defines in writing the hitherto unwritten agreement that EU member states are obliged to accept the rulings of the European Court.

During the Brussels inter-governmental conference, which will run into next year, Mr Blair has pledged to resist all efforts by other member states to get rid of the British veto on taxation and foreign policy issues.

No 10 officials said that today's talks would focus on the national voting strengths in the Council of Ministers and plans to establish a more powerful position of the president of the council. Iraq and Iran would also be discussed.

The extent to which other member states are prepared to share power and co-operate in the EU was underlined yesterday when German government officials confirmed that President Jacques Chirac of France would stand in for Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, during the final session of the summit tomorrow. Mr Schröder wants to return to Berlin for a vital parliamentary vote.

The unprecedented agreement will be seen by opponents of closer EU integration as clear evidence that Paris and Berlin want to extend co-operation far beyond the present limits envisaged under EU rules.

* * * * *

This part is telling.

"She also holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister at which she can raise issues that worry her. But sources say that the Palace has started to throw the net wider and has sought expert independent and critical views about the EU's plans."

Now if the Queen herself was worried enough to consult independent advice separate from the Prime Minister, doesn't that suggest that she was worried she wouldn't get an accurate answer?

Now to ask a question - have you see this before, and don't you think it should have been all over the UK media at the time? Bear in mind as well that this article is FIVE YEARS OLD.

The source of this article is HERE.

And remember that all of the heads of state of Europe - apart from Gordon Brown - have already admitted that the Treaty of Lisbon is a re-packaged EU Constitution.

BUT WHAT ABOUT QUEEN AND THE COMMONWEALTH?

2008-03-14T11:20:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure of the ramifications on the Commonwealth itself of Her Majesty the Queen becoming "Mrs Elizabeth Windsor, citizen of the EU." How can she justify being the Sovereign of our country at that point, let alone the head of state for a 53 member alliance? In that sense, Albert Burgess' allegations of High Treason are VERY relevant indeed.

No-one, not even the Monarch, can interrupt the line of succession, under the laws of our nation - they can abdicate their throne to their successor, but they can't move to scrap the Monarchy altogether. Within our nation, no-one is above the law.

Article 10 of the Treaty of Lisbon states:

"The constitution and law adopted by the Union's institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

Again, working through the doublespeak, this states that our involvement and ratification of this Treaty legally allows the EU to abolish the Monarchy, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

BUT SURELY THEY READ WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING TO?

2008-03-14T11:19:00.000-07:00

The Treaty of Lisbon is a list of amendments and adjustments for other treaties (300 pages of amendments of 3000 pages of other treaties); which means you'd need to consult all of those treaties and insert the amendments as part of those texts as well to make any sense of it. This has been explained by Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, who is actively protesting against ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland.

We are talking about a VAST body of text, much more than ANY person would, or could, ever want to go through just to check their civil rights.

Not just citizens, but politicians as well; that means that any of the ministers who put their signature to it couldn't have conceivably ever read it and understood it - but they signed it anyway, because at the end of the day, it provides them with more wealth and power than they could ever have in the government of their home nations, and gives them lifelong diplomatic immunity from prosecution under EU law.

If people do nothing, then they'll get their way. It's up to us to save our own country, and fix Britain.

GET UP TODAY AND FIX BRITAIN! DO YOUR PART!

2008-03-14T11:16:00.002-07:00

Something is badly wrong with our nation, and it's up to us to recognise the voting power we have over our government, and fix

Britain

once and for all. I don't think anyone could argue with me on that.

EVERYONE has to know about 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.

Again, this isn't sedition or anarchy we're talking about here, this is promoting democracy in its purest form.

Separate and alone, we are small voices screaming at large and uncaring governments. Together, we outnumber them at every single point in history, and our collective voice and opinion will always dwarf theirs.

It's about time that we see a massive resurgence of civil awareness and responsibility in Britain, because that's the only way things have ever changed, and the only way things are going to get FIXED.

The politicians we've trusted to act in our best interests AREN'T, and they aren't fixing anything; they're MANAGING it all into voting issues that keep them where they are, all the while, they are grinding the public down.

In what other country on Earth have citizens been told they can’t fly their national flags for fear of offending someone?

In what other country have paedophiles, rapists and murderers been given light sentences, while pensioners do jail time for missing council tax payments?

In what other country have decent police officers been taken off streets to be replaced by cameras that cost taxpayers money, and don’t deter criminals anyway? That when they get vandalized, take even more taxpayers money to fix?

Now we're being told by our government that they want as much information on us as is humanly possible to collect, including our DNA typing "just in case we commit crimes", and that we can't refuse, because they know better, and that it's all for our own good.

That isn't valuing freedom, that's just accepting the status quo because we're told to.

It should be painfully obvious to even the most blind and politically insensitive person that our government has sold us down the river for the chance at more money and power in a bureaucratic dictatorship than our nation can offer it through being part of a democratic representative system.

It's time it stopped: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

It's about time we spoke up and told them that they're FIRED.

SHOULDN’T WE FORM A POLITICAL PARTY TO DO THIS?

2008-03-14T11:16:00.001-07:00

There's a good one already out there; The UK Independence Party, or UKIP. 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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JJlI9swbsA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grLmZGlzBW8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZG5oEl8sVQ&feature=related

IS THIS SEDITION? CAN I BE ARRESTED?

2008-03-14T11:15:00.001-07:00

No. This isn't against the law in any way; 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.

Extracts from the Bill of Rights 1689

"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

"And that every king and queen of this realm, who at any time here-after shall come to succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the first parliament, next after his or her coming of the Crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statue made in the thirteenth year in the reign of King Charles II, entitled ‘ An Act for the effectual preserving the Kings person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either house of Parliament.’ But if it shall happen, that such king or queen, upon his or her succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation, or the first day of the meeting of the first parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such a king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. Forever."

Traitors always rely on ignorance and apathy to win the day, but that's something that the UK has never done in the past when democracy has been threatened.

You are empowered with the right to do something to fix this RIGHT NOW, LEGALLY.

Every citizen of the UK should know this, and it should have been taught to every child in detail in History lessons at school, but education has been underfunded and let slip so that people don't know their own rights any more.

In fact, official statistics show that 1/3rd of UK schools have been allowed to drop History altogether, without a whisper of protest from the Government.

It was also recently revealed that 1/3rd of UK teens believe that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. For the people that don't care what Churchill said, because “it's all in the past”:

"...control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law."

"All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home."

"We have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting." And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning."

Are you beginning now to see why History should be the most important subject taught in our schools?

LOBBYING MINISTERS OF PARLIAMENT

2008-03-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

Write to your MP, or get up and go down to one of their surgeries with a printout of this information, and DEMAND a referendum, b) DEMAND we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, c) DEMAND they ensure anyone who is suspected of conspiring of treason from Government is removed.

Once this is done, we need to take steps to amend the British Constitution to include the right to compulsory referendums in the future so that this can't ever happen to us again.

Remember, they are CIVIL SERVANTS. They are our EMPLOYEES, put there by the power of our vote, paid by our taxes, and we have the legal right to hire and fire them as we want.

THE BEST POLICEMAN IN BRITAIN

2008-03-14T11:12:00.000-07:00

This man, Albert Burgess, has it EXACTLY right, and I'd urge people to take a look at these movies if they haven't already. Again, this is a man who needs to be given a medal, or a Knighthood, for his services to his Sovereign and Country.

YOU have the power as a citizen to MAKE the police investigate this, make arrests in high places, and protect our sovereignty. This is the reason we have kept the treason laws on our statute books.

The Case of Treason Against Ted Heath

Britains Best Policeman

PM Heath Committed Sedition Hands Over UK to The EU

Ted Heath and EU subversion of our Laws

I know that he's a bit halting in places, but listen to what he's saying, then go look it up. What he says is absolutely 100% correct - if you can get enough people to do the same thing, lobbying police forces all over the country, they will HAVE to do something about it.
There are enough decent coppers out there that they will take action; let alone the Armed Forces.

If they don't, remind them of these:

Every constable of a territorial police service MUST swear this oath. It binds them to serve the public trust, protect the public, and uphold the laws of the United Kingdom. This is the main reason to respect our police force.

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

And all our soldiers take this oath upon joining the Army:

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me."

You are not alone. You have our entire police force and Armed Forces on your side. If they object or refuse, state that you will report them for the crime of Misprison of Treason.

Take a look at this story. This quote from Superintendent Jim Trotman:

"I am not prepared to allocate resources which are already heavily committed to other investigations. I envisage great difficulties concerning the availability of witnesses, because most of the witnesses are now deceased. A considerable passage of time has elapsed since the offences in question and I do not consider it is now prudent to carry out an investigation."

So the police recognise it as an offence...and not ALL of the people involved in the original act of sedition are deceased, some of them still sit in Parliament. And by UK law, he is breaking the law of Misprision of Treason.

"The crime is committed where a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report it as soon as he can to a justice of the peace or other authority. The offender does not need to consent to the treason; mere knowledge is enough. Failure to report treason used to itself be treason at common law, but a statute passed by the parliament of 1554-1555 created a new offence of misprision of treason, which was a non-capital felony. The crime may be punished with a fine or a term of imprisonment up to life."

WHAT YOU CAN DO

2008-03-14T11:10:00.001-07:00

The EU is NOT what it is claiming to be, it is NOT in our national interest to stay part of the EU; and it NEVER HAS BEEN. The entire United Kingdom NEEDS to break away from the EU as soon as possible. We do not need to renegotiate this Treaty – the governing body of the EU is corrupt, and our politicians are selling out our country to it.

Please print all of this out, show it to people you know, give people you know the address of this blog so that they can take a look for themselves. Read it through, and ACT on it, BEFORE THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.

There are already some plans to make changes to constituency boundary changes, that could tip the balance artificially in the current Government’s favour.

Before that happens, they need to be removed from office on charges of High Treason. The damage they are doing to this country needs to be stopped.

Take a look at www.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, DEMAND a referendum, and DEMAND we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. Otherwise, you will vote them out.

You have the legal right to do that.

Whatever you do, DON'T EVER ABSTAIN FROM VOTING - your vote counts and you need to make it count this time more than ever.

Talk to people around you, show them this information, spread the word and get people to wake up.

WHAT THE EU MEANS FOR EUROPE

2008-03-14T11:09:00.002-07:00

Protesting against the EU isn’t anti-French, anti-German, or anti-European, because ALL the nations currently being considered as member states in the EU are being sold out by their politicians to a dictatorial police state that has some very fascist ideas on human rights.

They call it "pooling sovereignty", which is another nice doublespeak term for "leeching away democracy".

This is about a move to dominate Europe by a bureaucratic, non-elected political body, that now has its own army, its own flag, and its own anthem, that MUST be blocked.

Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and others are guilty of High Treason under UK law for assisting in the subversion of our constitution and planning to hand away our sovereignty for their own personal gain. They have already made two amendments to the UK treason laws, and are seeking more “reforms”, desperately seeking to protect themselves from the justice that will eventually find them while they erode the national institutions that protect our civil rights.

The Treaty of Lisbon is horrendously backward in that it wants to strip democratic rights from ALL of its member states, pooling all of the power into the hands of a very select few. The French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians, the Irish, Scotland, Wales, England...we're ALL suffering ill effects in equal measure.

This isn't "Europe looking to take us over", this is the EU looking to take us ALL over; there's a difference. Within the EU, every nation seems to fear every other nation's influence growing; everyone seems to think everyone else is using the EU to get what they want. When in fact, NONE of us really want this, and NONE of us really benefit from it, apart from our corrupt politicians.

We're looking at a relatively small political body manipulating the media and promoting corruption in an attempt to make a vast power grab, not a vast coalition of nations.

Make no mistake - they are TERRIFIED that the public are working this out, and we still have a good chance at halting this process before it becomes irreversible.

CAN AN INDEPENDENT BRITAIN SURVIVE?

2008-03-14T11:09:00.001-07:00

The answer is categorically: Yes.

One of the things often trotted out when mention of us breaking our ties with the EU is that we would suffer a massive economic collapse. This is nonsense. Greenland was once part of the EU, pulled out, and prospered as a result. With no disrespect to Greenland, if they can do it, so can we.

These are the realities of us pulling out.

1) The EU would impose its external tariff on British exports to Europe, making very little difference to British companies, since the majority of their exports go outside Europe anyway. The World Trade Organisation restricts the EU to an external tariff of around 6%, so the effect would be quite small. Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate for itself a smaller tariff - in the way that Switzerland has. This would drive down the cost of leaving the EU even further.

2) There would be a sustained exchange rate with the Euro, which would be to Britain’s advantage.

Bear in mind there have been frequent discussions on devaluing the pound sterling prior to entering the single European currency.

3) The external tariff on Britain's imports from outside the EU would disappear. Britain would probably gain more from this than it would lose from the imposition of a tariff on British exports to Europe, because we buy less from Europe that we export to it.

4) A Britain outside the EU would be able to make special trading deals with other countries - such as those in 53 members of the Commonwealth of Nations. This could be hugely advantageous to our economy. We could build a free trade market with 53 nations in strategic locations all over the globe, as opposed to 27 member states in one location.

5) It has been said that if we left the EU, countries from outside Europe (such as the USA and Japan) would invest less with us. In reality, Britain attracts more outside investment (Foreign Direct Investment) than the other European countries because its market is still largely unregulated. Once independent, Britain would reduce the number of regulations limiting trade to foreign companies. EU regulations in this regard are an economic minefield. Many countries would leap at the chance to invest in a less regulated country, and the tariffs we’d pay would be pocket change by comparison to the positive impact on our economy.

A SUMMARY LIST OF COSTS TO OUR NATION AND SOCIETY

2008-03-14T11:06:00.000-07:00

This is what our relationship with the EU will cost us.

1. Sovereignty and status as an independent nation.

2. The right to make our own laws and define our own civil rights.

3. The right to remove politicians from office if they are no good, or prosecute them if they are corrupt.

4. The right to control our own borders and immigration.

5. BILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers money, and eventually, the Pound Sterling, as we are integrated into the European single currency. If you think this is unlikely, take a look at the £2 coin, and the new £20 note, and then take a look at Euro coins and notes.

6. Sweeping changes to our legal system that threaten the civil rights of every last one of our citizens.

And in contrast, this is what severing all ties with the EU would give us back.

1. We would secure our national sovereignty before it is handed away to a foreign power, then amend the British Constitution to include legal referendums and other protections to make sure it is never put at risk EVER again.

2. We would regain control of

waters & fishing.

3. We could take part in global trade free from EU tariffs.

4. We would instantly save the £12-15bn annual EU membership fee.

5. We would save business over-regulation and its attendant fees.

6. We would repeal all EU laws that don't translate into British law (currently, we adapt our laws to suit these regulations).

7. We would be able to leave the European courts system so that

laws are not overruled.

8. We would regain control of our own borders and immigration.

THE COMMONWEALTH, IMMIGRATION AND JOBS

2008-03-14T11:02:00.000-07:00

There have been concerns in the EU Parliament that Commonwealth citizens should have their right to voting in the UK removed, even ones resident in Gibraltar. Again, this is a big indicator that the EU is looking to absorb us within the boundaries of "Fortress Europe".

Shortly before the Treaty of Lisbon was signed, a proposal was put forward to "pool resources" (doublespeak phrasing again) to create "joint embassies" worldwide, for example, allowing a small EU country to use a consulate belonging to a larger member, or for member states to use an embassy of another member state where their own country doesn't have diplomatic representation.

However, this also makes a very clear step towards an EU intrusion into UK consulates, since they also want to standardise rules and procedures. So not only do they want into our borders, they want to extend tendrils of authority and influence through our diplomatic system, eventually overwriting it altogether.

* * * * *

The Government recently stated that all non-EU unskilled workers would be banned "for the foreseeable future". Bear in mind that "non-EU" covers all of the Commonwealth Nations, Japan, Canada, and the USA. It severely restricts our oldest alliances.

The number of unskilled migrants from outside the EU is already restricted, with only about 12,000 permitted to take jobs in the UK in the past year under existing sector-based and agricultural schemes. That will be reduced to zero, with all migrant jobs in low skilled sectors expected to be filled by workers from Bulgaria and Romania.

The government are also in the process of looking at proposals halving tourist visa times from six to three months, and families might have to pay a financial deposit to ensure relatives outside of the EU are leaving on time. That also biased on poorer families; it's suggested that it might be a £1,000 bond, just to have someone VISIT.

What do you think that's going to do for tourism?

But that doesn't seem to apply to people coming from other EU member states since they are covered under the Schengen Agreement, essentially opening up the borders to 6% of the world population, while heavily restricting the other 94%.

This suggests that our economy will be made heavily dependent on tourism from the continent, doesn't it?

* * * * *

The Government is also in the process of unveiling its new "points based" immigration system for non-EU immigrants. It's based on a number of factors, such as qualifications, previous earnings, age, UK experience (not job experience), for entrepreneurs a certain level of wealth, for investors a certain limit of investment in the UK, etc...but it includes in its purview of "unskilled work" all professions that don't require a degree, but do require other qualifications; chefs, labourers, etc.

It is heavily biased towards "financial and public services, education and health, IT and business". The "unskilled" jobs would again be heavily biased towards immigrants from the EU member states - but then those workers would be covered by the EU regulation stating that they can work for minimum wage equal to the minimum wage back in their own member state.

I can see that small businesses will find it much harder to sponsor workers from non-EU nations, but there are no restrictions on EU immigrants. Civil rights groups have also voiced concerns because that inherently tips the balance towards predominantly white nations; they are suggesting this form of immigration control is actually quite racist. A lot more racist than an Englishman wanting to fly the Union Jack or the St George Cross in England.

How it reinforces "British" values and interests when we tell Australians and Canadians that they can't work in the UK is beyond me.

And in any case, the same problems with minimum wages will occur with workers from the Commonwealth nations as it would with natural born workers. Businesses would likely prefer to employ workers from the EU member states instead of ones from the UK, just because they'll always be able to pay less.

It's like outsourcing, but on our own soil, within our own borders...and we've seen what outsourcing has done to the UK job market.

* * * * *

They are also making a big deal about cracking down on criminal immigrants, and on the surface you'd think that's a good thing, but they are "tightening up" on people with an "unspent" conviction, so that no-one who has been jailed for 30 months or more can be given citizenship.

So under those rules, surely that implies someone who has been jailed for 29 1/2 months CAN be granted citizenship?

How tough does that really sound now?

IMMIGRATION WITHIN THE EU

2008-03-14T11:00:00.002-07:00

The Schengen Agreement that governs immigration is the same as the rest of the EU; it's something very undemocratic wrapped in a thin but attractive shell that vaguely suggests democracy, which promotes more chaos, tension and economic problems than it resolves.

The whole "you can go and work anywhere in Europe if you join the EU" is a big carrot on a stick. You shouldn’t have to surrender your sovereignty, citizenship, dignity or traditions to be free to travel.

Put into basic number terms:

* The current population of the UK is about 61 million, give or take a couple of million for illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

* The approx. total current population of the EU's member states on the continent is 495.5 million.

* Now, under current EU regulations already signed into UK law, ALL of those people are legally entitled to come to the UK, find a house and get a job.

Does that put it into perspective for people as to why we have a runaway immigration problem, mass unemployment and rising house prices?

Another common example of that is how everyone blames immigrants for what's going wrong in our country, but doesn't assign the blame to the people who should be controlling the immigration.

Remember that I said the EU views democracy as outmoded? It views nationalism and national pride the same way, since the two are mostly connected throughout Europe. The Schengen Agreement is the best and fastest way to turn the whole of Europe into one vast, chaotic melting pot - because then we're going to be so busy arguing with each other we won't notice our freedoms slowly slipping away.

If you were an immigrant in an oppressed nation, and you and your children were starving to death or looking to get murdered any day now, and another much richer nation was offering you a free meal ticket with no restrictions, wouldn't you take it?

It’s my opinion that these people are being used just as much as we are.

THE COSTS OF COMPLIANCE

2008-03-14T11:00:00.001-07:00

It was recently estimated that 70 per cent of Britain's new laws now emanate from Brussels, and complying with them all has a direct effect and cost for government, private organisations and business. These costs are also passed on to the consumer.

This EU-imposed regulation was discovered in 2005 to have cost the UK economy somewhere in the order of £30 billion pounds since 1998 alone.

The gradual process of UK integration into the EU has seen us stripped of national resources such as our national fisheries, altered our national defense, diminished the Royal Navy, channel a massive and unnecessary amount of taxpayer’s money out of the country every year, lose jobs, suffer massive inflation, comply with a massive number of one-sided regulations, and lose control over our own borders.

The massive flood of unchecked immigration due to EU regulations has contributed to the rising house prices, lack of jobs for our natural born citizens, and the overall lowering of the national minimum wage. It isn't the immigrants fault - its the people that should have been taking care of immigration control.

Does this sound like a mutually beneficial relationship to you?

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF FREE TRADE

2008-03-14T10:58:00.000-07:00

Bear in mind, the EU nations take up 6% of the world population. We trade with the remaining 94% for FREE. While some may point out that the EU currently ranks unofficially as number one on global nominal listings of Gross Domestic Product, the United Kingdom ranks number five, below China (the nation with the largest population on the planet), Germany & Japan (two of the most major technological exporters in the world), and the United States (the home of capitalism).

Not so shabby for a relatively small island in the Atlantic, is it? Actually, it’s nothing short of INCREDIBLE.

Britain

is still very much a Great nation, with amazing potentials.

In actuality, due to our mastery of the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry (in the service and information management industries), our GDP per person is HIGHER than all the other member states of the EU COMBINED. And that is while we still suffer under massive EU over-regulation.

And in any case, what economist is going to tell us that it makes any sense at all for us to pay our major competitor for the privilege of trading with them?

What Britain Has That the EU Wants

The reality is that between England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, we have a lot going for us.

Our position in relation to Europe, our financial centres, our fisheries (once they are reclaimed from the EU) and North Sea Oil.

Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, three countries that opted not to join the EC, are now some of the most prosperous countries in Europe, with similar resources to our own, and they have a much higher current standard of living and minimum wage than the United Kingdom.

THE COST OF THE EU TO BRITAIN

2008-03-14T10:57:00.000-07:00

MP’s have been demanding since 1973 for successive Governments to provide them with a cost-benefit analysis of our relationship with the EU. Every successive government has refused to carry out such a study, arguing the benefits of membership are "self-evident".

Can you see anything here that suggests this is a benefit to us, the taxpaying public? Or does it seem like the benefit lies with the politicians that head up this massive scam?

Membership fees

Currently we pay anywhere between £12 to £15 BILLION pounds per year as a fee to the EU in order to have the privilege to trade with them. That’s roughly £873 per year, per man, woman and child in the UK. That cost is deferred to you, the UK taxpayer.

In 2006, the EU cost the British economy £50.6 billion in both direct and indirect costs; in 2007, it cost it £52.4 billion; that’s nearly £100.000 per minute.

Since we started our relationship with them, we have paid the EU nearly £200 billion.

To put this in perspective for you, since these are truly staggering amounts… £1 billion would pay for approx. 222,000 NHS hip replacements, or 46,893 NHS nurses, or 38,782 teachers, or 34,585 police officers.

Stretch that over a 15 year period, or times these numbers by 15 and you will see what we’d get for ONE YEAR without EU membership fees.

Even better, stretch that over a 200 year period, or times those numbers by 200 and you will start to see the real value that has been leeched away from our nation over the last 33 years.

Imagine what we could have achieved by now. Take a look at the EU launching their first space freighter, while we lose Jodrell Bank due to lack of government funding. And the recent flood aid takes on a whole new meaning.

All of the plaques you see stating that it was “Paid for by the European Union” actually means “Paid For By the UK Taxpayer, but at a Greater Cost Than If We’d Have Just Done it Ourselves”.

THERE IS HOPE

2008-03-14T10:53:00.000-07:00

As of right now, we are relying on two things that can stop this process.

The first is the Treaty of Lisbon being passed through the House of Lords in April 2008. Due to reforms enacted upon them by the Government, they will only be able to delay the Treaty, not reject it as they have in the past.

Northern Ireland's referendum in June 2008 remains our greatest opportunity to defend the entire democratic structure of Europe.

Take a look at this film:

http://wiseupjournal.com/?p=173

Watch this all the way through, because this is a VERY clear explanation of exactly what is going on. This is the Irish perspective, which is not nearly as rosy as the UK Government or the Irish government is claiming. The guys that made this movie deserve a medal.

Note that this also includes testimonies from Irish, French and Danish MEPs that want to let the public know what's going on. Don't be conned into believing that Europe wants this any more than the UK does.

SO WHO BENEFITS FROM OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE EU?

2008-03-14T10:51:00.000-07:00

Put simply, the EU is built to benefit its politicians, not nations or the public. On the outside, it looks democratic, but on the inside its bureaucracy is very un-democratic, and what's worse seems to view democracy as "outmoded". You'll also hear many Eurocrats say that they deal with things "that no common citizen could ever understand", and that we should leave them alone to do the job of administrating our lives.

That's not democracy, that's a police state, with the attitude of a dictatorship.

Another defining mark of EU bureaucracy is that it is designed to obfuscate and confuse people, so you just accept it. They rely on people's apathy to get what they want.

To give an example, there are 111,000 EU regulations, covering 97,000 pages of text. Any ideas on how many Ministers that have progressively signed our nations rights away have sat down, read, and UNDERSTOOD every single one of those regulations, or even half of those pages? I would guess NONE.

But they have signed treaties and made agreements based on them, because at the end of the day, THEY get a good deal. This isn't confined to the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour - they're all as compromised as each other to a greater or lesser degree, as the recent referendum vote showed.

Yes, there are decent civil servants in these parties, but if the politicians genuinely cared about our nation and its people any longer, ALL of them would have voted to have a referendum and let Great Britain have its say. Failing that, all of them would be repealing the 1972 European Communities Act as you read this.

If they were genuinely concerned, 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.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE EU

2008-03-14T10:49:00.000-07:00

There have been many treaties and amendments passed by the EU over the years that have continued to define and allow for the growth and expansion of powers for the EU body politic as we see it today.

The ones in which Great Britain have been involved are:

THE 1972 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT

This was signed by Her Majesty the Queen, and Prime Minister Edward Heath. This provided for the incorporation of European Community law into the domestic legal order of the United Kingdom.

Its main significance is that (apart from being the instrument whereby the UK was able to accede to the European Union (or 'European Communities' as then termed) it enables under section 2(2) for Government ministers to lay regulations before Parliament to implement ‘required changes’ to UK law.

In other words, for the EU to dictate how we should alter our laws and our society in order to better fit into their framework. It made us subject to EU directives, which are defined as “a legislative act of the European Union which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result.”

Please take special note of this Act, because this needs to be repealed following a referendum as soon as humanly possible. This would break the UK away from the EU as our own independent nation once more.

THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT

Signed in 1986 by Her Majesty the Queen, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It is interesting to note that Lady Thatcher has since confessed she profoundly regrets ever signing this treaty.

The goal of this treaty was to ‘remove remaining barriers between countries, increase harmonization, thus increasing the competitiveness of European countries’.

THE MAASTRICHT TREATY

Signed in 1992 by Her Majesty the Queen, and Prime Minister John Major. Notably, Lady Thatcher also protested this treaty.

This treaty introduced the “Three Pillars of the European Union”. The European Communities Pillar, the Common Foreign and Security Policy pillar, and the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar (which introduced cooperation in law enforcement, criminal justice, civil judicial matters, and asylum and immigration).

Originally, the European Community (EC) dealt mainly with economic, social and trade matters. This treaty it suddenly became very apparent that the European Union was evolving into a state, which desired “supranational” powers.

THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM

Signed in 1997 by Her Majesty the Queen, and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

This treaty focused greater emphasis on citizenship and the rights of individuals, increased powers for the European Parliament, a new title on employment, a Community area of freedom, security and justice, the beginnings of a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the reform of the institutions in the run-up to enlargement.

THE TREATY OF NICE

Signed in 2001 by Her Majesty the Queen, and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The primary purpose of the Treaty of Nice was to reform the institutional structure to withstand the Enlargement of the European Union.

The question of a reduction in the size of the European Commission after enlargement was also resolved to a degree — the Treaty providing that once the number of Member States reached 27, the number of Commissioners appointed in the subsequent Commission would be reduced by the Council to below 27, but without actually specifying the target of that reduction. This essentially places a precedent for the EU to be ruled over by ONE Commissioner.

The Treaty of Nice also for the first time adopted formal rules for the application of sanctions against a Member State. Critics spoke out against the treaty, stating that it further diminished the sovereignty of national/local parliaments, and further concentrating power into a centralised and unaccountable bureaucracy - "deepening but not widening" political power.

THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

This was a proposed unimplemented treaty designed to create a Constitutional document for the European Union. It was signed in 2004 by representatives of member states of the Union, but was subject to ratification by all member states, of which France and the Netherlands rejected it by referenda. This document sought to codify human rights throughout the EU, and “streamline decision-making” in the 27-member organisation.

At the time, Prime Minister Tony Blair promised a referendum, which was subsequently denied to the UK. He went on to state in a speech at Oxford in 2006 that “We locked ourselves in a room at the top of the tower and debated things no ordinary citizen could understand. And yet I remind you the Constitution was launched under the title of 'Bringing Europe closer to its citizens.'”

It was criticised as being far too long (160,000 words in its English version, compared to the 4,600 word US Constitution). It was likewise argued that many of its articles introduced “trappings of statehood”, such as a motto, a flag, and an anthem.

Bear in mind that these elements are present in the EU today, as if the Constitution itself had been accepted. The process of change is evidently rolling on within the EU, without any regard for its own laws, let alone international or British law. It also provided no essential cuts to the 97,000 pages of EU regulations and edicts as was promised.

THE TREATY OF LISBON (aka The European Constitution 2.0)

Signed December 2007 by Her Majesty the Queen and Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This treaty is due to come into force in 2009 if successfully supported (ratified) by all member states, with massive and lasting repercussions for democracy and civil rights throughout Europe.

Despite protests to the contrary, which is a deliberate smokescreen on the behalf of the current UK Government, this treaty would carry out most of the reforms previously proposed in the rejected European Constitution. This was even confirmed by a Labour party commission that looked into the subject.

Again, despite party promises in their own manifesto, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has moved the Labour Party to formally reject pleas for a referendum.

I will point out at this point that Gordon Brown has never been elected as Prime Minister by the public of Great Britain, only by his party. Even if he had been, according to our constitution, NO-ONE has the authority to sign any treaty that would sign away our national sovereignty, up to and including the Sovereign. Part of the wonderful thing about the UK legal system is that no-one is above the law, safeguarding citizens from dictators.

Any action to attempt this is classified under UK law as "High Treason". This used to carry the sentence of death by hanging, until it was adjusted by Tony Blair in 2005.

Refusal on the part of authorities to investigate and prosecute this crime is termed "Misprision of treason", which carries a sentence of life imprisonment.

What is important for the citizens of the UK to understand is that by signing each and every one of these treaties, politicians have been committing compounded acts of treason against our country since 1972.

Each of these treaties progressively expands the EU, grants it more and more political power to do whatever it likes, and the Treaty of Lisbon gives it the right to abolish our nation.

While the UK has argued in each case for opt-outs at each stage of the EU's evolution, the Treaty of Lisbon changes ALL of that, since it's written to be "self-amending". That means once it’s ratified, the EU will be free to alter the terms of the Treaty as they see fit, with no need to consult or approve them with the signatories, or the peoples of Europe.

They can change the terms of the agreement at any time, to any degree, without consulting anyone.

Do you think it’s a good idea to place that much administrative and legal power into the hands of 25 unelected, diplomatically immune bureaucrats, wielded over nearly every aspect of the lives of half a billion citizens?

Through the imposition of this treaty upon the free peoples of Europe, the EU is declaring its legal personality, able to represent itself at the UN - without representing its individual member states.

It should also be noted that at the signing for the Treaty of Lisbon, 100 MEP’s from Britain, France, Poland and Italy led a demonstration in the Parliament chamber, calling for a Europe-wide referendum.

Their British colleagues called them “hooligans” that “shamed Britain”. They are the only people who are standing up for the civil rights of the populations of Europe. This also shows that there is a very strong culture of defamation associated with the EU – if you disagree with them, you are ostracized, called a racist, etc.

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EU

2008-03-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

• Does an economic trading community need a pan-European police force and army? The EU now has all of the above: the European Gendarmerie Force (or EUROGENDFOR, est. 2006) and Europol (est. 1999), Eurocorps (est. 1995) and Eurojust (given expanded powers by the European Commission in 2007, including automatic access to national databases, terrorist cases, and criminal, DNA and prison records, “ensuring states co-operate with Eurojust”.

• Why would it need a border and immigration policy? It has one: the Schengen Agreement, which allows for free, uncontrolled migration between member states.

• Why would it need a defence policy? It has one: the European Security and Defence Policy.

• Why would it propose to draft a document labeled as a Constitution?

• Why would a trade relationship have codes of Citizenship?

• Why would a trading arrangement need a national anthem ("Ode to Joy"), or a flag?

It wouldn’t, because all of these are attributes not of a trading arrangement, but of a STATE.

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS GOALS

2008-03-14T10:47:00.000-07:00

The European Union is not what we were told it was in 1972, when it was first introduced to us by PM Edward Heath as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), evolving through stages as the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community (EC), and finally into the EU of today.

If you out there reading this are under the impression that it is the same thing, you are VERY much mistaken, and need to educate yourself as to the changes and differences between what was told to us in the 1970’s and the present day European Union. Hopefully, you will find the information here the best single resource you can find to do that.

Public perception at the time was that it was simply a way for Britain to establish a “trading relationship” with the European continent, which would have no legal ramifications for us, present no threat to our national sovereignty, and present no threat to our civil rights. This was also reinforced by the assurances of Prime Minister Edward Heath, a supporter of the ECSC.

Now, with just a little investigation, it appears that on all of these counts, the British public has been continually, deliberately lied to and deceived by members of our own political system over the last 36 years.

This isn’t fiction, and it is happening NOW, here in our country. These aren't my beliefs, they are FACTS.

If you don't believe me, please take a look at these facts and go verify them for yourself. All it takes is a few minutes, and the ability to use Google or another search engine. You can find them freely available for public distribution and verify every part of it for yourself.

2008-03-14T10:45:00.000-07:00

WELCOME TO WAKE UP BRITAIN!

2008-03-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

This blog has been set up to provide an easy to access one stop location for information relating to the UK's involvement with the EU, the effects of ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007, and the UK Government's refusal to grant the UK voting public the voice that is theirs by right.

This blog aims to educate YOU, the members of the public of Great Britain, to stand 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.

Together, we can WAKE UP BRITAIN and save our sovereignty!