HOW TRAITOROUS ARE THEY? - -

[FLYING COLOURS]

Just to show how really traitorous the present parliamentary road show is - - -

We could leave the EU in 14 hours

The fastest an Act of Parliament has been drafted, passed by Parliament and signed by the Monarch was the abdication of King Edward VIIIth. It was done in 13.5 hours. We could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and be out of Europe in just fourteen hours.

[Darren Pollard]

It really is as simple as that. But they act like the whole issue is so complicated that it would take decades to undo. They're full of shite!

[dave]

The government has welcomed EU plans to allow British citizens to be tried in their absence in other member states.

British subjects could also be extradited automatically at the request of other EU states under the proposals.
...
The plan was backed by the European Parliament by 609 votes to 60 and now goes to the Council of Ministers for final approval.

It is designed to end uncertainty among member states about whether to recognise in absentia judgements and to make the European Arrest Warrant more effective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7596633.stm

[david_grothier]

You all need to get you heads around this once and for all–-we are in the EU because the people of this nation decided by a referendum that we be so.

What none of you seem to realise is that the power to move mountains lays with the people.

Note how there was no referendum this time around on the Treaty of Lisbon, the government though twice about and it got signed via the back door as they knew that Britain would probably follow the Irish.

However the government will always fall back on the Heath referendum as their authority even though the public were sold a bum street of misinformation on the EU and voted accordingly.

The public accepted the message and did what the string pullers want and we are paying for the result of that great deceptive manipulation today.

However if you lot cant see that without the public firmly behind you, you are going to get absolutely nowhere.

And if you cant see that the controlled media does its master’s bidding, then you are all fighting uphill.

Therefore it would be a really innovated to see some here come up with ideas of how they propose to get the message in clear understandable English out to the public in order that they can make their own value based decisions on real information to hand.

Get the strength of the public behind you or forever pxss in the wind!

[dave]

a letter I noticed on the net;

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB
Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London

23 March 2001


You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany
our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It
directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of
loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered
merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the
Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations
yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for
exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which
exercises rights unused for over 300 years - clause 61 of Magna Carta,
which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: ...and, laying the
transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed
without delay...And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or
indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be
revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it
be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any
Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear
evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct
conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with
Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all,
with Her Majestys Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her
Majestys ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day,
which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majestys obligations under
the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the
peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament
agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also
swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall
appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty
would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point
of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister,
confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to
breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majestys promise to her loyal
subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers. Conversely,
it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They
cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power
without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice
represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the
foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstones Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal
Prerogative: The splendour, rights, and powers of the Crown were
attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and
are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself . De prerogativa
regis is merely declaratory of the common law...

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are
reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his
dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance
and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution
and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We
have alreadyobserved that the prerogatives are vested in him for the
benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above,
the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by
the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto
renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the
Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to
dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an
election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with
seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new
constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the
issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of
the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution
to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed,
and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be
diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our
petition, no such option exists.
As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and
foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and
never used or obeyed in this realm. No foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentateshall at any time after the last day of
this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power,
jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilegewithin
this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out
of this realm, for ever.

So it is clear that no-one - neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor
government, nor people - may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or
surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We
inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass
them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard
or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on
parliament's power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial. The
Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn
obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common
law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear
allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the
nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths
are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to
the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the
principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional - an essential
part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these
oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from
government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is
unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We
draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the
political freedom of Her Majestys subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing
political parties at European level [ie: in the EU] and withdraw or
prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to
forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free
speech and free political association. It also introduces two
particularly abhorrent propositions - taxation without representation
and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It
cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on
our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. - Libertatis
Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an
acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of
Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which
purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would
itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will
appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men
that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.... How
can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of
Rights:

1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of
Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
(This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution
of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of
late is illegall.

4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of
Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. (This is
further protection of our common law rights.)

In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we
respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine
the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary
advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others - have
formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for
consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops
..until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majestys most loyal and obedient subjects.

Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/Ourmonarch/Scroll.html
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/Ourmonarch/letterto.html

[dave]

Sir Robin said that the Queen was presently receiving "about a thousand letters a day", and that "a substantial proportion" of them expressed concern about the Nice Treaty and/or the loss of sovereignty to the EU. He could not give us an exact number. He explained that nobody ever counted them all because there were so many!

http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/Ourmonarch/march23.html

[david_grothier]

You are in danger of losing the plot here, we are in the EU simply because in 1975 the UK embraced Europe in referendum in which just over 67% of voters supported the Labour government's campaign to stay in the EEC, this was a large majority in the country's first nationwide referendum.

Now it appears that the UK Independence Party (UKIP), has launched its "let the people decide" campaign. They claim that if such a referendum were arranged today Britons would vote to leave the EU. In my opinion this is possible without losing the majority of our trading interest with the EU as Greenland went from being a full member of the EU as part of the Danish commonwealth to becoming a part of the Overseas Lands and Territories (OLT) grouping in 1985. Greenland's withdrawal meant no more EU access to Greenland's immense fishing territories but that it still retains favourable EU trading conditions.

What surprises me, and I still get surprises by the indolence of most people, is that even though the European Union has grown over the past 30 years and has widened and deepened to the point that no one could ever have expected at the time of the previous referendum in 1975 the British voters who obviously deserve a chance to reject or accept the continued Membership of the EU have not been allowed the opportunity to voice and opinion, despite Daisy Brown’s General Election Manifesto, in 2005 that, “We will put it to the British people in a referendum.” Could this be the same person who opened the back door to signing the Treaty of Lisbon?

The very same Daisy Brown who should have been publicly targeted by the UKIP, under its, "let the people decide" campaign. But as usually the signing away of our ancient rights passed us all bye like a damp squib in the night and New Labour were able to deceive us one more time. This should have been a golden opportunity for the UKIP, but merely demonstrated the extent of their commitment. As for the protestations of a fouled mouth, ever internally squabbling BNP, I ponder if they even knew to this day what Daisy did to the country while Griffin could have been on another champers street binge!

Just to rub it in a little but more how you were all caught with your pants down by Daisy Brown. “If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty.” — Gordon Brown, The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007

However I believe that we all need to stand form on this issue as EU leaders are terrified that the new treaty would be rejected by many EU states if they allowed their electorates a say, and that is why they are opposed to holding referendums and listening to the voice of the people. French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, said in Strasbourg on 14 November, "France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting no. It would happen in all member states if they had a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments."
That sums it up precisely. EU leaders have met in secret like conspirators. They have not issued completed texts of the final documents for the public to see and consider, even though this transfer of sovereignty is of fundamental importance to every European. They know that Europeans will not accept something that has not been properly presented to them, and yet they are determined to go against the known wishes of the people of Europe.

What we are all faced with is the medieval practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors, by the Council of Ministers, which are the EU’s supreme law-making body, and now which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws Please people be aware that this is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret. WHY WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SINISTER PLOT THEY ARE HATCHING FOR US ALL TO SUFFER.
On 13 December 2007 all 27 EU leaders signed what was described as The Treaty of Lisbon. On 17 December the final text was published with the title, "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community."
Could they have been more unhelpful? Of course, this is not the final change of name in this series. The Treaty of Lisbon itself changes the name of the Treaty Establishing the European Community to "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union".
Never lose sight that if ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. We in Britain would become a province and our great, "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that’s humiliation for us British the final straw to break the back of this once proud nation. that gave the world English, the Magna Carta and our sacred Common Law, not forgetting standing alone and saving Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.
The admirable work of Brian Garrish, John Harries and Albert Burgess will simply be a puff of smoke, and we cannot allow that to happen and these men are our backbone!

Yet we still have time and we can make a difference by forcing parliament into amending the 1972 European Communities Act, the law under which Britain entered the community and its as simple as that! No more ifs and buts and huffing and puffing…just do it!

Before I finish ranting and rambling on, please let me give you an idea of how you have all sat back smuggling and been conned, openly and deliberately conned by your very own elected representatives whom you never even bothered to take to task!

Some quotes:
"There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified."–––––Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain's entry into the Common Market, January 1973

This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union ... as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law.––––Judge Bruce Morgan, judgement in Sunderland metrication case April 9, 2001

The moment when our political leaders first took this fateful decision to conceal the real purpose of the European project from the British people was not, in fact, 1970 but ten years earlier when, in 1960, Harold Macmillan’s Government began discussing the dramatic reversal of national policy which was to lead to our first abortive application to join the Common Market.

This we can see from an illuminating book published in 1995 by Lionel Bell, The Throw That Failed, based on studying the Cabinet papers which reflected those discussions in the months leading up to our application in the summer of 1961. What was striking about the documents Bell uncovered was just how frank Macmillan and his colleagues had been in private, even at that early stage, over where the Common Market was heading. They were in little doubt it was intended to be just a first step towards eventual political and economic union. Yet this, they decided, should be kept hidden from the British people, because otherwise it would not be acceptable. The Common Market had to be presented as no more than a trading arrangement.

Even before the Treaty of Rome had been signed in 1957, the Foreign Office had been briefed to the effect that its six original signatories wanted:

“to achieve tighter European integration through the creation of European institutions with supranational powers, beginning in the economic field … the underlying motive of the Six is, however, essentially political”

[catmar]

I believe what this site is trying to do is the right thing for the right people
by that I mean people who can take personal responsibility for themselves. This
places a block on people who are married and have children to take care of, unless
he or she can carry the responsibility for all members of his or her family.

However, there are many, if not most people who just can not and will not take
the responsibility required for themselves. I believe that two of the main
obstacles to overcome is the mistaken belief that their Government would never,
ever do anything unlawful and secondly absolute abject apathy.

To be brief this leads me to believe that we will be enslaved by this power
hungry global criminal cabal who wish to own the world, everyone in it and
all the great things in life that we slaves will not be able to access.

We need peaceful civil disobedience on a huge scale and keep it up for however
long it takes to bring this new world order down here in the U.K. If this is
backed up by all other western Countries then we have a good chance. I believe
this will be our only way out of this oppressive Nazi/Marxist/Leninist/Communist/
Corporate regime that seems to be saying we are the best and we will deceive
you so much that you will be begging for us to take over.

My youtube channel, very new and not much direction at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/user/cadmar

I know there is not much on there but we all have to start somewhere.

[dave]

I was talking to a friend recently who said to the effect the reason he carries on with all the nonsense world rather than help resolve it was because he has a family and he said to me that you cannot understand what it is to be a parent unless you are one. I replied that each should chose what they do but as for not being a parent I look at it that we are all family.

[david_grothier]

Is that why there are so many child abusers then?

Just one big family!

You can only really understand parerhood and what you will do for you chilren, if you are a parent.