Article 50 is a poisoned chalice

Article 50 is a poisoned chalice – Don’t drink from it

Robert Henderson
Those who think that British Europhile politicians   will  play fair if Britain votes to leave the EU in June will be horribly disappointed. The public may think that if the British people have voted to leave the EU and that is an end of it regardless of the wishes of the Government.   Sadly, there is every reason to expect that Brexit will be anything but a clean break from the EU.
To begin with there has been no commitment by Cameron to stand down as PM if the vote goes against him.  Quite the opposite for he  has publicly stated several  times that  he will stay on and many  Tory MPs, including some of those in favour of leaving like Chris Grayling ,  have said that he must remain in No 10 whatever the outcome of the referendum .
If Cameron stays on as PM after a vote to leave Britain would be in the absurd position of having a man in charge of  Britain’s withdrawal who has shown his all too eager  commitment to the EU by the feebleness of   the demands he made during  his “renegotiation” and his regularly repeated statement before the conclusion of the “renegotiation”  that he was sure he would get new terms which would allow him to campaign for Britain to remain within the EU.   
A post-referendum   Cameron  government entrusted with negotiating Britain’s departure from the EU would mean that not only the  PM  but  the majority of his  cabinet and ministers below  cabinet  level  will  be  drawn from the same pro-EU personnel as he has today.  In those circumstances Cameron and his fellow Europhiles would almost certainly try to stitch Britain back into the EU with a deal such as that granted to  Norway and Switzerland. If that happened Britain could end up with the most important issue in the British  public’s mind –  free movement  of not only labour but free movement of anyone with the right to permanent residence in the EU – untouched .
But if Cameron leaves  of his own accord soon after a vote to leave Britain could still end up with a Europhile  Prime Minister and Cabinet.  Why? By  far the most likely person to succeed him  is Boris Johnson. If he  does become  PM there is every reason to believe that he will also do his level best to enmesh Britain back into  the EU.  Ever since Johnson  became the Telegraph’s  Brussels correspondent in the 1990s he has been deriding the EU, but until coming out as a supporter of voting to leave in the past week he has never advocated Britain’s withdrawal.  Johnson also gave a very strong hint  in the  Daily Telegraph article in which he announced his support for leaving the EU that his support for Britain leaving the EU was no more than  a ploy to persuade the EU to offer  more significant concessions than those offered to Cameron. Johnson has also been a regular advocate of the value of immigration.
The scenario of Cameron or Johnson deliberately subverting the intention of a referendum vote  to leave are all too plausible. There has been no public discussion let alone  agreement by leading  politicians over what the British government may or may not negotiate in the event of a vote to leave.   Nor has there been any suggestion by any British politician or party  that whatever the terms offered by the EU the British public will have the right to vote on them in a referendum.  Britain could be left  with  an agreement decided by the British Government and the EU which might do nothing of what  the British public most wants and  has voted for, namely, the return of sovereignty and  the control of Britain’s borders.
Then  there is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  Both Cameron and Johnson are committed to doing so within the terms of the Lisbon Treaty of  2009.  Far from a vote to leave in the referendum putting Britain in the position of a  sovereign nation engaging in a negotiation for a treaty with the EU  it traps  Britain into an extended period of negotiation whose outcome is dependent on the agreement or non-agreement of  the 27 other EU member states and the  EU Parliament.  Let me quote  the Article in  full:
Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (

Article 50  means that Britain could spend two years negotiating and get no treaty because the Council of Ministers could veto it through Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) or the European Parliament reject it. Britain would then have the option of either asking for an extension (which could be indefinite because there is no limit mentioned in the Article) or leaving without a treaty.  There is also the further complication that if a treaty was agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament it would still have to be agreed by 27 EU member states,  either through Parliamentary vote or  in the case of a few including France, a referendum.  Moreover,  even if a treaty is agreed and accepted by all EU member states, this would leave  Britain up in the air for what could be a considerable time as each of the 27 members goes through the process of getting  the agreement of their Parliament or electorate.
The OUT camp must make it clear that  it would be both damaging and unnecessary for the UK to abide by this Treaty requirement. It  would allow the EU to inflict considerable damage on the UK both during the period prior to formally  leaving and afterwards if  the price of leaving with the EU’s agreement was  for  UK to sign up to various obligations, for example, to continue paying a large annual sum to the EU for ten years . It would also give  the Europhile UK political elite  ample opportunity to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached by arguing that it is the best deal Britain  can get.  If there was no second  referendum on the  terms  negotiated for Britain leaving the government of the day could simply pass the matter into law without the British voters having a say.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply repealing the European Communities Act and asserting the sovereignty of Parliament.   No major UK party could  object to this on principle because all three have, at one time or another,  declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the  treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise  (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments. There is also the fact that the EU and its predecessor the EEC has constantly breached its own rules, spectacularly so in the case of the Eurozone.  Hence, for the EU treaties are anything but sacrosanct.

Letter to Philip Hammond

hammondp@parliament.uk


Ph        (44) 01730829416                                     Sunny Bank,
                                                                               Church Lane,
Mobile  (44) 07717222459                                         West Meon,
e-mail irfrancis@onetel.com                                     Petersfield,
                                                                                  Hampshire  GU32 1LD

Sir,
Your support for the subjugation of this country to the anti-democratic, terminally incompetent and doomed European Union is akin to the behaviour of Lord Halifax in 1940, faced with the previous attempt to force us into a similar regime.

You are  even  more of a disgrace, given that you claimed for many years to be a eurosceptic.

I am increasingly confident that despite your efforts and those of other weasel-worded, two-faced traitors we will win our freedom, and that on June 24th you will realise that your miserable political career is at an end.

In the meantime I show below a few quotations that sum up my views of your conduct and that of other europhiles who are betraying the people of this country.


Idris Francis

                                          --------------------------------------


"There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.

Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered."

Thomas Paine, "Rights of Man" 1791/92
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
"With inky blot and  rotten parchment bond
That England that was wont to conquer others
 Hath made a shameful conquest of itself"Shakespeare

"For those looking for security, be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise."
Harry Browne

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
 C.S. Lewis

“No man survives when freedom fails. The best men rot in filthy jails. And those who cry `appease, appease' are hanged by those they try to please.”
Hiram Mann

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too."
Somerset Maugham

"Place me not with those who are weak of mind and willingly give up the rights of others, for these poor ignorant souls know not that the rights they give up are their own!"
 Warren Friton

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients."
Edmund Burke
 "Is there not some chosen curse, Some hidden thunder in the stores of Heaven, Red with uncommon wrath to blast the man, Who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?"
 Cato

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor - he speaks in accents familiar to his , and he wears their face and garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

He rots the soul of a nation - he works secretly and alone in the night to the pillars of a city - he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."
 Cicero n 42 BC

"There are no acts of treachery more deeply concealed than those which lie  under the pretence of duty, or under some profession of necessity"
Cicero.
 "When I contemplate the natural dignity of man; when I feel...for the honor and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon." 
 Thomas Paine

"Oh, my countrymen! What will our children say, when they read the history of these times? Should they find we tamely gave away without one noble struggle, the most invaluable of earthly blessings? As they drag the galling chain, will they not execrate us? If we have any respect for things sacred; any regard to the dearest treasures on earth; if we have one tender sentiment for posterity; if we would not be despised by the whole world - let us in the most open, solemn manner, and with determined fortitude, swear we will die, if we cannot live free men!"Josiah Quincy, Jr., 1788 published in the Boston Gazette

"...There is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil."
Ronald Reagan

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.  Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

"A government above the law is a menace to be defeated" 
Lord Scarman

"Let me conjure you in the name of our common country, as you value your sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country."
George Washington

"Live free or die, death is not the worst of evils"
General John Stark

 "No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." 
Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

"It does not matter how many lies we tell, because once we have won, no one will be able to do anything about it."  
Minuted statement by Dr. Goebbels to Adolf Hitler, early 1930s
 "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", by William L Shirer.

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."  Alexis de Tocqueville

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills: we shall never surrender"
Churchill speech in the House of Commons, 4 June 194

"I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account."
Raymond Barre, former French Prime Minister and Heath said the same.

"The Europe of Maastricht could only have been created in the absence of
democracy."
Clause Cheysson, former French Foreign Secretary

"The top priority (is) to turn the EU into a single political state"
The Times 26/11/98 - Joshka Fischer, German Foreign Minister

"The future will belong to the Germans....when we build the house of Europe.
In the next two years, we will make the process of European integration
irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight."
Chancellor Kohl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'We are with EUrope, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are
associated, but not absorbed and should EUropean Statesmen address us and
say "Shall we speak for thee?", we should reply: "Nay Sir, for we do well among our own people".
Winston Spencer Churchill

"The facts embodied in Magna Carta and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success."
Winston Churchill. A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956) Vol. 1,

"Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by the common law, are: the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given an effect contrary to international law--an old principle which has been there for years; freedom of expression; and freedom of association. All of those were in the minds of our delegates firmly secured already by the common law to this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by the new inter-state obligations in the convention".Lord Wilberforce, Hansard 3 Nov 1997 : Column 1279. 

                                       -------------------------------------------------

Phoney renegotiation completed

Alvechurch Bugle  016 – 007 ( 22-2-16)

Phase One, the phoney renegotiation completed, and this morning Mr Cameron was counting the cost of trying to con the electorate,

and he hoped, most of his own party.

It didn’t work, it was never going to work, and he has discovered belatedly, that not all of his cabinet colleagues are YES men, and hence he is haemorrhaging support faster than the Titanic took on water.

You could get away with it in the 1970s  and Edward Heath did, but

the populace have wised up, and via the internet now have access to much more in-depth information, and he will have to fall back on the N.P.S  ( National Propaganda Service ) to save him.

The ranks of the OUT campaign grows steadily and former waverers become emboldened, and the undecided are learning who is thinking what, and why,.

But for the OUT faction it is a dangerous time and one for being extra vigilant, because the Commission and its dark side plotters will not be idle between now and June, and will rapidly implement Plan B, when the British electorate has spoken.

This will be in the form of a raft of :  separation delaying tactics, involving huge amounts of financial compensation for the quite insensitive disruption that we will be causing to their plans for a European Shangri la ,  unjustifiably delayed by us those backward savages from across the channel.

They will miraculously discover, tucked away in some Treaty, a timescale for separation, probably running to the end of the century, meaning that EU rule will still apply in Westminster and Whitehall, and the flag will fly in perpetuity etc etc.

We must make it clear : OUT is OUT, and that we will immediately commence removing unwanted legislation from our statute, and that

all EU directives held here,  will immediately be put into suspension,

pending the full examination, they never originally received.  

Never forget, that the EU was conceived to destroy Britain by non-military means.

Ed.     -   -   -   -  Bromsgrovia  

Conning the world - not much!

Marvellous what they leave out of the frame in the pictures which they want to publish to the world.  

Oops!  Cut! Get that man to sit down!  Guess even this would not convince our police and politicians that this was all staged. 

These people have proven themselves to be invaders, not refugees.  

Take two!

 

Referendum

   A referendum implies that our own Constitution is negotiable. 

                                                         Our Constitution is not negotiable.

   Our elected leaders should understand that overthrowing the Constitution is treason, conspiring to overthrow the Constitution is treason, contemplating overthrowing the Constitution is treason and inciting the people to overthrow the Constitution, as in calling for a referendum, is also treason. Our elected leaders should understand that our rights and freedoms belong to the people and it is not in their power to sign them away.

                                                                 

Informative exchange of emails regarding the illegal EU

-----Original Message-----
From:]
Sent: 29 November 2015 01:33
To:
Subject: THE FOUR STAGES OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST

BRITAIN IS WELL INTO STAGE TWO POSSIBLY STAGE THREE

http://worldtruthsummit.com/media-files/Islam-Nutshell-The4StagesOfIslamicConquest.pdf

STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION

First migration wave to target non-Muslim society. Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non -Muslim society. Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs. Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism. Images of women and children used to portray Muslims. Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects). Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population. Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations. (Al-Taqyyia – deceit, lying and evasion of truth)

STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

Proselytizing efforts increase. Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells. Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam. Revisionist efforts to Islamize history. Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism. Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture. Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the nonMuslim world, such as democracy, law and science. Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.

Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view. Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders. Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into nonMuslim society in order to silence critics. Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society. Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts. Use of charities to recruit supporters. Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities. Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of nonMuslim society from within. Development of Muslim political base in target non -Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within. Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities. Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means. (Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities). Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition. Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.

STAGE THREE: OPEN WAR WITH TARGET NON-ISLAMIST SOCIETY'S LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE

Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, killings, bombings. Intentional efforts to spread chaos in the target country to undermine its government and culture. Acts of barbarity and fierceness as a deliberate policy intended to foster submission of opponents. Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society. All opposition, no matter what kind, is challenged and either eradicated or silenced. Widespread ethnic cleansing with Islamic militias. Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture. Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society. Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam. Toppling of government and usurpation of political power. Imposition of Sharia law. Mass execution of non-Muslims, ethnic cleansing.

STAGE FOUR: ISLAMIC THEOCRACY

The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the "law of the land. " All non-Islamic human rights cancelled. Freedom of speech and the press eradicated. All Religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed. Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population. Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, groups and symbols in country.

It would appear that atrocities by militant Muslims is not a new thing. 

Below is a saying by Marco Polo:

“The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim.”

From: Alpha14 [
Sent: 25 January 2016 16:17
To: Nigel Farage MEP
Cc: Bill Etheridge MEP; Caroline Stephens North Wilts; Daniel Hannan; Dave Hodges; David Coburn MEP; Diane James MEP; Donald Martin; Gerard Batten; Gerard Wadsworth; Gerrard Batten; Gillian Savory; Gordon Helm; James Gulleford; Jane Collins MEP; Janette Gulleford; Janice Atkinson MEP; Jeremy Allison; Jill Seymour MEP; Kenneth Gulleford; Louise Bours MEP; Margot Parker MEP; Mike Hookem MEP; Mike Nattrass MEP; Paul Nuttall; Richard Coke; Robert Brown; Steven Woolfe MEP; Stuart Agnew MEP; Tim Aker MEP; Timothy Congdon; UKIP; UKIP East Admin; UKIP Mail; UKIP Web Editor; Victoria Ayling; William Earl of Dartmouth
Subject: WHEN WILL UKIP ACT ?

Dear Mr Farage,

I have supported UKIP fervently for years as I have believed your speeches and press quotes that you and the Party are absolutely intent on getting Britain out of the EU. 

You will know just how unlawful the EU is, how illegal its Treaties are and that in law (English Constitutional and Common Law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 & 1986), Britain may simply walk away and there is nothing the EU can do about it.  You will know of the gross treason committed by so many of our politicians since the 1960’s  -  which fact alone, renders Britain’s “EU membership” null and void.  So you will also know that Britain is, in law, not actually any part of the EU and that European law can have no effect in this country whatsoever.  English law continues to prevail.

It would seem the last general election was rigged since the Conservatives KNEW they’d won two weeks before it was held.  We now receive massively funded pro-EU propaganda through the front door and scores of organisations are strongly pushing the EU-IN vote.  We might get an EU referendum if Mr Cameron finally so decides, worded to accord with his openly pro-EU stance.  

But no matter how it might be worded, voting in such a referendum would in law, cement Britain’s part in the EU as it would legitimise what is currently an illegal sham with no grounding in law.

As such a “promised” EU referendum theoretically draws closer, one would expect to see UKIP officials in overdrive to counter the strong pro-EU drive with campaigns, posters and billboards, leaflets and other handouts making sure that absolutely every person in the country knows and is fully aware of the harm and cost the EU is causing us, just how destructive full EU membership will be and how Britain will be infinitely better off out of the Union.  That we shall breathe easily once again and be free to trade with the world without interference as now.

But we see none of this from UKIP.  Your speeches are masterly.  But speeches without action amount to nothing because the Europhiles will simply smile and ignore what you say until they see things beginning to change through action.  Only then will they take what you say, seriously.

Though the Party has claimed for years that it will robustly get Britain out of the EU and given the passionate support it received at last year’s General Election, why has it not done anything discernable to leave the EU so far ?  

As Britain has no lawful commitment to Europe anyway, why has UKIP not simply walked our country away from EU clutches as it legally and freely may ?  

Since the three main parties have so treacherously lied and deceived this nation into foreign rule and dictatorship, English law will still enable UKIP to take us out - today.  UKIP would gain a very considerable membership increase upon doing so.

Time in which to achieve that is now so very short before our opportunity is forever lost.  The loss of our country will cause a very large number of people to become incandescent with rage that UKIP could have done far more than we have so far seen. 

Will you tell me when UKIP is to act decisively and what we can expect to see, please ?

Yours sincerely,

Rex Poulton

  Sent: 26 January 2016 13.43
To:
Cc:
Subject: Rply: We Want Our Country Back

Dear Mr Poulton,

I have received a copy of your open letter to Nigel Farage.  Whilst I have every sympathy with your frustrations  what, precisely, do you envisage Farage and UKIP can actually do further, in addition to informing and promoting UK withdrawal?

Ideally, in my view, we need a government ready and willing to unilaterally repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.  With a Conservative government in power, and just one UKIP MP, regrettably there is little chance of that. 

So please elaborate upon your proposals.

Regards,

Delphine Gray-Fisk

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Sent: 26 January 2016 15:46
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Rply: We Want Our Country Back

A sadly inadequate effusion, which as you say Delphine has nothing to propose.  Did Mr Poulton reflect for a moment on what practical measures are needed which are not already being implemented?

Nikolai

-----Original Message-----
From: Alpha14 [
Sent: 28 January 2016 11:58
To: Nikolai Tolstoy; DGrayFisk@aol.com
Cc: beveridge1@me.com; sunbeam@newbury.net
Subject: RE: Rply: We Want Our Country Back

Dear Delphine and Nikolai,

Thank you both for your replies and I apologise that this response might become a trifle lengthy. 

My email to Nigel was of course the question, “Given that we see little publicised activity by UKIP to remove Britain from the EU so far, and in view of the ramping-up of pro-EU propaganda through people’s front doors in readiness for the forthcoming EU referendum (if we actually get one) to cajole a greater IN vote, when is UKIP likely to start showing its strength of conviction and what level of activity might we expect to see ?”.

I fully understand that funding is crucial and that without the massive financial support enjoyed by the three main parties, UKIP must use its resources carefully and to the utmost benefit.  However, as Joe public on the street and with a deeply ingrained sense of justice for our country, I see little evidence other than Nigel’s masterly speeches to demonstrate what UKIP is actually doing to extricate us from the ever tightening EU grip on our lives permitted and endorsed by so many so-called British politicians.  As things are, Britain will shortly become irrevocably lost as a fully integrated part of the EU disaster, a situation from which we shall never be permitted to free ourselves.  I am not alone in this view.

My email sought to remind of the total illegality and lack of basis in law of Britain’s EU “membership” and the ease and simplicity with which legitimate and unquestionable withdrawal can be immediately made.  If one is not a member of the Conservative Party for example, one is not duty bound to take part in it and one certainly does not need the consent of the chairman to leave.  

So far, the nation has waited very many years for somebody to take Britain out of its ridiculous and relentless political suicide.  But that has not happened.  And time to act is now rapidly running out before a pro-EU referendum timed with intent, unlawfully seals our illegal fate. 

It is all very well to wait for lawful democracy to put things right.  But that too, is not going to happen so long as the three main parties together oversee Britain’s deliberate destruction.  By higher order, they will never relinquish their strangle hold and will spend inordinate amounts of taxpayers’ money to aggressively protect their position against all opposition such as, not so long ago, their determined attempt to destroy the BNP for its escalating public support and serious threat to LibLabCon domination.  

They did not manage to destroy the BNP but doubtless by infiltration, they certainly caused that party to split into numerous ineffectual side shows each incapable of mounting a political campaign.  This might also now be happening to UKIP, but the LibLabCon dictatorship will never be unseated by democratic means and while absolutely everybody I know voted for UKIP at last year’s general election, the Conservative win was curiously known two weeks before it even took place  -  and UKIP gained one seat.  

So corrupt is Britain’s political system that attempting to rectify it by lawful democratic means is clearly a non starter.  Unless something dramatic happens, we are heading one way increasingly quickly.

Many people I know had hoped by now to see at least counter EU leafleting to redress the stark imbalance of pro-EU material being pushed at people.  Those I speak to are of the opinion that UKIP makes excellent speeches but there it all ends.  How do you suppose that looks to the British public when all manner of pro-EU literature, biased TV News and skewed programming are aimed at a gullible electorate and UKIP appears to remain silent ?  

Even the BBC seems to have adopted the EU flag as its backdrop in political TV programmes.  Many people now seem to fear that support for UKIP will fade as, to all intents and purposes, their faith is made to rely solely upon Nigel’s excellent speeches.  So the IN Campaign wins, then.

Nothing appears to have been made of how UKIP will run Britain, given the opportunity.  The Party might well have a manifesto and policies for a resurgent Britain but unless the public are made unmistakably clear about these, nobody will know.  

Many still see UKIP as a one horse show.  Leave the EU  -  and then nothing.  

A good many are also deeply concerned about UKIP’s welcoming acceptance of Muslims.  Early Muslim settlers are of course peace-loving and gentle folk.  But you will know of the four stages of Islamic conquest (see attached) and I urge you to read the 60 page “Jihad, Islam’s 1300 Year War On Western Civilisation” (Arthur Kemp, ISBN 978-1-4092-0502-9) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jihad-Islams-Against-Western-Civilisation/dp/1409205029.  

When Islam in Britain reaches critical mass, Muslim UKIP membership will abruptly take on a very different appearance and, not least by their far greater cultural birth rate than ours which declines year on year, UKIP and our country will suddenly no longer be ours but theirs by majority vote, claims of maltreatment, cultural supremacy, racist accusation, intimidation, threat of violence and aggressive personal attack.

English Constitutional and Common Law would never have permitted such influx of foreign nationals as has been intentionally invited and welcomed by LibLabCon who, as you know, work not for Britain the country of their sworn allegiance, but a completely different agenda.  For years, LibLabCon have institutionally side-stepped, over-ruled and ignored our inviolable English Law.  That is called high treason.  Tony Blair still believes he has repealed the important treason laws.  Far from it.

You will perhaps know that over the last two or three years a concerted effort was made by more than 300 people across Britain to report treason committed by David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Tony Blair, John Major, Francis Maude and Douglas Hurd (as a start) to every national police force.  A large number of those police forces immediately accepted the allegations as bone fide cases to answer and referred them to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for investigation and further action.  But there they remain.  

The Commissioner, faced with solid, irrefutable evidence referred to him by his own Chief Constables for his investigation has refused to act according to his sworn oath of office, instead preferring the enormity of his own misprision of treason and compounding the treason, let alone his dereliction of duty and misconduct in public office.  He immediately sought early retirement but was refused. 

Had the allegations run their course, Britain’s political parties will have been in total disarray as the proof of treason extends much wider than just those few senior officials.  The truth of the political parties’ activities and aims will have become exposed to public knowledge and (I’d have thought) UKIP will have collected considerable additional support from a totally angered British public outraged that LibLabCon had so intentionally contrived to deceive and betray them.  Other separate allegations and evidence against Tony Blair for example, have also not succeeded because of similar trickery.

It seems to me that where LibLabCon together demonstrate such psychopathy toward their own country and people, UKIP could do no better than require the Commissioner to fulfil his lawful duty and also to make widely public just what the other three parties have been secretly up to since the 1960’s.  

  This would not be a dirty tricks campaign as the others freely use, but simply informing the British people just what has been going on behind their backs in their name and to what criminally purposeful end.  With much greater effect than a mere 300 or so ordinary people, the Party might successfully cause the treason allegations to be properly and fully investigated and the result widely published for all to see.  

 There is no doubt whatsoever of the treachery committed by many politicians and as English law continues to prevail, the follow-on from such investigations will be automatic.

Kind regards,

Rex Poulton

Cameron and Merkel's stitch up.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-seeks-to-avoid-brexit-at-all-costs-a-1070389.html

"The victor in this game has already been determined. On Feb. 19 in Brussels, David Cameron will prevail with all of his most important demands [...] Donald Tusk, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have already written the script for their own defeat. 'We want Cameron to return to London victorious' say EU officials... "

 

  Just read that jaw-dropping document. If that leak is true, then we are about to be lied to by our own Prime Minister on a scale never seen before. If he has conspired with foreign powers to mislead the British people, then he has no other course but to resign immediately.

Stats 'n' facts

In the year 2013/14 a massive 574,000 people moved to Britain. 

That’s an incredible 11,038 a week or over 1,500 every single day. 

No wonder our NHS, schools and police are collapsing. 

Now we hear that in the year 2014/15 an even more horrific 636,000 – 12,200 a week, 1,750 a day – flooded over our apparently non-existent “borders”. That’s an 11% rise.

These figures are frightening, but can we believe them? 

Perhaps a better indication of the real scale of immigration can be seen by looking at how many foreign-born people applied for National Insurance numbers? 

In 2013/14 this was 668,000. 

A year later this had shot up to 863,000 – a rise of an astonishing 29%:

We know we have no control of the numbers that come from EU countries. We handed over that power to Brussels decades ago...but what’s even worse is that around 60% of the new arrivals come from outside the EU. That’s the immigration our useless Government should be able to control, but does nothing.

Our rulers claim that the immigration numbers show how successful the British economy is, but let’s question that for a moment. 

Around 43% of EU migrants will get some form of benefits. So they will take out much more than they pay in. 

Moreover, when you add their use of public services, it’s unlikely that more than 10% to 15% are actually making any economic contribution to our country.

As for the non-EU (mainly Muslim) immigrants. What percentage of them will work? About 30%, if we’re lucky. It’s unlikely to be higher. 

So, I would humbly suggest that once you take into account their benefits and use of public services for their massive families, less than 5% are making any contribution at all.

I know a few people in the public sector who have worked with non-EU immigrants and they describe the hell, of backward intolerant human garbage who are always demanding special treatment. 

However, here from Germany, is a policewoman’s elegant but despairing description of the kind of trash we are allowing to overwhelm us:

“For weeks, months and years I have noticed that Muslims, mostly young men, do not have even a minimum level of respect for the police. 

When we are out patrolling the streets, we are verbally abused by young Muslims. There is the body language, and insults like ‘sheisse cop’ when passing by. 

If we make a traffic stop, the aggression increases ever further, this is overwhelmingly the case with migrants.

“I wish these problems were recognized and clearly addressed. 

If necessary, laws need to be strengthened. 

It is also very important that the judiciary, that the judges issue effective rulings. 

It cannot be that offenders continue to fill the police files, hurt us physically, insult us, whatever, and there are no consequences. 

Many cases are closed or offenders are released on probation or whatever. 

Yes, what is happening in the courts today is a joke.

“The growing disrespect, the increasing violence against police… We are losing control of the streets.”

As for Britain – we can expect a massive increase in robberies, violence, rape and burglary, but whether the police will honestly record crimes committed by immigrants is another matter. 

Most likely, as in Germany and Sweden, crimes by immigrants will be conveniently left out of the official statistics - so we don’t start to realise that this Third-World immigration is actually destroying our country.

John Ph.....

Will we be a Nation once again?

Alvechurch Bugle  5 – 038           7-10-15

  

The various campaign groups mobilising themselves for the IN – OUT  referendum,  are wallowing around aimlessly, because our PM’s advisers can’t make up their minds which date to choose, to ensure that our membership continues until our nation is finally destroyed.

Our destruction, was of course the original intention when Edward Heath was bribed into taking us into the Common Market in 1973, essentially, doing by non-military means, what Germany had failed to do by force of arms in WW 2.

Coverage by our national broadsheets has commenced, as they need to be seen to be fulfilling their vital role as our :  National ( EU funded ) Propaganda Service,  something they share with the B.B.C.

The Sunday Telegraph kicks off by listing Mr Cameron’s four key re-negotiation points,  emphasising how tough he is getting with : Merkel, Hollande and Brussels, yet there is no mention of how far he is prepared to go in cutting the £ 140 billion pounds per year that membership costs.

Surely, the EU Commission will promise just about anything, so long as the British Treasury,  overseen by Gormless George, continues to allow British taxpayers money to flow freely into their fraud riddled. un-audited system.

By contrast, The Sunday Times chooses to report that three former British Prime Ministers ( Major – Blair - Brown )  will back those aiming to keep us in the EU.  but to quote Mandy Rice Davis :

: Well they would do wouldn’t they.

Blair took us into war with Iraq, on doubtful W o MD evidence, and  with no exit strategy,  thereby sowing the seeds of the now rapidly escalating violence in the Middle East as the Islamic State pushes Christianity steadily backwards.

Major’s  main act of treason, was his signing of the Maastricht Treaty ( admittedly he was pre-occupied with Edwina at the time ) while Gordon Brown’s reputation hinges on his master stroke of

giving away the nation’s gold reserves at $ 250 dollars an ounce.

Hence the Times and Telegraph’s combined contribution to the electorate’s comprehension of the EU debate, is that the PM hasn’t got a bloody clue what he’s doing,  whilst nobody actually gives a stuff what the Three Stooges think,  as their collective abilities amount to five eighths of b*gger all.

Andrew Neil’s  chat with Nigel Farage at 2-15 pm today, was by contrast very enlightening,  once Andrew realised that Nigel was not to be browbeaten as he had his facts all to hand, and could answer even the most obscure or deliberately convoluted question, easily.

Between now and our referendum, Brussels will throw billions at the IN campaign, as they know that once the British milk cow leaves, it’s game over .

Ed.    --     --     --     --     Bromsgrovia.

Questions being asked

Questions BEING ASKED Behind the Scenes in Europe:

1.) Why would Syrian refugees make the dangerous and extremely long journey 

to European nations and U.S. (who hold damnable doctrine and life-styles 

according to the Quran) rather than the Arab nations (who are Islamic oriented) 

around them?
 2.) Why has it taken 5 full years (length of civil war in certain parts of Syria) 

for Syrians in the particular regions to leave? 
3.) Why are refugees tossing out good water and food given to them by western governments on their arrival? 4.) Why are many of the refugees young men? 

5.) Why are the 5 wealthiest Gulf Nations refusing to take even one refugee? 

What do they know that we don't? 
6.) Could it be this refugee crisis is not really a crisis at all but a Trojan Horse?7.) Could it be that we could be looking at the most massive Infiltration of Muslims and the religion of Islam the West has EVER seen in History

8.) Could it be this "refugee crisis" is a planned takeover by the United Nations, U.S. and EU sensitive to the Caliphate of Islamic Teachings?

MANY ARE CONCERNED