Reveal Heath's treason, making all treaties void

Letter exchange:

David Davies MP 

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 1AA

21^st July 2016

Ref Brexit

I am enclosing my book on the English Constitution into which a considerable amount of research has gone, and a CD which you may already have had and binned. However if you read the book which should take twenty minutes no more you will discover our membership of the EU is entirely contrary to the common and constitutional law of England. I would recommend you get the legal eagles busy checking the facts in my book, there is a reading list at the back you will find I am right. You may even send them to my home I own the books mentioned and hundreds more. I will keep the tea and bacon butties coming for them.

The CD contains around 220 pages of government papers from the Heath era all marked secret, confidential or restricted liberated from the public records office. They tell the story of how Edward Heath set up a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitution the major crime of sedition and at this level of sedition treason. And to hand this ancient Kingdom over to the EEC/EU the major crime of treason.

The report by Anthony Royal makes interesting reading as he openly boasts about the methods they used to commit these major crimes.

All it takes to get us out of the EU whose predecessor the EEC were complicit in this treason. Is to simply declare that Edward Heath, Norman Redaway and Anthony Royal conspired to commit treason and that Edward Heath lied to the Queen, Parliament and the people, so the 1972 EEC Act is void and every treaty signed on the back of this 72 Act is also void.

You will be naming three traitors all now dead so there will be no lengthy trials to pursue. And we are clear of the EU no article 50 no long drawn out negotiations just the application of English Law and the Vienna treaty on treaties.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

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

Bernard Hogan-Howe 

Commissioner of Police

New Scotland Yard

10 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BG 21^st July 2016

Ref Islam and policy decisions

Sir

I have not yet received a reply to my letter of the 3^rd June 2016 apart from being bad manners not to reply it also fails to meet the Mets response time for replying to letters. May I remind you, you are a public servant and are required to comply with the rules laid down for your organisation? You might inform ADI Gail Granville Major Crime unit at Putney I am still waiting for her reply to my letter of the 12^th June 2016 and a major crime book number.

Now to the matter in hand I and a good many of her Majesty natural born subjects are sick to death of seeing Muslims parading and preventing her Majesty’s natural born subjects from using there right of free passage on England’s roads, as they congregate and make repeated death threats against the natural born subjects and those immigrants of other faiths or none who live and work here peacefully.

Threats to kill are I should not have to remind you, are major crime contrary to Sec 16 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries full powers of arrest.

It is my opinion that you have taken a policy decision not to arrest Muslims who make threats to kill or who impose Muslim patrols in order to enforce sharia law on the streets of England. These violent vigilante patrols constitute a threat to the Queens Peace. A peace you are on oath to preserve.

I would remind you that the comments of the three eminent Judges in Regina vs the Commissioner  of the Metrpolis ex-parte Blackburn 1968 were quite clear a policy decision not to prosecute a particular type of crime is illegal. I would recommend you take a good long look at the Judges’ comments and then do your job and apply the law of this Kingdom the way it is intended to be applied without favour, fear, malice or ill will in accordance with your oath before it becomes necessary to apply for an order of Mandamus. Which will I feel sure will be granted?

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

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

The English Constitution Fact or Fiction?

What is this mythical thing called the English Constitution, what part does or should convention play in the constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.

There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution. What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution. But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do. Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it, Talleyrand a French Bishop and diplomat who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte said “When the English Constitution dies freedom dies” And for his entire life he was our enemy.

Constitution

So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours? Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871 said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights, I would add Habeas Corpus. These four things comprise the English Constitution. But they do not complete the constitution because Magna Carter and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do; The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed. But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King or us what the King can do. This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship, this goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back than that.

Custom and Legal Fiction.

So let us start there. The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden. Who they dumped, when they converted to Christianity. Alfred the Great on being elected King of the English looked at all the laws and customs of the old Kingdom’s which combined to make his Kingdom. What is a legal custom? A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that before time of memory was any law older than 1197 when Richard the lion heart was Crowned 400 years before he was speaking. So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England. As such it is beyond the reach of parliament so cannot be lawfully/legally repealed. What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation for example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you. But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his. His will says it must all come to you so by law you have to have it like it or not, so the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.

Kingship and Prerogative.

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do but neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new. When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King can do. The King cannot on his own make or unmake law he does this in conjunction with Parliament. But what can the King do? The King can do anything which is legal, to do this we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the prerogative, this is arrant nonsense DESIGNED TO ALLOW GOERNMENT TO EXCEED THE PREROGATIVE POWERS OF THE KING WHICH THEY HAVE STOLEN. The King may use the prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects. However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject this is an illegal use of the prerogative and must be withdrawn. Who can use the Royal Prerogative? The prerogative like everything else the King has was given to him by our ancient forefathers. And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative; the King is refused permission by us the loyal subjects from letting anyone else use it. So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working? The office of King must still function so we the people in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself. So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal and treasonable.

To Diminish the King/Crown.

When our forefathers elected our first King it was decided by them the King must be visibly higher than his subjects, so they gave him vast tracts of land and lots of money and jewels. And they made the rule the King must live off the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates, and they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits. The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth, or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason because to do so would diminish the Crown. And that is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship. Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft it is illegal in this case it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship

The King in Parliament

Parliament as we know it was formed by King Edward I in 1297. It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King. Since 1420 the Commons has the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who look at it and purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law. When it has been passed by both houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the Kings conscience he will grant or refuse the Royal assent. If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth can overrule him or make him give his reasons.

Convention

Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things, in contravention to the will of the Commons. Conventions in this sense erodes the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.

Cognisance

Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct their business in their own way and that includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.

At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances. But since 1420 the Commons has been on a power grab in 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. In 1909 believing they could not amend they rejected the budget. Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill. On the threat of him putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure. The Lords gave way and agreed they would not reject a bill. King Edward VII refused the assent stating it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. Asquith was ordered to go to the country he was returned and during the Kings speech King Edward said the only reason he was putting the Parliament Act forward was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the assent however shortly after this the King fell ill and died. King George V on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister. The power grab was complete the Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal authority.

Albert Burgess

albertburgess@hotmail.com

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org

T May article pulled from Telegraph

Reproduced in full below is a Telegraph article by Jonathan Foreman* headlined “Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary”, which was pulled after pressure from her campaign. It is excoriating…

In the run-up to the 2015 election, one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. 

Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.

The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unnoticed and unmentioned likely reflects Mrs May’s brilliant, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister.

After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

People find this hard to credit, because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. Few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed, Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.

Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.

Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.

Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.

The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame. Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge at the Home Office.

[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]

The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.

Unfortunately, this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.

In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread over reliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.  David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.

It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”

It’s surely about time – and not too late – for Conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.

There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.
                                           

Brexit

OKTC, copied to my MP and IDS as a courtesy.

It should now perfectly clear to everyone that Michael Gove was put up as a puppet leader of VoteLeave, with the support of the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office, to which the Electoral Commission reports.  (It is not independent - its creation was simply a device to transfer control of elections from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office).  I said as much during the campaign of course.  Even Blind Freddy can now see it. 

There is simply no other credible explanation for the failure of VoteLeave to emphasise the massive trade deficit with the EU27, the huge regulatory burden imposed as a result of our membership of the so-called single market and the massive costs of labour displacement due to the uncontrolled immigration into the UK of unskilled and semi-skilled EU economic migrants.   

Gove is playing a similar game with the Tory leadership contest. He has no campaign on the ground and if he gets on the ballot paper he obviously plans to lose, as he planned to to lose the EU referendum.  He has very obviously agreed with Theresa May that he will be Chancellor and she will be PM. 

The idea, equally obviously, is to subvert the constitution of the Conservative Party by having two MPs on the same ticket nominally opposing each other.  If  Gove were to succeed in blocking Andrea Leadsom, the conservative with most Parliamentary support, from the ballot, the 'contest' would be a farce, like a televised wrestling match, followed by a 'unity' Cabinet, which at best would include a token handful of Eurosceptics.

Remember that May was the author of those gratuitously offensive 'nasty party' remarks (apparently she has never forgiven me for taking up some of 'her' air-time that night with my speech to the Bruges Group).  Both May and Gove, sadly, appear with respect to be ruthless, unprincipled, centrist machine politicians.

More than that, each is obviously committed to continuing membership of the EEA Agreement, i.e. each supports uncontrolled labour dumping from Europe, regardless of the social and economic cost, and the likely loss of life, as the angry, displaced white working class take their revenge.

The uncontrolled immigration policy has clearly been rejected by the electorate.  It is not even clear that Article 50 would operate to terminate membership of the single market, i.e. bring UK membership of the EEA Agreement to an end.  It probably woudn't.  Thursday's vote was as much a vote against membership of the so-called single market as it was against EU membership.

It is understood that Germany is relaxed about our leaving the EU, provided that we can be forced to remain trapped inside the 'single market', so that we continue to be a dumping ground for EU, mostly German, exports, and EU27 surplus labour.  Cameron appears to have caved in to these key German demands as the European Council meeting. 

Chris Grayling is obviously being lined up as Home Secretary.  He is weak man, with respect, and would probably continue May's policy of not doing much to interrupt the distribution of narcotics inside the UK (May has been a failure when it comes to controlling the deadly trade in dangerous drugs). Since Germany's GO2 controls the two main distribution cartels in the UK this is another key German demand, although of course it can only be made in smoke-filled rooms as German control of the drugs trade, which costs about 30,000, mostly young, lives in the UK each year is covert.

I do not say that May as Home Secretary is aware that the drugs trade is controlled from Germany.  She is not that bright, with respect, is intelligence illiterate (so much so that she has probably never heard of GO2) and so far as I know has not read Spyhunter. She is a typical, "house-trained idiot", to paraphrase 'Jim Hacker', no offence intended.  It would not be difficult for Home Office officials to pull the wool over her eyes.

Eurosceptic MPs should clearly question Gove closely about his views on denouncing the EEA Agreement. I imagine they will find him evasive, as he was during the referendum campaign.  The reality is that he belongs to the Chamberlain/Heath/Major/Cameron wing of the party and is prepared to cave in to German demands, just as he would probably have supported our community partner Adolf Hiltler's demands at Munich in 1938.

The good news is that Andrea Leadsom has a good chance of being placed on the ballot.  Eurosceptic MPs should swing behind her.  If she becomes PM she will have a strong team and would probably go down the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties route. She has already made it clear that she will not accept uncontrolled immigration from the EU27 and that Europeans would have to take their chances like everybody else.   

European economic migrants already here should be given time to leave, parallel with the notice period, preferably the 12 month Vienna period. 

We do not need tariff-free access to the so-called single market and there is no need at all to enter into time-wasting negotiations with our community enemies.

Michael Shrimpton QC

Judge me on my record yes we MAY!

No way should May be PM...we will not tolerate yet another stitch up by those we elect to work for us.

  This woman voted to betray us, as Cameron et al did so she cannot be anywhere near our exit plans or Number 10

She said to judge her on her record, so let's do that.

  Allows Sharia Courts to operate in this country.

Responsible for the 2014 the passport fiasco.

Moaned about the Human Rights Act allowing suspected terrorists to continue living in this country under the clause that speaks of their right 'to a family life'. After complaining so much, actually did nothing to get that Act amended. 

  In charge of the Police she did no better. 

   Cutting their numbers and budget while the terrorist threat was at its highest and sat back doing nothing while in Leicester, Rotherham, etc police failed to stop the wholesale rape and sexual abuse of under-age white girls by Muslim men.
Also failed to intervene in the infiltration of schools in Birmingham by Islamic extremists.

  It was her job to reduce the number of immigrants from over half a million every year to tens of thousands. Strangely enough - it increased.  She blamed Shengen and the EU’s open borders rule but voted for Remain!  Go figure.

 Still think she should be PM?

 NO 'Remainian' should be PM that is a betrayal of 17 million people and we will not tolerate it.

Anon

We cannot allow politicians to decide

We cannot allow politicians to decide the fate of our nation and people; we did that before and look at where they led us! Therefore, we must make it very clear what the politicians MUST now do and it has been suggested that we create posters with the following information:

THE TREASON OF THE EU HAS BEEN EXPOSED

DUE TO THE TREASONOUS MANNER IN WHICH GREAT BRITAIN WAS SUBJUGATED UNDER EU RULE, ALL OF THE EU LEGISLATION MUST NOW BE THROWN IN THE BIN.

THE BRITISH PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE CONTROL OF OUR OWN NATION, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS, WHATSOEVER!

WE MUST MAKE LARGE POSTERS OF THE EU TREATIES AND IMAGES OF THE TRAITORS THAT SOLD OUR COUNTRY OUT – ROME (EDWARD HEATH); MAASTRICT (JOHN MAJOR) & LISBON (GORDON BROWN) – AND THOSE POSTERS SHOULD BE FILMED BEING TORN TO SHREDS!

ALL BRITISH LAWS MUST NOW REVERT BACK TO THE POSITION THEY WERE IN PRIOR TO BRITAIN’S SUBJUGATION UNDER EU RULE, IN 1972. THIS INCLUDES ALL OF OUR RIGHTS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION AND SPEECH.

ALSO, THE POLITICALLY CORRECT NONSENSE, INCLUDING HEALTH & SAFETY; POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION FOR MINORITIES; ANTI-WHITE AND ANTI-BRITISH RACISM LAWS, MUST ALL BE THROWN IN THE BIN, ALONG WITH ANY BUREUCRATS THAT INSIST ON IMPOSING THOSE UNFAIR AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC REGULATIONS.

THE BORDERS OF GREAT BRITAIN MUST BE CLOSED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND WE MUST NOT TRUST ANY POLITICIAN THAT WANTS TO ALLOW IMMIGRATION TO CONTINUE. REGARDLESS OF ANY DEALS OR COERCION, IMMIGRATION MUST STOP, NOW!

ALL OF OUR BORDERS, FERRIES AND AIRPORTS MUST BE MANNED BY BRITISH PEOPLE, TO ENSURE THAT THE CUSTOMS AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE ONLY ALLOWING IN THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE VISA’S. BRITISH SOLDIERS MUST RETURN HOME FROM FOREIGN WARS TO PROTECT BRITISH PEOPLE AND OUR BORDERS!

ROYAL NAVAL VESSELS AND TUG BOATS SHOULD PATROL OUR FISHING AREAS TO PROTECT OUR PRE-1972 EXCLUSION ZONE!

PRIORITY MUST BE APPLIED TO BRITISH PEOPLE IN BRITISH TERRITORY AND PUBLIC SPENDING MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PARTS OF BRITAIN, PER CAPITA – SO THAT MINORITY POLULATION AREAS ARE NOT TREATED ANY BETTER OR ANY WORSE THAN MAJORITY AREAS.

IT IS NOW UP TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE – AND THAT MEANS EVERY ONE OF YOU – TO SET THE RULES OF HOW WE ARE TO BE GOVERNED, AND SUCH RULE MUST REVOLVE AROUND OUR ANCIENT COMMON LAW.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; IF WE LEAVE IT TO THE POLITICIANS, THEY WILL LET US DOWN AND THEY MAY EVEN STAB US IN THE BACK, AGAIN!

'DIRTY WORK -- The CIA in Western Europe

'DIRTY WORK -- The CIA in Western Europe', 1978
Edited by Philip Agee and Louis Wolf

...The CIA Backs the Common Market

by Steve Weissman, Phil Kelly, and Mark Hosenball

Cord Meyer Jr.'s main task as head of the U.S. Central Intelli-
gence Agency's operation here may be to ensure Britain's entry
into the Common Market. New evidence developed by investi-
gators in Britain and America shows that Meyer and his prede-
cessor as head of the CIA's International Organization Division,
Tom Braden, engaged in a major operation in the 1950s and 60s
to secretly build up the groups which are now pushing Britain
into Europe.

The European Movement, the elite international pressure
group which takes much of the credit for the founding of the
Common Market, took secret U.S. funding. Its British Council
is currently leading the "Keep Britain In" Campaign. The Euro-
pean Youth Campaign, which was the European Movement's
most active component in the Fifties, was almost totally funded
by the American government. Members of organizations affili-
ated to the campaign are still active in pro- Europe circles.

[This article first appeared as "Uncle Sam Goes to Market"
in the May 23, 1975, issue of Time Out. in London.]...

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-9MwmH_nnJ4eOmL66/Philip%20Agee%20&%20Louis%20Wolf%20-%20Dirty%20Work%20%281978%29_djvu.txt

“who we choose to rule over us”.

From: Jane Birkby

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:18 PM

To: Scunthorpe Telegraph

Subject: Reason to debate - Reply

I would be grateful if you could print as much of this letter as possible, because the content is important and informative for the public.

Dear Viewpoint,

Bernard Regan (Telegraph May 19-25) doesn’t see merit in other aspects of the EU Referendum debate, including “who we choose to rule over us”.

Like a banker, Jean Monnet, the EU Commission, or an oligarch he only sees the immediate financial picture, which is divorced from the well being of the actual ordinary people of Europe.

• What about the hideous cost of implementing all those diktats, which officials of the EU churn out by the bucket load, and which add costs to goods and services?

• What about the fact that David Cameron ignored the Council of Europe’s own Code of Practice on Referendums, which prohibits the use of public funds for campaigning purposes, he spent £9 million of taxpayers money hoping to influence the vote before the proper campaign was allowed to start?

• The Remain campaign booklet is using virtually the same arguments as the 1975 Common Market information, and the original was in German.

• Anna Soubry, the industry minister argues that the EU is about trade and prosperity, not politics. Not so, the EU is entirely political and power hungry.

• Jean Monnet, the prime visionary and instigator, was President of the Action Committee for the European Superstate, which is not a myth; it is the intent.

• Monnet wrote: “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

• Trade and prosperity are merely a red herring; the EU’s true destination is to remove democratic government, and replace it with unelected committee.

This is not going to be a fair fight, because the EU who have the most to lose, are throwing European taxpayers money at the Remain campaign and the BBC, to persuade us that we are better off staying in than staying out, just as they did in 1975 for the Common Market vote.

Britain is in grave danger of colonisation and takeover, thanks to free movement through open borders, and the ever increasing number of member countries (Original 9 - now 28), with Turkey, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia being considered for membership.

This referendum is just as much a Battle for Britain and our heritage, as it was in WWI & II, it is just that the weapons have changed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have a section jokingly referred to as “The Camel Corp”, and they are working to a Lancaster Plan to hand the country to Islam.

Every woman in the country must vote “OUT”, or we as a country will disappear under the latest Ottoman invasion, who are rapidly changing the demographics in this country, by having more children than the native population.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Jane Birkby

full address supplied

North Lincolnshire

Dick Loots from the Netherlands.

Hi folks, this is Dick Loots from the Netherlands. 

I'd like to post a message over here to brighten up some things about the EU. The EU and euro haven't been good to all of us, That was the reason for the Dutch to vote NO in 2005 for the european constitution. What did Bruxelles do? They changed a few lines and dots and changed the name into "Lisbon treaty" and without refering the people, the Bruxelles autocracts ratified this "constitution" 

They said "oh you didn't really understand what is going on" Believe me, I do understand what's going on. And what I see is what I strongly dislike. Do you want a country like Turkey to become one of our european "provinces"? 

We knew already that Turkey is bad news for Europe , but the European runaway-train must keep on rolling according to EU politicians. East Germany would cost around the 310 billion to bring it up to west-European level. Till this date they spent MORE THAN 2000 BILLION and it's still not where it should be, financialy backward and whenever I'm driving through it I still get this uncomfortable "eastern-Europe" feeling. 

If you read the treaty made with Ukraine you'll find out that contrary of what they tell you, they will get financial help like all other European countries in the east, and further down the road, free working and travelling throughout the whole EU. 

Now we already have the financial trouble with Greece. Spain and Italy are also candidates in the future for financial aid. Ukraine is a vast country and it is calculated that if you bring it up to the prommised level it will cost a multiple of the east- German aid. 

Add Spain, Portugal and Italy and we have a public debt bigger then in the USA . That is why we voted NO in the last referendum 2 months ago. YOU AND ME are the ones paying those bills in the end.Bills you and I don't ask for. We'll become 2nd world countries. So we have to make cut backs again at our own fascilities. Whilst paying more taxes than ever. 

I've already seen over here what it does to healthcare. My late mum (thank god she passed away) , was in a home for dementing elderly people and the treatment she got there was inhumane. All due to budget cuts they had to make from our government in the Hague. 

Eu sends as much as 4.6 billion a year to Turkey as financial aid. With dictator Erdogan and his private fortune of 128 billion dollar. Less then 25 years ago he stood in front off an audience and told them pointing at his wedding ring : "This is all Mr Erdogan posesses. If you ever in the future find Mr Erdogan with a fortune you are looking at Erdogan the thief" (?????????) This is where your money goes to. And mine as well. 

Wisely Mr Juncker, Barosso, Timmermans and Tusk ( I can't remember I voted for one of these people and nobody I know did. Do you know someone who voted for them? That's called democracy) didn't tell you yet about the raise that they have in mind for membership of the EU. They wait for the Brexit referendum to pass and tell it just THEN. 

Trying to prevent a negative result. Because they are afraid. Not for you and me. But for their own jobs.Once founded to secure peace in Europe the main goal nowadays of the EU is POWER. Those idiots in Bruxelles think they have to create some kind of "3rd Reich" "Bigger than USA and China" 

Remember the EU delegation at the Maidan Square in Ukraine? Overthrowing a, however corrupt, but democraticly chosen government. The Ukranians should have sent this government home in the next elections, but the Bruxelles autocrats wanted them to leave now. The EU is a room full of Chamberlaines. They keep assuring you that everything is oke . 

In the meantime there is chaos. Another 10 billion sent to Greece. Believe me when I say that it's not the last time we have to bail them out. Next year again. And again. Because they will never be able to pay back if the Greek dont change their mentallity and that mentality is to pay 0 taxes. I know this for fact. 

There is however ONE WINSTON CHURCHILL in the room. And his name is NIGEL FARAGE. I wish we had a guy like him over here. Don't believe what they all come up with next days/weeks. Stars will fall from the sky. The plague will return. Everybodies car will have a flat tire tomorrow. War will come to us. DONT BELIEVE THEM. Europe has since ww2 never been more divided than now. 

In the EEC period there was growth and stability. Now all I see is deterioration. Be wise. Be smart. And keep your independance and right of self-determination. EEC=YES and EU=NO.  Way better for all of us. 

If one sheep is over the bridge the rest will follow. So PLEASE vote LEAVE. I hope you British will free us from Tirany once more. We will be gratefull for that.  

Regards, Dick Loots, Dutch citizen. (excuses for my bad English)

Sent from Samsung Mobile

DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN?

DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN ?

(too old to reply)

Have we been sold out at the very top ?

The following article from Bob Lomas, Chairman and founder of the Magna Carta Society, is a disturbing discussion of the role of Elizabeth Windsor in the slow but unrelenting surrender of Britain to the Franco-German Axis, which raises very serious questions indeed about her conduct over the last 30 years.

In 1972 it might have seemed important to engage with the EEC and seek to control the re-emergence of Germany.
And it might have been argued then that we needed privileged access to the European market, over which they were building malicious and exclusive control.

That both of these objectives have failed miserably - and that we have lost much and gained nothing - as we predicted then and have since been repeatedly proved correct - puts a different light on the matter today, as it has done, and beyond question, for a very long time.

But if she was playing a "long card" reluctantly to gain some hoped for benefits then, why did she see fit to make Heath and the EU fifth columnist, Sainsbury, members of the Order of the Garter, which is in her own gift ?

This article makes stunning accusations about the role of the Windsors and is worth reading right through to the end.

Note especially that the EEC was designed originally by the Nazis in 1942 - and the chilling claim by Elizabeth Windsor in her Paris speech that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures !!!

Alignment with France might be seen as a counter weight to the now re-arming Germany - but I do not think that the British electorate has, or ever would, agree to the surrender of our political or economic independence to a malicious enemy like France - or that such a move is necessary to control Germany. It looks far more like a back door sell out to the "EU" - the most dangerous enemy of the Anglo-American alliance and the only guarantee of our impendence - to say nothing of our liberty and democracy - which it has underpinned for all of the last 60 years.

Readers must make up their own minds about the arguments put forward by Bob Lomas in this article, but in the absence of any meaningful response to the 100's of thousands of letters, petitions and representations made to the Palace over the last 30 years, all of which have been met with stone walling, prevarication and vague side stepping, his arguments are powerful and must be considered.

Please take the time to read it right through ......


2005, THE END OF A NATION.

The Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft, ( The European Economic Community ), was drawn up in Berlin in 1942. It was the plan for the uniting of Europe into one Reich of regions on the German Lander system once Germany had won the war.

In 1945 Germany lost her challenge to establish the Thousand Year Reich by force of arms , but quickly engaged in a new initiative to realise her dream, this time utilising her more subtle skills, intrigue, duplicity and deceit, skills the Germanic people have excelled at for centuries. By 1951 Germany had established the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1957 the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft was resurrected, slightly restructured but basically the same in principle, under The Treaties of Rome. The Reich was again emerging as Germany's WW II allies and sympathisers, Spain, Italy and much of France fell back into line behind her.

Despite the Allies virtual annihilation of Germany, the spirit of the Reich had once more risen like the Phoenix from the ashes as it did following the Great War, and just as she ignored the Treaty of Versailles in the 1920/30s, Germany is re-arming on an escalating scale, in total defiance of the constraints imposed by the Allies in 1945. At present Germany has a standing army of 300,000, she has retained national service and so has as many again in reserve, these include fighter pilots which she has been training in numbers far exceeding her defence needs for over twenty five years. Germany is developing a new super tank and U-Boats, and shows every indication that she is developing nuclear weapons.

(Our intelligence is that Germany already had them. W)

German politicians are now openly stating their intention to become a major military power in the world.

In 1972 Queen Elizabeth II, who the British people had elected to be the official Governor and political leader of the nation, used her position to surrender the supremacy of her office as Sovereign Head of State, the supremacy of the peoples laws and the supremacy of the peoples sovereignty to the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft. It is not without significance that the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft when resurrected was referred to internationally as the European Economic Community, arguably for the same reasons that the name of the Royal family was changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

In 1972 the Queen gave Royal Assent to the European Communities Act, which agreed to the surrender of the peoples sovereignty and the supremacy of their laws to the Community. The Queen then commanded her plenipotentiaries, Heath, Hurd and Ripon to go to Brussels to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome on her behalf, for which she later honoured them. As the Treaty of Rome is very clear in its design to do away with the nation states of Europe, and the principle that national law will always be subordinate to Community law, the Queen could not have used her authority to sanction this action of capitulation, for by so doing she would have exceeded her lawful authority.

Never the less, the Queen used her position to surrender her governance of the nation to an unelected and unaccountable foreign power, a third party bearing no allegiance to the Crown or the British people. Parliament could not have undertaken this action on its own, for had it attempted so to do those involved would have instantly become subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, under which it is an offence to engage in, even to discuss, any action which might endanger or disrupt the Constitution. There can be no doubt that the Queen knew exactly what she was doing, for there had been much discussion in both Houses on the issues involved going back to the mid 1960s, and the Queen would have been kept fully informed on all such discussions.

As Constitutional Head of State the Queen would also have been fully aware of our principle constitutional documents, especially the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Supremacy 1559, which states: "...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 potentate...shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege...within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm for ever."

Over the past thirty years the Queen has upheld her decision of 1972 by giving her Royal Assent to the subsequent European treaties, in particular the Treaty of Maastricht which purports to make the Queen a citizen of the EU, as was announced in the house of Commons by Prime Minister Major, a statement which under normal circumstances would have been considered treasonous. Just as Heath was not impeached for his treasonous actions, or his committing perjury in the House of Commons in 1972, Major was not impeached for his statement, which must raise the question, is the Queen still Monarch and Governor of this nation, for clearly no one can be both Monarch and citizen at the same time.

When in 1972 the Queen surrendered the supremacy of her office to the EU, her action was in effect her abdication of office, there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign, and no official governor in a nation that is no longer self governing. This being so, it suggests that the Queen has for the past thirty years engaged in a sham, a charade to give the impression that nothing has changed, while all the time  Parliament, acting as an administration for the EU, has been preparing for the eventual destruction of all that we are as a nation state. It must not be over looked that according to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 the Monarch is the Governor of the nation, and that the government formed from a political party of the peoples choice is subordinate to the Governor who retains the power of governance on the peoples behalf, thus the people retain the supreme power in the land.

It is the obligation of the Monarch, being the physical embodiment of the peoples sovereignty, to uphold the peoples power in Parliament by exercising the power of veto vested in her by the people at the time of her Coronation. With the Monarch removed, be it by her abdication, deposition or mediatisation, the people have no means of exercising their sovereign supremacy over a despotic and dictatorial Parliament, and this it seems is the present situation. Clearly we now have a subjected and politicised judiciary, which openly claims in the courts that Parliament is above and beyond the constraint of the law, ignoring its own oaths of allegiance and the Coronation Oath.

It is upon the office of the Monarch therefore that the whole structure of our Constitution and rule of law hinges. Under the present and prevailing circumstances we must seriously consider the position of the Queen according to available evidence. The question arising is, in 1972 was the Queen deposed, mediatised or did she abdicate? Bearing in mind that the Queen took a solemn oath to govern us according to our laws and customs, which essentially would mean upholding and maintaining our Constitution and the supremacy of our laws, the Queen could not have lawfully acted as she has done over the past thirty years were she still Monarch, during which time it is claimed she has given legitimacy to Acts of Parliament which are not only illegitimate according to our laws but subject to the Treason Acts, most pertinently the Civil Contingencies Act, which gives the government the right to suspend all our constitutional rights and liberties.

It does not seem likely or feasible that the Queen was forcibly deposed or mediatised by Parliament, or some conspiratorial force within Parliament, for at the time of her Coronation we the people vested in her enormous powers to enable her to protect us from a despotic Parliament. These powers include her right to dismiss her ministers and dissolve Parliament,
and to ensure she has the backing to so act we made her Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces which takes an oath of allegiance to her and her alone, making it completely separate from Parliament.

From the available evidence therefore it would seem that in 1972 the Queen abdicated of her own free will, and since that time has acted complicitly with unlawful Parliaments to destroy us as a nation state in the process of building the new Reich under the Trojan Horse disguise of the EU. Although this may seem totally inconceivable, the truth of it may be found in two of the Queen's recent speeches. In her Paris speech the Queen stated that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures.

The Queen used the word "we", but she could not have been speaking for the British people who have left her in no doubt that the majority wish to leave the EU, and she is fully aware that we did not have any say in whether or not we wished to join it in the first place.

In her more recent State Opening of Parliament speech, the Queen stated that her government would be preparing for a referendum on whether or not we should accept the EU constitution which if accepted would completely and irrevocably destroy the supremacy of our laws, the very laws she swore to uphold in the sight of God. As any action that might disrupt the Constitution would be subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, the Queen was saying that she and her government will be acting complicitly in an act of treason against the state, and that the people are to be invited to participate in an act of treason against themselves.

Should there be any doubt about it, one must consider this, the words of the EU Constitution - Article (I-10) are ground breaking because of the first two words:

"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".

Winston Churchill once spoke of the British Empire and the Commonwealth lasting for a thousand years. It did not. Hitler spoke of the thousand year Reich, which was most unlikely. We as a nation have lasted for a thousand years, but unless we can now clarify and expose the present true position of the Queen, and bring to heel our unlawful and duplicitous Parliament, short of civil unrest possibly leading to civil war, this nation is unlikely to last another decade as a nation state.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society. December 2004.

The Fourth Reich is here

The Fourth Reich is here - without a shot being fired

The arsenal of fear must almost be nearly exhausted. Those daring to vote to leave the EU will inflict on Britain collapsing house prices (according to George Osborne and Christine Lagarde of the IMF, who should worry about the EU’s unemployment-soaked economies); a “technical” recession (Mark Carney, a “technical” Irish-Canadian with a long record of error, who for this disgraceful political interference should be kicked back to Ottawa); and, of course, the Third World War (Mr Cameron). It’s clearly a Corporal Jones moment for the Remainers, though any cries of “don’t panic” come far too late: they are manifestly drowning in it.  Anyway, two can play at this game. What must we fear if we stay? Not merely relentless uncontrolled immigration (and the lies told about it), putting such burdens on our schools, hospitals and infrastructure that UK citizens suffer, but the inevitability of our nation’s destiny being increasingly subject to the wishes of foreigners whom we don’t elect. I am not talking about the amorphous idea of “Brussels”: I’m talking about Germany.

Five years ago I wrote a piece referring to the control Angela Merkel exerted over Europe as “the Fourth Reich”. I was accused of a horrible breach of taste. However, when one looks at German power today one realises that, when I wrote, she had hardly even started. The key to German success is this: it participates in a weak currency (whose value would collapse without it) enabling its exports to sell far more cheaply than had it retained the Deutschmark. Therefore, it continues to grow in economic strength relative to its partners – including us – but especially those in the eurozone, notably France and Italy, who would benefit greatly from restoring the Franc and the Lira.

Any net exporter in the EU – which we are most certainly not, given our £24bn trade gap with our partners in the first three months of 2016 – also benefits hugely from the vast and incomprehensible welter of EU regulations on products and employment law, which keep external competitors at arm’s length and pile costs on them if they wish access to the single market. Germany is so rich, and getting richer at the expense not least of its partners, that it can afford to pretend globalisation isn’t happening. We are not so fortunate, and leaving the EU to avoid all these regulations and take proper advantage of the wider world is not the least reason why we must vote to get out.

If we stay in we are going to suffer immense collateral damage from two crises that the Germans will precipitate. First, there will be one in the eurozone. My friend Dr Savvas Savouri, chief economist at the leading investment business Toscafund, predicts a “detonation of devaluations around the periphery of the eurozone” in his latest briefing to clients. So incapable are non-eurozone countries such as Hungary, Romania or Poland of competing with the German-dictated economic model that devaluation and the instability that will bring are their only options. So anyone who thinks our staying in the EU is like buying a ticket to a place of permanent prosperity wants his or her head examined.

Worse for Britain, Dr Savouri predicts Germany’s economy “will not come off lightly”, not least because its clients and customers will find its goods suddenly more expensive. And when Germany starts to struggle, God help the rest of the EU: because when the German chequebook closes, economies it is shoring up – such as Greece’s – will be on their own. And Greece’s economy is one-eleventh the size of France’s, which is a basket-case, and cannot go on as it is.

Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”

He also argues that such a wave of economic hardship will propel more impoverished Europeans across open borders into the UK: and don’t forget what Iain Duncan Smith disclosed last week, that Mr Cameron deleted a passage about controlling immigration from a speech he made because he was told it would upset the Germans. That is the reality of our relationship with the EU: if we choose to stay in, the Germans will ensure that we become ever more obedient to their policies – so stand by for their next project, Turkey’s admission to the EU, and all that would entail.

It was not just deeply offensive, but ironic, that Mr Cameron should last week have evoked the idea of another world war in his latest intelligence-insulting act of hysteria aimed at making us vote to stay in the EU. It is not just that our fathers and grandfathers fought in two world wars to allow Britain the right to continue to rule itself, rather than to be ruled by Germans: Mr Cameron plainly won’t admit that German domination of the EU means it has conquered without war, and signing up to the EU is signing up to the Fourth Reich.

Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.

===============================================================

Christina 

=