- 2017 – 008 Is May a champion for UK? Bob Lomas 24 March, 2017
- 2017 007 EU FORGETTING THE LESSONS OF THE PAST 7 March, 2017
- 2017 – 006 Brave New Europe? 5 March, 2017
- 2017 – 005 UK bureaucrats plot to lock UK into EU post Brexit 19 February, 2017
- 2017 – 004 MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT OF 1952 AUTHORISES TRUMP’S POLICY ON IMMIGRATION People 1 February, 2017
- 2017 – 003 Some non Brits who voted in the Petition to stop Trump visiting UK 31 January, 2017
- 2017 – 002 24 January, 2017
- 2017 – 001 White Tribes 24 January, 2017
- 2016 – 085 Statement by Peter Thorneycroft on 1972 ECAct when Chairman of the Conservative party 9 January, 2017
- 2016 – 084 Difference between Capitalism and Socialism 29 December, 2016
FORGETTING THE LESSONS OF THE PAST
Oh dear. They never learn, do they?
Those Eurocrats over in Brussels think that they have hit on a clever new ploy to victimise Britain and punish us for having had the temerity to vote to Leave. After years of telling us that life outside the EU would be awful for Britain, they have now been forced by reality to admit that, actually, it is going to be pretty good. All those free trade deals that Liam Fox is busily chasing are going to be good for British business.
So now the EU has decided that when the rules of the EU say that a member state cannot agree to any trade deals due to the restrictive nature of the Customs Union, what it really means is that we cannot even talk about a free trade deal until after we have left.
What they hope to do is build in a time lag of a year or more between the UK leaving the Customs Union and any new trade deals coming into operation. That will hit the pesky Brits in the pocket and allow the Eurocrats to crow over our misfortune.
And they intend to follow that up by dragging their heels over a UK-EU trade deal. They will throw obstacles into the path of British trade to the EU. More punishment for the UK.
But they forget that this has been tried before. And it did not end well for the European Empire that tried it.
Back in 1806 the Emperor of the French, Napoleon Bonaparte, ruled most of Europe. France itself extended deep into what are now Italy and Germany, while his family and acolytes sat on thrones in Italy, Germany, Poland and Scandinavia. Only Britain stood defiant. After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 Napoleon had no chance of an armed invasion of Britain. He was stymied.
Then he had an idea. He called it ‘The Continental System’�.
Under this masterful plan all contact between Britain and the European Continent would be cut off. Not even the mail would be allowed through. All trade would grind to a halt. Britain would be economically prostrate. She would be bankrupt in a matter of months and forced to surrender. Napoleon issued his orders. The ports were closed to British ships, no ships could sail for Britain. Every country in Europe was bullied into joining the Continental System.
All except one: Portugal. Portugal is Britain’s oldest ally and had important trade links to Britain. So in 1808 Napoleon invaded Portugal. To do so he had to march through Spain, and so invaded Spain as well. The Portuguese asked for British help. The British sent an army under Wellington and so began the Peninsular War that would drain France of men and money.
Meanwhile, the Russian economy was tottering toward collapse without British trade and British investments. The Tsar of Russia lifted the embargo and began trading with Britain again. So in 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia, a campaign that destroyed his own army. With the threat of Napoleon’s army gone, more and more countries opened up to trade with Britain. They had been suffering economically and unemployment was rising.
In any case the French economy itself was crumbling. The tax take was nose-diving and Napoleon’s government was facing bankruptcy. Napoleon could no longer keep a large army in the field. He was defeated and exiled to Elba. His attempt to return to power was crushed at Waterloo. He ended his days a prisoner of the British on the remote island of St Helena
As for Britain, how had she fared while Europe suffered massive economic dislocation and bankruptcy? Well, British trade with Europe fell by 55% between 1806 and 1808, and did not recover for years. However, the British had the open sea to take advantage of, and they did. British ships had to take British goods further, but they found eager customers.
Britain ended up more prosperous after the Continental System than before.
If only the Eurocrats bothered to read their history they could save themselves a lot of trouble.
To obtain a copy
Tony Blair has said that the British public were not told the facts of the EU pre Referendum. We did receive a comprehensive leaflet from the gov but much relevant info was missing. The missing info is within this book
If you find it of interest then hopefully you will recommend your followers.
Further info from Mick Greenhough 0780 134 1476
Douglas Carswell exposes secret plan to tie Britain to the EU Post-Brexit
- Published Feb 10, 2017
- UKIP MP Douglas Carswell will today put down an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons in a bid to stop an international treaty that will leave the UK subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, even when we have left the EU.
- Douglas Carswell is objecting to what appears to be a stealth attempt by Ministers to sign up to the proposed Unitary Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) without anyone noticing, and without parliament having a vote on the matter.
- Once ratified, the UPCA will establish a Unified Patent Court (UPC), a court to adjudicate exclusively on European patents, meaning it will settle all disputes relating to intellectual property in Europe. Once established, it also means the standards for British products and inventions will be set in Europe, not the UK. Anyone wishing to challenge a UPC ruling will have to appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
- UKIP in Parliament has discovered a video clip of a briefing by Kevin Mooney, the UK lawyer who has been working towards the creation of the UPC, in which he states he hopes the press â€˜does not find out aboutâ€™ the treaty.
- Ministers appear to share his distaste for public scrutiny of the move. The Government has tabled it as â€˜negative statutory instrument,â€™ meaning it will automatically go through parliament unless an MP formally objects, hence Douglas Carswellâ€™s intervention.
- Mr Carswell says â€œLeaving the EU should mean leaving the jurisdiction of the European courts, but if this proposal is allowed to pass, we would be required to accept the supremacy of EU law in its entirety with regard to any disputes within the jurisdiction of the UPC, including competition law, fundamental rights arising under the Charter, as well as any specific patent rules contained within EU Directives.
- â€œHow countries protect intellectual property is also often a key issue when negotiating trade deals, so allowing the EU to decide these matters for us will make it much harder for the UK to negotiate the free trade deals we need with big dynamic economies outside Europe.
- â€œNo wonder the Europhiles wanted to pass this into law under the radar, without proper debate. It has the potential to drive a huge stake into the heart of Brexit.”
(McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952 authorises Trump’s policy on immigration
United Nations and EU plans to eliminate the White tribes
Mass immigration into the UK is essential to remove the notion of ‘the English’. Not just the English but the French, Dutch and all the other nations of Europe. Promoted by Peter Sutherland – Ex European Commissioner, Director General of the World Trade organisation, ex-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, Steering Committee Bilderberg Group.
Peter Sutherland http://www.azquotes.com/quote/705883
“No government dependent on a democratic vote
could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any
adequate (European) plan must involve. The British people
must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment
of their traditional economic defences..”
What of the future?
There are two conflicting World Orders that are impossible to accommodate each other.
The Global Corporatists and the Populists
The uncontrolled birth rate of the Third World is putting impossible strains on the First World with their inability to feed themselves. The over exploitation of the earth’s resources is also becoming critical. The third world wants to share freely in the wealth that is being generated by ‘Western Civilisation’ as an entitlement.
The current Globalist belief of the UN and the modern Environmental Movement is “anti-science, anti-technology, and anti-human.” They support the idea that man is bad, man is the enemy of man, man is “destroying” the planet and the natural “balance” of nature. Sadly they have weedeled their way into positions of authority within the UN.
They want to be in absolute control over all human activities with their version of a perfect, ordered and a completely undemocratic society.
The Club of Rome (see theeuroprobe.org type BNE into search box and appendix 80) or hyperlink http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2014-002-the-club-of-rome-invented-global-warming/
Each year the EU award the Charlemagne prize to the politician or Bureaucrat who has made a major contribution to ever closer union and the Coudenhove Plan (appendix 4).
We also have the curious and never mentioned 1995 Barcelona Treaty between the EU and the African states of the southern Mediterranean rim. Not much is said about it but seems to have has within its remit to eventually form a new state of Eurabia. The EU and the North African states would combine to form a new state. This would allow all the peoples of N Africa free and unfettered access into Europe. It is a French/Arab initiative to counteract US domination. It originated with De Gaul who was distraught at the loss of Algeria and the dominance of the USA. Whether it is just a cooperative Treaty between Europe and Arabia to ease tensions or rather more is something about which the reader must make up their own mind. The treaty is claimed to be a precursor for the new state of Eurabia and to consolidate the EU Coudenhove plan.
|Translated into English by Anders Bruun Laursen from a flyer distributed by Dansk Kultur. Layout, formatting and added images by Balder.org. Revised edition 2009
Short Link to this page http://balder.org/euromed-en
Lysenko was a Russian ‘scientist ‘ who started his research with the answer that was wanted and then perverted his results to give that result.
The Lessons of Lysenko
The Single Market is not a version of Pettycoat Lane writ large as Remainers like to promote. It is not really a market at all – it is a Single Regulatory Regime that comes with several sneaky political ‘add ons’ to ensure the EU remains in control.
- Uncontrolled migration from EU,
- submit to the European Court of Justice,
- Supremacy of EU law
- accept all EU standards even when not applicable to UK.
These are euphemistically called the ‘Four Freedoms’ by the EU. They are in fact chains to bind a country into subservience to the EU.
USA, Australia, New Zealand, China, India etc are not in the Single market and have no problems whatsoever trading with the EU.
A letter from our Chairman:- the High Court Brexit case
Sir, HIGH COURT BREXIT CASE
People who have spent all their political lives undermining the sovereignty of this country and its Parliament are now appealing to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to delay and frustrate the exit of this country from the European Union. These are people who would echo the sentiments of Ken Clarke “I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe”
They have now been joined by senior judges, including Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. His Lordship is a founder member of the European Law Institute, an organisation set up for the “enhancement of European legal integration” – that is, the ever increasing subjection of our law to the laws of the European Union.
Surely he must be aware of the principle that no man should be judge in his own cause – “nemo iudex in causa sua debet esse”. Yet he ignored it when he decided to sit on this case. The maxim was firmly established in the case “Frome United Breweries Co v Bath”, in which the then Lord Chancellor made a decision favourable to a canal company whilst, unknown to the parties involved, he was a shareholder of the company. His decision was set aside. “This will be a lesson to all…tribunals to take care, not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by their personal interests, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence.” Perhaps this partiality in London is the reason for the High Court’s decision being opposite to that in Northern Ireland..
There are two conflicting World Orders that are impossible to accommodate with each other. The uncontrolled birth rate of the Third World is putting impossible strains on the First World with their inability to feed themselves. They want to freely share in the wealth that has been generated by ‘Western Civilisation’ as of right.
The current belief of the UN and the modern environmental movement is “anti-science, anti-technology, and anti-human.” The radical environmentalists of today latch onto mythical assertions that have no basis in fact. However they support the idea that man is bad, man is the enemy of man, man is “destroying” the planet and the natural “balance” of nature. Sadly they have weedeled their way into positions of authority within the UN.
They want to be in absolute control with their version of a perfect, ordered society.
Dick the Butcher (Henry VI, Part 2 – in the peasants’ revolt)
“The first thi
The People v the Judges
Comment on High Court Judgment of 3 November 2016, preventing the government from giving notice to quit the European Union without consent of Parliament.
By Edward Spalton, Chairman – Campaign for an Independent Britain
Inside The Invisible Government: John Pilger On War, Propaganda, Clinton And Trump
The Article 50 court case is a sham
By John Redwood MP October 26, 2016
John Redwood argues that it is no part of the Courts’ remit to tell Parliament what it can and cannot vote on and debate.
I have found it difficult to take the Court case seriously, but I am assured by many clever people it is entirely serious and is part of the complex argument over how we leave the EU.
To me it is no part of the Courts’ remit to tell Parliament what we do and do not have to vote on and debate. How can we claim to have an independent and strong Parliament if we need to consult judges over what our agenda should be every day?
The idea that the courts need to come to the aid of some members of the public because Parliament has decided not to debate and vote on a topic is bizarre. Surely if you want Parliament to debate and vote on something you lobby your MPs, you do not take up an expensive court action.
There has been no vote to endorse an Article 50 letter so far for very good reasons. The government sees no need for one. It argues it is a prerogative power, and anyway it is mandated directly by the public when they made the decision to leave the EU in a referendum. We had all been told by government and Parliament before the vote that an Article 50 letter would follow swiftly once we voted to leave.
The official Opposition also clearly sees no need for one. The Opposition could have used one of its several Opposition days to table a suitable motion and call a vote on sending an Article 50 letter. They have decided not to do so. I presume that is because they say they now accept the verdict of the referendum, and see that trying to win a vote stopping an Article 50 letter directly seeks to thwart the decision of the voters. Let us hope the judges understand that a free Parliament can vote on just this issue if it wishes, but has chosen not to.
The government is sure of its case and has not therefore set out any contingency plans were the courts to decide against them. I assume were the courts to demand a vote in Parliament before an Article 50 letter the government would simply table a motion and it would pass.
I doubt Labour would want to vote down the letter or the Repeal Bill which Parliament will be debating and voting on. Were they to do so and succeed the PM would have to call an election. The election would be held to elect more MPs clearly dedicated to implementing the wishes of UK voters. On current polls it would produce a strong Conservative pro Brexit majority. That majority could then vote through the constitutional changes necessary to secure an independent UK.