2017 – 005 UK bureaucrats plotting to lock UK into EU control post Brexit

Douglas Carswell exposes secret plan to tie Britain to the EU Post-Brexit

Published Feb 10, 2017


Screenshot_56.png 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 ‘does not find out about’ the treaty.
Ministers appear to share his distaste for public scrutiny of the move. The Government has tabled it as ‘negative statutory instrument,’ meaning it will automatically go through parliament unless an MP formally objects, hence Douglas Carswell’s intervention.
Mr Carswell says “Leaving 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.
“How 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.
“No 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

2017 – 003 Some non Brits who voted in the Petition to stop Trump visiting UK

Look at some of the nationalities on t UK visit petition

source unknown

2017 – 002

ameron says it will be the citizens not ploticians

2017 – 001 White Tribes

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  We still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, and that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine. Appendix 69

Peter Sutherland  http://www.azquotes.com/quote/705883


Continue reading

2016 – 085 Statement by Peter Thorneycroft on 1972 ECAct when Chairman of the Conservative party

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..”

Continue reading

2016 – 084 Difference between Capitalism and Socialism

2016 – 083 The Brainwashing of Snowflakes


2016 – 082 Globalism and Populism

What of the future? Continue reading

2016 – 081 the-barcelona-declaration/treaty

Each year the EU award a Charlemagne prize and very other year a Coudenhove 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 Convention (is it a Declaration or Treaty? it has all the attributes of an unsigned Treaty) between the EU and the African states of the southern Mediterranean rim. Superficially it was to improve the water quality of the Mediterranean sea.

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 as citizens of Eurabia.  It is a French/Arab initiative to counteract US domination. It originated with De Gaulle who was distraught at the loss of Algeria and the dominance of the USA. Whether it is just a cooperative Convention or  Treaty between Europe and Arabia to ease tensions and protect the seas 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.


Continue reading

2016 – 080 Lysenkoism the perversion of science

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

Image result for lysenkoism


Continue reading

2016 – 079 Why are paedophiles and crooks tolerated in parliament?


2016 – 078 Ron Paul Reveals Full List Of Fake Journalists Wikileaks Exposed



Ron Paul Reveals Full List Of Fake Journalists Wikileaks Exposed


2016 – 077 The Single Market is a Single Regulatory Regime

 There are continuous calls from the Arch Remainers such as BBC, Clegg, Cable, Heseltyne, Clark, Soubry etc for the UK to stay in the Single Market post Brexit.

The Single Market is not a ‘stand alone’ option. It is but one part of a Single Regulatory Regime

2016 – 076 Duplicity of Quisling judges

A letter from our Chairman:- the 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..

Continue reading

2016 – 075 EU Bureaucrats editing official minutes and speeches

Commission edited out Juncker gaffe

  • Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker (l) with deputy chief spokeswoman Mina Andreeva (r).

2016 – 074 United Nations New World Order


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.

The Club of Rome  http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2014-002-the-club-of-rome-invented-global-warming/


Continue reading

2016 – 073 The People v the Judges

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

Continue reading

2016 – 072 Inside The Invisible Government

Inside The Invisible Government: John Pilger On War, Propaganda, Clinton And Trump



2016 – 070 Stop TTIP and CITA

CETA: Dead or just wounded?
Continue reading

2016 – 069 The Article 50 court case is a sham By John Redwood MP

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.


Jam tomorrow: The meaning of non-tariff trade barriers – John Kay

2016 – 067 A Review of ’25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment’

A Review of ’25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment’

by Anthony Watts

By Andy May The new book, 25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment, by Daniel B. Botkin, is a bit light on science and a breezy read. But, it makes some good points. All of us are for clean air and water, but as Peter Schwartz once wrote, the modern environmental movement is “anti-science, anti-technology, […]

Read more of this post

Continue reading

2016 – 066 Article 50 is irrelevant to our EU departure

Article 50 is irrelevant to our EU departure

By George Bathurst October 21, 2016
Article 50 neither starts Britain’s withdrawal process from the EU and nor is it particularly important when it is triggered, argues George Bathurst.
In a classic example of the false narratives described by John Redwood a fortnight ago, almost every day the Telegraph reprints falsehoods, claiming that before Article 50 was created there was no legal way to leave the EU. The BBC chimes in saying, “For the UK to leave the EU it has to invoke an agreement called Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.” You’ll note, however, that our legacy media organisations don’t cite sources for their supposedly factual articles.  This is because they’ve got it exactly backwards.
Article 50 is in fact what happens after we tell the EU we are leaving.

What starts the process is Britain ‘denouncing’ the EU treaties.  Denounce is an ugly word in modern English but in this context, it simply means to proclaim, with no need to be rude about it, that you no longer agree to the terms of a treaty. 

Nations are free to make such a statement at any time. Without this freedom, rulers would bind their successors and make meaningful national democracy impossible.

Britain’s right to leave the EU in this way was confirmed in 1993 when William Rees-Mogg challenged the Maastricht Treaty, claiming it was unconstitutional and made the Queen a subject of the EU.  The High Court rejected the claim but in doing so relied upon the point that the Crown was free to denounce the treaty at any time.
When a country denounces a treaty, however, it is not usually open to it to denounce it in part.  You either reject it or you don’t.  Exactly as M Junker has said, you can’t have an EU a la carte.
To extend Junker’s metaphor then, leaving the EU is like leaving a restaurant.  You inform the waiter of your intention to leave; he brings you a final bill which you pay. And that’s it.  You don’t get into esoteric arguments about having and eating cake or whether you should pay the management’s pensions.
Article 50 then neither starts the withdrawal process nor is it particularly important when it is triggered. What is important is our relationship with the EU after we have left.  Recognising this would have a transformative effect on the discussion – instead of a grumpy divorce argument, it becomes forward-looking and positive.
It would also have a beneficial effect on our own mindset. Many people in UK politics, being too young to remember anything else, have grown up with a captive’s mindset, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, which is why they seek comfort in the entanglement of regulations like Article 50.
comment – exactly so – the same analogy occured to me a few days ago. Idris

Exercising our unilateral rights makes it easier to think like an independent country again.
Post denouncement, we won’t need the EU’s permission to decide how the EU trades with us.  We could use this unilateral power to erect trade barriers but we could also use it to dismantle them.  We could start by declaring that not only will all EU nationals here legally be able to stay indefinitely but also their countries will pay no tariffs or face any new obstacles for selling goods and services here.  We could also declare – unilaterally – that we will assume unless otherwise informed that our reciprocal rights will be continued.

Continue reading