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.  see The EU/UN new World Order Plan – The Genocide Of The Caucasian People Of Europe and Agenda 21  http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2013-044-couden/  

 Its aim is for Europe and the UK to be flooded with people from Africa and the Middle East to mix and form a new population called the Mestizo people to replace the white Caucasian people.

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.

It should be noted that this Agreement requires that respect for Islam was ‘guaranteed’. That could only do so by ERODING the freedom of choice, speech & expression of its existing citizens. In doing so they confirmed their tyranny.

Continue reading →

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

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lysenkoism&biw=1280&bih=907&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMj5btkMzQAhWCahoKHQlpBQsQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=3YVndnSmijFFZM%3A

Continue reading →

https://therealstrategy.com/ron-paul-reveals-full-list-fake-journalists-wikileaks-exposed/

https://therealstrategy.com/ron-paul-reveals-full-list-fake-journalists-wikileaks-exposed/

 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 and the Customs Union are one and the same thing.

The Customs Union is to make it expensive to export into the EU to protect EU trade. It makes it expensive for the UK to import the cheaper goods from the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world.

The EU want the UK to be unable to do any Trade Deals with other countries if they make the UK more competitive than the EU.

It is of prime importance to understand that under World Trade Organisation rules UK would have full access to the EU Single Market without being in the EU.

If we stay in the Single Market this lady will have full control of UK’s trading. She is a Uni Lecture in politics and has never had a job in industry nor commerce.

Continue reading →

A letter from our Chairman:- the High Court Brexit case

Commission edited out Juncker gaffe

By ALEKSANDRA ERIKSSON

BRUSSELS, 8. NOV, 15:17

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/the-wildlands-project-to-control-all-humans-and-agenda-21/

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/

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/the-wildlands-project-to-control-all-humans-and-agenda-21/

Continue reading →

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

https://archive.fo/1inAb

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.

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 →

From: T.D.Erikson

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:54:34 +0200

And by a similar token, the European Arrest Warrant must be suspended at once.

People still do not understand that it means that – as happens all the time in continental states – people get arrested and imprisoned for long months “pending investigation”, on NO EVIDENCE, AND WITH NO RIGHT TO ANY PUBLIC HEARING WITHIN HOURS, thus violating our Habeas Corpus rights. It rides a coach and horses through our Magna Carta heritage of safeguards for individual freedom.

Brussels is now speeding up the establishment of the European Prosecutor. His handbook will be the inquisitorial-Napoleonic embryo criminal code set out in Corpus Juris. He will be able to issue EAWs. He will be a political appointee. The lack of any requirement for evidence means that he will be able to issue EAWs on trumped up charges, against politically “inconvenient” persons. They will be taken out for as much as a year…. This gives Brussels a grappling iron to ensnare us. It must be cut away NOW.

May must suspend the EAW at once! This will be a litmus test of how serious she really is about Brexit.

At the end of the day, the essential, defining, power of any State is the legal power to use force on people’s bodies. Why leave this power in the hands of Brussels?????

Un-elected self appointed body aiming for all Media to be state controlled.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION By RICHARD PENDLEBURY FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 00:03, 16 November 2012 | UPDATED: 14:32, 16 November 2012

we do know that behind this farrago is the work of a self-regarding body which calls itself the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), the organisation that took their ‘McAlpine exclusive’ to the BBC and whose managing editor resigned after gleefully tweeting about being ready to out a politician who was a paedophile.

In its recent submission to the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, the BIJ declared that its ‘output and editorial processes’ would ‘be a masterclass, a gold standard for evidence-based journalism  … journalism of an outstanding kind.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233681/Leveson-Inquiry-Mail-dossier-raises-disturbing-questions-influence-quasi-masonic-nexus-people-know-best.html#ixzz4MqTEVGT9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Continue reading →

Why are Liberals called Liberals when they are absolutely not Liberal?