Brexit. Should it be by negotiation with the EU under Clause 50 or cut the Gordian Knot by repealing the 1972 Act?

What if we go the Lisbon Clause 50 route?

It will give the EU several years to prevaricate and keep kicking the can down the road. The EU will heavily ‘bribe’ the BBC, Universities, Charities, and our ‘independent’ national establishments to continually pester for Remain. We would also require the agreement of other EU countries who currently rely on UK continually funding them.

The EU never acts directly in a country but by proxy through existing national organisations hollowed out and stuffed with pro EU personnel on excessive salaries and pensions to ensure they remain ‘on side’. e.g. Universities etc are funded by the EU with money from UK but they first cream off much of that money before giving some back a UK University.

We will be negotiating with very devious, slippery people who will lie and deceive without compunction. History shows that UK negotiators are not up to competing with them. In 1972 the EU negotiators made complete monkeys out of our complicit negotiators. We would be negotiating from a position of subservience.

The EU will demand horrendous financial penalties (possibly such as the EU demanding they keep our fishing grounds) and we would still be controlled by EU Directives, such as ECHR and migration, until a settlement is reached – perhaps several years. There is also the problem of UK EU bureaucrat pensions. They are working for the EU so the EU is liable for their pensions. Something the EU will try to wriggle out of.

The Single Market is a trap to allow Brussels to keep control.

Continue reading →

Allegiance, Democracy and Treason
All British subjects owe allegiance to their monarch, wherever they may be. For example, until recently the police constable’s oath contained, “I solemnly and sincerely declare that I will well and truly serve our sovereign Lady, the Queen …”. In return for this allegiance, the Queen is bound by the Coronation Oath to govern us according to our laws and customs and to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law. Yet Lord Justice Laws, a constitutional expert, has ruled that no religious belief could be protected under the law (1). Are we to infer that the Queen’s promise to her people has in some way been revoked or superseded without our rulers telling us?

If ever the Queen should infringe our rights, the barons who are guardians of Magna Carta “…with all the commons of the land shall distrain and annoy us by every means in their power; that is, by seizing our castles, lands and possessions, and every other mode, till the wrong shall be repaired to their satisfaction, saving our person, our queen and our children. And when it shall be repaired, they shall obey us as before.” As Henry de Bracton put it hundreds of years ago, “The King is under no man, but he is under God and the Law”. So the people have the better end of the bargain.

Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty, signed on 7th February 1992, says:

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by the Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.

Hansard for 1st February 1993 confirms that this applies, not only to all British subjects, but also to the Queen herself. So Her Majesty has been made a vassal of the European Union and is subject to the duties imposed thereby. In other words, she is no longer sovereign in her own land and the words “our Sovereign Lady” are now omitted from the policeman’s oath. She has been put in an impossible position, for she is bound on the one hand by her coronation oath to govern us according to our laws and on the other by the Maastricht Treaty to do the bidding of the EU.

Continue reading →

March 15, 2016

New World Order (NWO) UN-Agenda-2030 (see

The UN have unveiled their masterplan for the next 14 years – saying that they wish to implement global socialism and corporate fascism as part of their “Agenda 2030” plans.

Part of their plans, officially dubbed “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals,” aims to reduce inequality worldwide by forcing individual governments and citizens alike to share their wealth under the guidance of a one world government.

The UN was started with the best of intentions but it should be remembered that the original UN Charter was written by Alger Hiss. He was later exposed as a covert Marxist. The UN has now been hijacked by the New World Order and is now like a stick of Blackpool rock. Sweet and sugary on the outside with Cultural Marxism running through its center.

The New World Order intends to create a world society and world government – Cultural Marxism.

1    Run by a handful of very wealthy families, international banks and international Corporates – the new Illuminati

Continue reading →

Source: Ashfords LLP

EU Port Services Regulation moves forward

On 8 March 2016 the European Parliament voted in favour of the controversial EU Port Services Regulation (“PSR”). Whilst the outcome of the vote was not unexpected (because many other European countries support the PSR) it is disappointing for the UK Ports industry which is strongly opposed to the PSR.

Approximately 96% of all freight and 93% of passengers passing through EU ports transits through the EU’s 329 main seaports. These 329 ports have been identified by the trans-European transport network (“TEN-T”) as essential to the functioning of the internal market. The PSR will apply to all 329 ports in the TEN-T network. Of these, a total of 43 are located in the UK. The PSR is intended to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of EU ports and to contribute towards their ability to cope with anticipated increased demand. It wants to do this by strengthening market access for port services, in effect encouraging competition; ensuring financial transparency; and improving port coordination and consultation.

However, in contrast to the position in Europe where many ports are local authority controlled, the majority of Ports in the UK are considered ‘privatised’. The UK Major Ports Group (“UKMPG”) and British Ports Association consider that the PSR will undermine the growth and success of private ports in the UK.

In its statement on the European Parliamentary vote, the UKMPG commented: “UKMPG and the British Ports Association (BPA) have campaigned strongly against this proposed regulation since it was launched by the Commission in May 2013. UK ports are amongst the most efficient and productive in the world, contribute substantially to the UK economy and employment, and operate without cost to the taxpayer.

Continue reading →

Europe’s “refugee” crisis and the Kalergi plan for white genocide

Hi all

Please circulate after signing the petition.

Many people were amazed that the result of the 1975 In /Out referendum on the EEC(as it then was) was 67/33 in favour of staying in – a complete turnaround from polls prior to the referendum and also prior to Heath’s ramming the European Communities Act through the Commons without a referendum in 1972. It seemed inconceivable that opinion could have changed that radically in such a short time.

I have only just learned some astounding information about the count from a book about the 1975 Referendum . We are all familiar with the time consuming but accurate methods in use by our local authorities for the counting of and verification of votes in local and national elections, and they are a credit to this country . Amazingly, all this expertise of the local councils was completely sidelined in the voting process in the 1975 referendum. Instead Roy Jenkins, the euro-fanatic Home Secretary at the time, decided , against the advice of the House of Lords, that the ballot papers in 50,000 Ballot boxes from all over the country should be counted at one big national venue at Earls Court, a journey of 3-4 days with obvious scope for tampering. According to the book there was an unverified story of everyone on an electoral register who had not voted being counted in with the IN total and ballot papers stuffed into opened boxes which were then re-sealed. The  counters and staff at Earl’s Court were all volunteers – amateurs with unverified credentials, even the man put in charge by Roy Jenkins, Lord Allen was a total amateur at running elections.. There was no audit trail, flawed verification, the count was chaotic, and immediately afterwards all the ballot papers were destroyed.

A FAIR SOLUTION TO BRITAIN’S IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

author uknown

Our rulers – Mrs Merkel and Hollande – have demanded that all European countries take their “fair share” of the (mainly Muslim) migrant hordes (Swarms?) over-running Europe ‘s apparently unguarded borders.

This is on the assumtion the all the world migrants should only be billeted in Europe in unlimited numbers – never in Saudi, Japan, India, Pakistan or other countries. That includes economic migrants who are fleeing a safe country as well as refugees. The eventual result will be the loss of the various European and UK cultures.

But how do you decide what a “fair share” is? Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country’s GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe .

But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?

Here is how it works out.

Continue reading →

Mail on Sunday photographs Pictures were published in the Mail on Sunday this morning of birds in my free range egg unit purporting to demonstrate a severe animal welfare problem. The pictures were taken by animal rights extremists involved with, or employed by, Hillside Animal Sanctuary who trespassed unseen onto my property on the night of 17th December 2015. The pictures, which appear to be cleverly choreographed by the activists, were sent to a journalist, who, on 20th January, sent them to the RSPCA. Within a few hours of receipt, the RSPCA arrived unannounced on my farm for an immediate audit and inspection. I was absent, but my staff were present. Our records, birds and farm premises were closely inspected. Our records demonstrated that the flock was under veterinary treatment for a feather loss problem that started the previous August with a condition known as enteritis. An expensive course of drugs was being administered at the time of the break in. Although I have not seen the report, the RSPCA found that we were treating our birds properly and no action was going to be taken against us. We were simply asked to reduce the temperature of the building from 18ºC to 17ºC and to mend a broken perch. On departure the inspector recommended that we refer any calls about the pictures to the RSPCA. In the days after 17th December we noted that our egg production dropped and bird mortality increased to the point that our vet was consulted. Our vet had been asked to examine both live and dead birds from our flock to determine what was happening. The conclusion was severe stress from an unknown cause. With subsequent knowledge of the time and date of the illegal trespass by Hillside’s activists, we now know the likely cause. The photos taken by Hillside show wilfully inconsiderate individuals rousing my hens in the dead of night. By wading through them, frightening them with torches, handling the birds and displacing them to pose them for photographs, these irresponsible individuals caused our birds to think that they were being attacked by predators. All this was done during a national Avian Influenza crisis where strict biosecurity protocols must be followed when entering poultry units, and at a time when these chickens were under strict medical control due to their treatment for an uncomfortable condition. Hillside Animal Sanctuary depend upon public donations to keep their business afloat. As a fund raising exercise, terrifying egg laying hens, under veterinary supervision, to the point where several die and many stop laying eggs has to be a questionable activity. Entering poultry units without permission when strict biosecurity measures are in place, particularly during an Avian Influenza outbreak, is grossly irresponsible and in certain circumstances illegal. Hillside keep a significant number of poultry that have been picked up from here, there and everywhere. Their activists have come from straight from a uncontrolled disease situation into my secure poultry house. The horrific consequences of the irresponsible publicity-seeking behavior of animal rights activists are well known in Norfolk following the suicide of Norfolk farmer Stephen Brown in 20121 . Animal welfare abuses should rightly be brought to account by the appropriate authorities, but respect for the rights of the individuals involved should not be forgotten. I will call for the law to be improved in this area to stop activists from irresponsibly breaching biosecurity precautions and undermining the right of the individual to due process. What is Hillside Animal Sanctuary? It is technically a limited company but referring to its website www.hillside.org.uk there is the impression given that it is a charity, with a prominent “donate” button and numerous pleas for monetary gifts. Two individuals involved with this organisation have criminal records relating to a breaking onto a farm. I paid a return visit to land adjacent to Hillside’s farm on Friday 11th March, which has prompted other questions. 1. Is the land there being kept in “Good Environmental and Agricultural Condition”? 1 http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/east_harling_pig_farmer_stephen_brown_commi tted_suicide_1_1240824 This is a requirement of the Rural Payments Agency for those who claim agricultural subsidies. Hillside claimed €19,439 last year2 , which is roughly £14,579. Based on average Single Farm Payment values (£200 per hectare), this claim would represent approximately 74 hectares. . Only 1% of claimants are inspected each year, and I wonder if this one has been. 2 http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/recipient/GB1168355/hillside-animalsanctuary-ltd/ 2. Are the numbers of livestock kept at Hillside excessive? The farm is in a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) where strict rules are applied by the Environment Agency about the quantity of nitrogen from animal manure delivered to each hectare. Hillside openly claim on their website that they keep 1300 horses, 300 cows, 600 sheep and 200 pigs 3 at their sanctuary. Based on standard nutrient values, this number of animals would require over 200 hectares of land on which to distribute their manure4 . There is clearly a discrepancy between what they claim on and what they need to keep that number of animals. One presumes they have other available land on which to dispose of their animal waste. 3 http://us2.campaignarchive1.com/?u=4c95cca2af7aa16d5d44b5a9e&id=3ed8a0da37&e=8ca6658791 4 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nutrient-management-nitrate-vulnerable-zones 3. What is the meaning of “Sanctuary”? The short answer for Hillside appears to be the choice between a muck heap and a mud bath. The photo clearly shows what looks like unpleasant conditions for the animals themselves, being kept outdoors in awful winter weather and enclosed in mud sodden pens. These conditions could easily cause filthy water to cascade off saturated and poached ground into the gardens or fields of neighbours, and even into sensitive natural environments such as local rivers. Yet these people feel they have the right to enter my property to contrive their own animal welfare story. In publicising the above, I risk very unpleasant reprisals against my family and staff. On the other hand, I know that I have done nothing wrong and that these intruders injured my animals by willfully disturbing and handling them with scant regard for biosecurity. It really hurts that those who work for me, in such a truly dedicated way, could be tarnished by such an irresponsible publicity stunt. I have, therefore, contacted Norfolk Police who, far from brushing me off, have taken my concerns very seriously. Such as been the level of activist terrorism against Norfolk farmers that a named individual within the police has responsibility for this area. I have been advised on what to do should we experience trouble. Norfolk FarmWatch have also been very supportive. With my hens on Saturday 12th March 2016. The quiet before the storm. Stuart Agnew MEP

Corruption across EU ‘breathtaking’ – EU Commission

 Identity Cards (ID Cards), Personal Freedom and Surveillance.
Whatever reasons are given for the EU requirement of UK ID cards, they have a very sinister potential. This is because they will be linked into a fully-integrated European database.
Your movements and behaviour will be constantly monitored: what you buy, where you are, what books you take from the library, your emails and phone calls (with voice recognition), your medical records, your biometric details, your political, sexual and religious preferences as well as gossip about you can all be recorded, stored and cross-referenced in the EU computer.
The EU spy satellite Galileo – similar to the US Echelon but with less accountability – will be able to track and locate any individual with a micro-chipped ID card to within three feet.
t You will have no knowledge of, or control over, who can access your file
t You will have no right whatsoever to know what is ‘on file’ about you or to challenge its accuracy
t In a case of mistaken identity or mischievous gossip, you’ll have no means of knowing – let alone setting the record straight.
ID cards are being vigorously promoted as a means to ‘combat terrorism’. Rubbish. About the only thing you can be certain of is that they will not be the slightest hindrance to terrorists whatsoever: ID cards are all about having control over citizens. What matters is not who controls the data, who can have access to it and under what circumstances, but who appoints those who control the data, what is their remit and to whom are they accountable?
It’s a classic EU ‘salami’ – and the requirement for a new driving licence is a typical salami slice to collate information about you, disguised as ‘sensible’.
Do you feel you can trust the unknown, corrupt, unelected and secretive officials of the E.Commi with control of such personal information (ref. 2006-70)?
Our government is also setting up an embryonic body of civilian informers (at some £30M), with miniature surveillance cameras, to secretly spy on friends, neighbours and local citizens to report petty and minor transgressions (ref. 2007-18 and ref. 2008-13). At the moment it is only to grass up anyone putting litter in the wrong bin (especially if it’s four inches open – collect a criminal record and huge fine!), smoking in proscribed areas or untaxed cars.
‘Reasonable?’
The potential’s there for the ‘ little Hitlers’ (known as ‘Euro Narks’) to expand their remit to include almost anything they wish – particularly any sign of political dissent. Fantasy? They existed in Nazi Germany, were called Blockleiters and even encouraged children to keep an eye on their parents. A similar group also existed in Stalin’s Socialist USSR. Oh, there’s also a plan for tax inspectors to demand complete personal data about you – your political opinions, whether you are a vegetarian, where you shop etc. – to assess your tax liability (ref. 2007-18).

IS MR CAMERON’S EU “RENEGOTIATION” LEGALLY BINDING?

Highly qualified people give different answers to this question. They are all beside the point. International law depends on the good faith of both parties to carry out their undertakings. Neville Chamberlain’s Munich treaty, adjusting the border of Czechoslovakia was regarded by the larger powers as valid in international law. Apart from the Czechs, people rejoiced until Germany broke it.

A more recent altercation between Slovakia and the EU reminded me. Keeping to all the rules, Slovakia had joined the euro currency and was suddenly faced with a demand to contribute to bailing out far richer countries, which had broken all the rules.

Richard Sulik, the deputy Prime Minister, rebelled. He pointed out that article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically provided that each eurozone country was responsible for its own debts and that no country would ever, on any account, be made responsible for the debts of another,

Martin Schulz, the rather thuggish President of the EU Parliament, was despatched to bring him to heel and the conversation was recorded. You can find it in German (with English subtitles) by Googling “Martin Schulz makes a fool of himself”.

Sulik lays out the treaty terms and Schulz responds by demanding that Slovakia must show “solidarity” and be grateful for all the blessings which the EU has showered upon it. Defeated in argument, Schulz demands to know how many people Sulik represents and compares his little country with the imperial majesty of the mighty European Parliament. Sulik won the argument but Slovakia capitulated a few days later, accepting the inevitable just as Czechoslovakia did in 1938.

Continue reading →

The European Union (EU) is proposing to issue an EU Press Card (EUPC) and to accredit journalists.

This will be to replace the existing International Federation of Journalists Card that is already universally accepted for a journalist to operate within the EU.

This accreditation and issuing of EUPCs will be controlled by the unelected European Commission (EC).

They will decide who can and who cannot be an accredited journalist and who they will allow to have an EUPC.

If the journalist does not report the activities of the EU in a manner acceptable to the EC then the EC will have the legal right to confiscate their EUPC. The journalist will not then be able to work and report within the EU.

Alessandro Buttice, the lawyer who represents OLAF (an office of the EC) as its press spokesman, has sent out a 16 page document to the Brussels’ press corps advising them of how they should and should not report news about the EU.

Continue reading →

BRAVE NEW EUROPE?  2016

“The nations of Europe should be guided towards a supranational state without their people realising what is happening. This can be achieved by small steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to a federation”—Jean Monnet, acknowledged as the ‘father’ of the EU

This essay is a brief outline of the EU Project, providing essential information you will need before voting in the Referendum on 23^rd June 2016

Can we get Britain back?

And our democracy with it?

YES—all we need to do is repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. That can be done within 24 hours. Do not be deceived by arguments about Clause 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: it’s a trap. It would take perhaps five years of negotiating giving the EU ample opportunity to prevaricate and keep kicking the can down the road, would need other EU members to agree and carries horrendous financial penalties.

Continue reading →

Continue reading →

            
 Thomas Paine, “Rights of Man” 1791/92 
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html 

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

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

From: Michael Shrimpton <michael@mshrimpton.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:35:30 +0000

OKTC

Having studied the full text of the final agreement as released by Reuters five hours ago it is clear that the UK Government is seriously misrepresenting this agreement.

It is not a binding international treaty and contains no provision for notification to the UN or deposition of instruments of ratification.  It takes the form of the fraudulent Danish agreement of 1992 at Edinburgh, i.e. a decision of the Heads of State and Government meeting “within” the European Council, not as the European Council.

It is not therefore a decision of an EU institution and it has no status under EU law.

Even if it were a treaty it would not be binding until ratified.  No EU Member State is proposing to ratify before the referendum on 23rd June.

Continue reading →

BBC continually describes the EU as democratic. Well is it?

What is the difference between a police state and a democratic state?

     An Oligarchic /Police State

* An Oligarch of an unelected ‘Elite’ who are effectively the ‘State’

* Any elected parliament has no power

*  System run by a complicit Civil Service

*  No criticism of the State permitted

*  The State controls all social activities

Continue reading →

Major to Santer on Art.118: I was Conned

Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His 
Excellency [sic] Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:

“ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at 
Maastricht [pronounced: “Mass Trick”] was to ensure that social 
legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and 
damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. 
The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that 
arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all 
at Maastricht.

However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has 
ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United 
Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of 
the Single European Act.

This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had 
expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be 
adopted under Article 118A.

That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United 
Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what 
we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.

Continue reading →

TRYING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK

TRYING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK

This excellent piece by Christopher Booker has also been published in Derek Bennett’s Euro Realist newsletter and is reproduced with permission 

The metric system – love it or loathe it, this is the strange story of how it was imposed on Britain over several decades, by stealth, deception and downright lies.

In recent days, as television news has brought us non-stop reporting on the terrible floods, we have yet again seen evidence of one of the odder things to have happened to Britain in our lifetime. An official of the Environment Agency tells us that some river has burst its banks because it has risen by ‘5.2 metres’, only for a shocked local to tell us that it is ’17 feet higher than normal’.

Some hapless BBC reporter interviewing a flood victim outside his house solemnly informs us that the water is ‘300 millimetres deep’. But only when the homeowner tells us ‘it’s a foot deep in our living
room’ do most of us have an idea of what they are talking about.

What this illustrates us how we now have side by side two quite different systems of weights and measures in this country – one invariably used by government officials and the BBC, the other still used by millions of people because, for most everyday purposes, it seems to be much more sensible and easily comprehensible.

Continue reading →

The Mind Blowing Heat Of 1936