The EU Conspirators compound their treason

Removing our democracy, rendering the nation subject to rule by foreigners and destroying our individual liberties and freedoms is all clearly treasonable. Combine all these EU related infringements and manoeuvrings with the activities of GCHQ, as revealed by Edward Snowden, and Britain quite clearly has a very major problem concerning individual citizen's rights.

This blog has from time to time posted in full the thoughts and writings of retired JP Anne Palmer. We do so again today. As it is the weekend, please find time to read it and give it as wide a circulation as you feel able. We "the people" are the victims, but will only obtain redress by acting together to protest in the greatest possible numbers:

§§§

Regarding TREASON      10.10.2013.  Anne Palmer
This Government, a little while before the new Royal Baby was born, changed (allegedly) nine separate parts of our Constitution-I believe, to be in keeping with the EU’s Equality Act,  although this was denied by the Government.  There is no explanation other than for the EU Equality Act.
I wrote three separate letters in three separate months to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed changes. (20. 2.2013.  23. 3. 2013.  15.4.2013.)   I had no reply until AFTER the Succession to the Crown Bill became an ACT.  As the Commonwealth Countries had agreed to these then proposed changes-which I was already aware of through our Prime Ministers and Mr Hague’s attendance at the Commonwealth meetings.

On the 17.6.2013. From the Cabinet Office,  4^th Floor (SE) 1 House Guards Rd, London SW1H 2HQ   Dated simply, June 2013.  These are four paragraphs from the letter sent to me in response to my three letters on the subject.  “Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the Succession to the Crown Bill, in particular you believe that the legislation is not required.  I am responding as a member of the team working on Constitutional Reform.  I am sorry for the delay in dealing with this matter, this is due to an administrative error”.

 “The Prime Minister announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011 that, with the agreement of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms of which her Majesty is also Head of State, the government would change the rules of royal succession to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the bar on those who marry Roman Catholics from succeeding to the Throne and repeal and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772”.

“The government received final agreement from all the remaining Commonwealth Realms in December and the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons shortly after.  Firstly, I would like to point out that changes to the laws of succession are not due to pressure from Europe or from the Equality Act but from a reasonable need to progress and evolve.  The Prime Minister states on 28 October 2011: “The great strength of our constitutional approach is its ability to evolve.  Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some of the our-dated rule – like some of the rules to succession – just don’t make sense to us any more.”

“The Deputy Prime Minister also stated on 22 January 2013 that: “On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it has taken us so long.  This is a nation that prises itself on pioneering equality between sexes:  a nation of great Queens such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II.  A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed superiority of men.  That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.”   “We believe that the government’s commitment to end male primogeniture and the bar on the Monarch and those in the line of succession from marrying a Roman Catholic will end two significant areas of discrimination in the UK”.   End of Quotes.

There was not and there has not been any attempt at all to put these proposed changes before the people of this Country. WHY NOT? Yet it has been put to the Governments of the Commonwealth. The very people that these changes would affect mostly and to their long standing Common Law Constitution which would and will indeed affect us all, very much so, if these changes were indeed be possible to change.  Many people, ordinary people fought and died in two World Wars to keep their way of life and their very Constitution the Governments of “TODAY” have tried to alter.  This cannot be done without the people of this Country agreeing because each and every one of us live by (and some gave their young lives for) the very Constitution that this Government has tried to change.  Not, I suggest for the coming baby, for had they waited until it was born, a son, there would have been no need for any attempt for Constitutional change at all, but of course, there would have been no excuse to change the nine necessary parts of our Constitution for the EU’s Equality Act.  There was absolutely no need to TRY to change our Constitution at all. Our Constitution, I suggest, cannot be so changed without the people’s of this Country’s permission.  It is noted that Magna Carta cannot be changed at all (See further below) and neither can the people’s Bill of Rights because of the two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights, stating such.  If we had lost a WAR, all Governance of our Country would be gone-lost forever.
No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689.  However, what Parliament does, Parliament can undo.
Also made clear is that the use of the Prerogative Power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (Which includes the people’s Bill of Rights and Magna Carta of course (See case of Nichols v Nicholes, “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”)  The Bill of Rights 1689 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP's and the Judiciary. They are required also to "take into consequence anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”.  The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the Common Laws, which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty's Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by Common Law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them.  Each British Subject from the moment they are born here in the UK is bound by an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this country, just as if that person has declared so out loud.

From the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

I now ask the question previously asked by others, How can a ‘Citizen of Europe’  be Queen of our Nation and the Commonwealth? No wonder this Government have tried to repeal the Laws of Treason? Those Treason Laws are there still, and are ENTRENCHED to protect the wearer of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and even though the 1795 Treason Act was allegedly repealed in full instead of just “Death by Hanging” in the 1998 Crime And Disorder Act, if people care to dig a little deeper they will find that the Treason Laws remain there to protect the Crown, and although Terrorism Laws may be used where it might have been better to use the laws on Treason, Terrorism Laws are no alternative for violation of the Oath of Allegiance because violation of that Oath that is made to the wearer of the British Crown is the greatest betrayal of all. 

It has been said that there are only four clauses left in Magna Carta.  Proof that Magna Carta remains complete is recorded in Hansard, for many are the times clauses have been quoted to prove an argument. I have over a hundred pages printed where Magna Carta has been mentioned-I stopped looking after one hundred, to back up, or enforce or protect legislation.  The last time Clause 61 was used, was by four Lords at the time of NICE-a clause that was allegedly repealed.  Magna Carta is a Treaty and it needs the people’s consent to alter.

I quote Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20^th July6 2000)  “My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech.  He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta.  We cannot do that.  Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament.  All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta”.

Parliament was reminded of the Bill of Rights after the Case of Pepper v Hart when the Speaker at that time said, “This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.  There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights.  I am sure that the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts.”

Quote from Govermnment Research Paper 18^th July 1996. Page 38. “Many, including Dicey himself, have sought to distinguish between legal sovereignty and political Sovereignty.  Indeed Dicey regarded the Queen-in-Parliament  (ie, the legal body comprising the two Houses and the Monarch) as the legal sovereign and the electorate as the political sovereign.  This latter point is the British version of what in many other constitutions is the idea of ‘the people’ as the true sovereign, a political concept which is often invoked to confer upon the constitution moral authority and binding force as the supreme source of legal power.  Perhaps the most famous example of this is the constitution of the United States.  (We the people…)”

Page22. “Mr Major announced a concerted Ministerial campaign on all aspects of the Constitution: “This will be the most thorough debate on the constitution for a generation’ He concluded his speech by emphasising the Conservative approach of supporting “practical change that would solve real problems or improve the way our constitution works….I don’t make any apology for defending what works.  I‘m a Conservative and I reject change for change’s sake…Our constitution is the lifeblood of the United Kingdom.  It upholds our freedom.  It binds Parliament and the Government to the citizen.  It provides the checks and balances that prevent abuse of power. It cements the Union together.”

Even as those MP’s step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW". This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen's Oath, and the Oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.

Anne Palmer. JP Retired

The oath of allegiance has its origins in the Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215.

Once the terms had been finalised on 19 June, the rebels again swore allegiance to King John. The later Bill of Rights (1689) included the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants and members of the judiciary.^[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28United_Kingdom%29#cite_note-6

§§§

HS2 type Hi-Speed Rail Works in the Charente

Here are the latest snaps of the progress of the LGV Tours to Bordeaux link, equally wasteful as HS2 as already air connections are cheaper and speedier.

More to follow, these showing a three tunnel overpass on a quiet road to handle the spur line to Angoulême near Roullet

These general viws show the vast devestation, hard to picture given the narrow guage of modern railway lines:

Finally, still underway nearby, the harvest of the grapes for this winter's cognac production continues nearby at Champagne Vigny:

A Worrying Week for the Western World

The USA which has led the West for decades is in deep debt and deeper political crisis read here.

Italy faces a vote of no confidence in its Government.

Britain's oldest political party has been abandoned by its natural supporters and at a demonstration against the party at its annual conference has appeared to be filtering the live news feed to its once respected state broadcasting corporation, the BBC.

Germany lacks a government following an election campaign where the true economic issues facing the Euro and thus the EU were obscured from the voters. Thereby neutering the entire EU from confronting the problems now facing Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy, Spain and others.

Greece has arrested democratically elected MPs for belonging to a criminal organisation which appears to refer to the political party attaining recent popular electoral success.

Why EU Decisions must always be sub-Optimal for each Member State

I realise that a mere five days ago I resolved not to post on the topic of the EU again on this blog, and that remains my firm intention, however yesterday morning I was involved in a twitter exchange with Jonathan Faull, a senior Eurocrat presently serving the whims of EU Commissioner Barnier for Competition and the Single Market. I am pasting them below as for me they briefly encapsulate why the EU is doomed or can only proceed on a 100% "Best for Germany" basis:

Robert Peston ‏@Peston 26 Jul

Important on Cunliffe Bank appointment: he is Mr Europe; shows Treasury worried UK always outvoted on fin stuff in EU by eurozone members

Details

Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan

.@Peston Absolutely untrue that "UK always outvoted on fin stuff in #EU by eurozone members". Only once in recent years, bankers' bonuses.

1. Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 26 Jul

   @FaullJonathan All know that votes are rarely called unless unanimity pre-determined. UK has been scalped by double-deals & UK negligence

   Details
2. Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 27 Jul

   @IroniesToo Ask other countries about influence, alliances and arguments in EU decision making. Prejudice will turn to surprise.

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 23h

@FaullJonathan Re: influence, alliances and arguments in EU decision making-Their very existence is proof positive MS shifting from optimum>

>As the overall effect of the #EU is daily more clearly sub-optimal economically & dangerous socially; it MUST end or #Brexit

 Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 22h

1. @IroniesToo Prejudice, not argument

   View conversation
2. Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 22h

   @IroniesToo How do you think democracy works, nationally and in EU? Not by pre-defined optimum, but argument, discussion, alliances....

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 21h

@FaullJonathan Nationally, in Parliament there is a Common Goal and the substance diverts decisions. EU has none of this & decision pre-set>

Happily we now have decades of actual experience which demonstrates both the flawed outcomes and pampered elites of the #EU

I thought it worth posting these whilst at the same time correcting a typo in my earlier "EU etc., last posting"!

Let's face it the lesson of all these years was, as I made clear in my novel "Millennium Bltzkrieg" written in the mid to late nineteen-nineties, that the EU can only be good for one single former nation and that will be the strongest, all others will suffer, lose their democracy and bear the deep corruption and likely authoritarianism all now apparently for nothing but the wealth of their political leadership (...and power of their seconded nationals to its institutions?)

Three individuals are now in line to a debased & despoiled Monarchy.

Yesterday was an historic moment by the mere fact that for apparently the first time in history there are today three individuals in line to ithe diretc inheritance of the British Crown, Prince Charles, Prince William and yesterday's newborn baby boy.

The reign of Queen Elizabeth II has been long and scrupulously fulfilled in so far as the detail and ceremony of the role has been concerned. With regard to the main aspects incorporated in her Coronation Oath, the obligation to rule free from foreign influence and in accordance with the traditions of her people it has regrettably failed as is all too plainly visible in almost every detail of the average Briton's daily life.

This blogger has also failed in his objective to halt and turn back the encroachments of the EU. This week I will turn sixty-nine years and I have written and done all I could on these blogs without any prospect of affecting the course of events, as made clear by the grotesque publication of the Government's Review of EU Competencies, read here, combined with plans for taxpayers to further finance a renewed housing bubble by lending cash for deposits to couples unable to afford them, read here.

There is no sense or point in railing against clear insanity to those determiined to utterly delude themselves!

I may from time to time point out the latest stupidity as it involves Britain and the EU, otherwise this blog will, in the main, hold its typist's finger!

EU Citizen Surveillance or Projecting Force Abroad?

The announcement yesterday by Air Chief Marshal Dalton of the RAF on the 617 Dambuster Squadron was interesting; One report is linked here and the following is a brief extract:

“The Lightning's state of the art stealth and precision target capabilities, together with the battle-proven Typhoon force, will complement each others’ capabilities and set the base-line for UK Combat ISTAR2 air power as a contemporary global force for the 2020s and beyond.
 
“Lightning shall be operated jointly by the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm pilots, from land or from the Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. Overall, a hugely flexible and futuristic joint capability.”

The Footnote 2 referring to ISTAR partly explains as follows:

"2. Combat ISTAR refers to the ability of armed aircraft to conduct intelligence gathering or surveillance missions while simultaneously equipped to strike targets or provide support to ground forces." 

That definition nicely encompasses both manned and unmanned flight but with intelligence as its priority. So the famed Dambuster Squadron seems set to become a mere arm of the (post-Snowden, rightly suspiciosly viewed,) GCHQ spying operations, in future presumably mostly involving drones!

So we are beginning to get a view  of how this Government and its masters in the EU now view the role for Britain's Queen Elizabeth class of Carriers for which only Britain's taxpayers are footing the bill: intelligence gathering on its own citizens within the EU and projection of its evil designs beyond its borders as its own non-democratic and therefore potentially despotic and even perhaps tyrannical leaders (whomsoever they come to be,)  in secret, (yet again without democratic scrutiny) may from time to time so decide!

Defence or even perhaps aggression, debatably and rarely, on the basis of 'my country right or wrong' could perhaps be envisioned in forming a defence policy for the future of any democracy BUT NEVER CAN IT BE SO ON THE BASIS OF  'this EU right or wrong'.

This matter and the planning and expenditure underway, is a hugely compelling reason to hold any EU referendum as soon as possible. The suspicious frequent recent showing of the film of the Dambuster raid and spin around Squadron Leader Gibson, hint at the possible disbandonment of the reformed 617 Squadron becoming a propaganda tool in the anti-Brexit campaign. Scrapping of the two carriers will also be a powerful tool to win over the jingoist vote as perceived by the likes of British Interest.

Considering Britain's interests outside the EU it is hard to make a decent case for the Aircraft Carriers, within the EU they can only be used for spreading such sinister and greed driven power and influence overseas.

Such EU power would be  mainly, I guess, towards Africa, thus continuing the disgraceful situation ongoing in Somalia to other parts of that Continent, whose plight was brilliantly described in last evening's programme on BBC2 in its Indian Ocean series.

EVERYTHING Veritas was formed to prevent is NOW underway!

Thanks to the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties Britain is now in exactly the mess Veritas predicted and was specifically formed to prevent!

Read the archive page for my blog of February 2005, the month the party was formed, from here, or if not just the last of the few postings for that month as pasted below:

§§§§§§§

Monday, February 07, 2005
 
Britain's Dire Straits and Veritas

Why we need a new party, which I am now promoting as Chief of Staff to Robert Kilroy-Silk, could not be better summed up than it is in the conclusion to the Melanie Philip's column in this morning's Daily Mail:

....the need to defend the core values of the nation which are under attack on all fronts. In the NHS the values under siege are fairness and duty to the vulnerable; in education it is the concept of truth itself; in the justice system, freedom from fear and insecurity; in immigration the preservation of national identity; in Europe the existance of democracy and the nation state. All these things are being sold short as the governance of the country careers into ever-increasing chaos.
The almost inevitable outcome from such a flight from political courage on all sides is a dirty election - and the growing feeling that politics itself is now in some kind of self-destructive endgame.

§§§§§§§

Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Howard, etc., plus all their minions and party workers have brought Britain to this pass. Only the British electorate can do anything about putting it right, that now appears to be best achieved by supporting UKIP!

EU Justice? Were Brits defeated even with Trident?

The following extracts from Hansard are merely part of what the Home Secretary stood in the House of Commons and admitted yesterday, read the full speech here.

As things stand, the Commission proposes to change Europol’s governance and powers, potentially allowing it to direct national police forces and requiring us to share sensitive intelligence crucial to our national security. I believe that would be entirely unacceptable. These powers are unnecessary and would undermine our way of policing—and Europol has not even asked for them. The motive of the Commission appears to be nothing more than state-building. That is why we will not opt into the new Europol regulation and will never do so until those concerns have been put beyond doubt.

Some of my hon. Friends have been keen for me to address the question of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I have mentioned it already, but let me look at the issue once again. Between 1995 and the end of November 2009, 136 measures in the field of police and criminal justice were adopted in Brussels under the so-called third pillar. This meant that they were not the usual EU Acts and were not subject to either Commission enforcement powers or the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As a result, we could not be told by others that we had not implemented things properly 

15 July 2013 : Column 783

and we could not be fined millions of pounds as a result. There were no European Court rulings that bound us, and we had a veto in negotiations.

When the last Government signed the Lisbon treaty, they changed the constitutional basis of the European Union, giving more powers over police and criminal justice matters to European institutions, and removing our veto in police and criminal justice. Now, at the end of a five-year transitional period on 1 December 2014, these pre-Lisbon measures become subject to Commission enforcement powers and the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

In fact, the whole justice and home affairs structure since Lisbon takes too much control away from elected national Governments. The Commission or the Council propose a measure, and the UK has the right to decide not to opt in, but if we decide that the measure is in the national interest and we do opt in, we are subject not only to qualified majority voting in the Council but to co-legislation rules in which the European Parliament is considered to be an equal to the Council of Ministers. Elected national Governments are sidelined—and that is before we even consider the role of the European Court of Justice in interpreting the measure once it becomes binding.

Mark Reckless: Is the Home Secretary aware of the European Union Act 2011 in the context of what is required for a referendum? Section 4(1)(i) refers to

“the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom”;

while (j) refers to

“the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom”.

Surely an opt-in to the various 35 measures will do that and should trigger a referendum.

Mrs May: Let me give my hon. Friend the answer that I gave when the matter was last raised with me. I do not believe that opting back into these measures would trigger a referendum under the powers that the Government have. However, I think Members should welcome the Government’s statement that no future United Kingdom Government will sign a treaty unless a suitable vote is held among the British people.

Today a report on Britain's future nuclear deterrent will be published for consideration - is it not crystal clear from all this, that during the existing Trident programme Britain's greatest enemies have been those within who have delivered the nation into foreign control and placed it under alien governance?

EU Commission objects to Nazi Comparisons

The Commission has reacted in the form of a press release in the French language to comparisons made between its grab for banking regulatory responsibilities and the former Nazi regime in Germany, read here.

I do not know from where the criticism that has stung them into this uncharacteristic response first emanated, but the German reaction has been particularly  vehemently opposed and expressed at high levels which may account for this sharp reaction.

This blog has justifiably been criticising the absolutely abhorrent EU Commission for years but without any similar response. I try to use measured tones although my own abhoorence of what they have been about runs very deep!

Elected Politicians? How can they sleep or look into constituents' eyes?

Here is absolute proof of how governance of the UK has been given away and that elected politicians are merely there for the perks 5even ultimate self-serving slippery fish Lord Mandelson has now reportedly withdrawn his support):

Cameron's Lesson in Continental Conspiracies

British Prime Minister, David Cameron's blind stupidity over the EU was summed up by one sentence from his own mouth, last Friday afternoon, at his conference to the British press following the European Council meeting, as reported by the Daily Telegraph, linked here, which was as follows:

"I won't lie, it is immensely frustrating sometimes the way this organisation works," 

The fact that the EU operates in this manner cannot come as any surprise to any informed or competent Prime Minister of the UK after more than forty years of our immersion in, and bankruptcy by, this multinational project in duplicity.

This blog, its sisters and forerunner, fully explains the reasons why this is the case, but once again here are the basic essentials. Britain is lucky by not being a victim of long-standing historical land borders with foreigners and the disputes they invoke. To compensate for the difficulties such cause, a complicated pattern of conspiracy anf deceit becomes the norm in Continental transnational dealings, such have always underpinned the Common Market, EEC and what is today the EU.

In the process many of our politicians have become simililarly corrupted.

Britain has no business within the EU, Brexit is an urgent necessity and Cameron is unfit as PM if last week's sudden realisation of these truths does not lead him forthwith to that conclusion!

Is Palace of Westminster now just 1 more EU Institution of 28 similar?

A speech was made by ECB Chief Mario Draghi to Committees of the French Parliament, its National Assembly, yesterday morning in Paris. It is linked from here and at its end included the following startling passage:

But Banking Union is not the only example of where closer union is needed. Ultimately, the euro area needs to be drawing closer in all fields of economic policy.

The recent call from the leaders of France and Germany for closer economic union shows that this message is being understood. But it is important that form is fully aligned with substance. In my view, a true economic union means three things.

First, it means every country ensuring its national economy functions properly, without external imbalances and high unemployment. We cannot have a strong economic union without strong national economies.

Second, it means transferring some sovereignty over decision-making to the European level – accepting decisions that are made for the good of the euro area as a whole, even if, at that moment in time, individual countries may disagree with them.

Third, it means applying the same rules to all members of monetary union. This is not only a condition of fairness between countries, but also a pre-condition for deeper integration. Only if there is trust that each member will play by the rules can a union of mutual solidarity become possible.

For these reasons, moving towards closer economic union also requires an equivalent deepening of political union. Greater authority at the European level must be matched by greater democratic legitimacy. And here both the European Parliament and national parliaments have a key role to play.

As Herman van Rompuy has reminded us, national parliaments have become EU institutions.

I had missed that earlier quote from Van Rompuy, but no matter, such coming from the head of the power hungry EU Council has come to be expected, from Draghi, delivered to the second most important Parliament within the EU, however, it marks a major turning point.

The following description of Draghi, also posted yesterday morning by John Ward of The Slog, is perhaps well worth reading and dwelling upon at this point, click here.

The riciculousness and pettiness of what the House of Commons has become was well on display throughout yesterday, as may be read in Hansard! After the childish knockabout of PMQs, a statement on spending after the next General Election and some points of order, the day was taken up by the EU project and complete waste of money, the HS2. Read here if you have nothing better to do!

Any with a vote for the UK Parliament has now some serious thinking to do! Arguments that this is merely a Euro Group project will not wash any more!

Are we really going to allow our democracy to be handed over to the likes of these people without complaint or resistance?

Euroscepticism becoming a factor in German election?

I apologise for not having been able to post during the past three days.

I have just tweeted the following link which seems hugely significant for the EU. Town Hall Finance

If the AfD eurosceptic party exceeds 5% in the General Election in Germany in September it will become a factor on forming a governing coalition. It therefore bears careful watching.

What the rest of the EU, controlled as they now are from Berlin through Brussels, can now do to affect the vote in Germany and thereby restore the hope for a future return of their own national democracies, is to emphasise to the German voters they might meet of the third disaster in 100 years that German policies now appear to be about to inflict upon their neighbours! That must surely be the outcome SHOULD Merkel, her party and their backers be allowed by German voters to continue on their present course!

German domination of Europe is not acceptable to that country's neighbours nor the world. Just as the Kaiser and Hitler were eventually rebuffed, by dreadful bloodshed, so too will the means be found to negate this 21st century attempt at German economic control and subsequent political domination of all Europe.

Voters of Germany are, certainly for  this year, Europeans' greatest weapon in this endeavour. Ask all ordinary German citizens and voters to re-visit and carefully examine the horrors of the years beginning in 1918 and 1945 before voting this Autumn and thereby somehow kill off this EU!

Britain's Socialists Suffer Huge Electoral Set-Back

The result from a small council election in Southampton yesterday will begin a ses-change in Britain's politics, as posted on Twitter it was as follows:

Woolston, Southampton CC result: LAB 32.34% (-22.76), #UKIP 27.73%, CON 26.35% (-5.55), TUSC 5.09% (+0.39), LDEM 4.49% (-3.81), GRN 4.00%.

I would imagine that vote will cause a drastic re-think in Britain's Labour Party regarding its strategy over Europe, as described by The Guardian today, linked here.

The Labour Party are now the enemies of Free Speech in England

Watch this video from Hove near Brighton, and try to disagree with this posting's headline:

Coming to terms with the Probable Pointlessness of the D-Day Sacrifices

It is difficult for those of us born during or just after World War Two, and been brought up by parents whose generation had made the greater sacrifice to overthrow the German Nazi tyranny, plus grandparents whose own generation had endured and survived the five years of horrors that were the earlier war also inflicted on Europe by German imperialsim, to now be brought to the increasingly blindingly obvious realisation that all that had been for very little point.

There is no longer an effectively operating "Mother of Parliaments" in Westminster, the pound sterling has been devalued and is produced in worthless billions by equally worthless faux politicians who have no grasp of work, worth or value. Integrity is not just dead but mocked where even solid concepts such as marriage can be twisted to suit the whims and appetites of shallow and essentially stupid individuals.

We have sought to divide  the inseparable by the clever device of abnegation of sovereignty and thereby split sanity from reality by divorcing words and concepts from their meaning. It started with sovereignty, now we pretend marriage can be other than between a man and a woman and that money can be divorced from any inherent value.

If nothing has any value, what point then in any striving to excel let alone even merely achieve a sufficiency. If words can be changed to say whatever the speaker chooses, have we not thereby ended all meaningful communication and made language to become a barrier, rather than an aid to understanding?

And all that wealth of a money sign (£,$ or €)  followed by rows of zeroes as worshipped by those attending the Bilderberg meeting in Watford this week, what has that gained them, when in their heart of hearts, all attending must know that they themselves have rendered such worthless!

Eton - The Right to Rule

There was much discussion and debate yesterday on a question that appeared in an Eton College scholarship paper in 2011, which was the following:

(c)  The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the Government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army. You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral. [15] 

There are several intersting points which emerge from the question itself. First I should point out that when pasting the question above it appears that "necessary" and "moral" are in a different type-face to the rest of the text. Has it been amended since first being set or is that merely a facet of conversion from the italic of the pdf document to the blogspot editor?

Assuming that it has not been modified, (my source is the school itself from this pdf link) and that is exactly as the question was posed, then it says some very odd things about British society and the assumptions of the present Prime Minister. Among which are these:

1) What kind of people can assume, that 29 years into the future it would be necessary AND moral to shoot protesters who had been deprived of one of life's still then presumed necessities?

2) What kind of institution of education would set out to filter schlarship applicants by seeking sufficiently non-inquiring minds to happily find excuses for this, to my mind, almost preposterous supposition.

3) Does not every action and speech of the incumbent Old Etonian, Prime Minister,David Cameron, indicate that just such a brainwashed zombie has thus already been thrust upon the nation, thanks to the clever manipulation of the voting Conservative Party membership?

This seems to stain every single living individual whomsoever attended Eton College, after all the rich who can afford the fees are already widely expected to be typical chinless-wonder type  creeps, but the scholarship boys, one would assume, had need to be the opposite to give the school some academic standing, not least as counterweights to their privileged schoolmates, themselves mainly intent upon maintining their inherited wealth, standing and control.

This seems all the stranger having come to light at this moment, when six nights of protests across Sweden, spreading out from the capital, are reported by one source as having been triggered by the police shooting of a protester armed with some kind of knife or cleaver.

Surely in Sweden the option of exiting the EU must now be being considered as a preferable necessary and moral alternative to staying within the "Project", and shooting protesters as the Eton examiners seem to envision as the only alternative to their chosen course for Society?

Is Cowardice the defining characteristic of Cameron and his fellow EU Leaders?

"The sleepwalkers" is the theme of both The Economist magazine's cover piece and its main leading article in the editions which hit the newsstands this morning, but is that an adequate explanation for the gross incompetence of the EU's leadership?

This blogger has concentrated on the affairs of the EU for over ten years and can pretty certainly state that sleepwalking is clearly not the issue, in fact such a description ducks the reality in exactly the same manner used by the EU leaders themselves, in their futile efforts to avoid both the past the truths and the daily growing evidence of all its consequences, touching as they now do upon almost every aspect of Europeans' daily lives.

Such avoidance of reality, that cannot possibly be explained except by them all having at some point having taken a conscious decision so to do!  THAT is cowardice, brought about from fear of the consequences of their past inactions and deliberate neglect!

Sleepwalking it most certainly is NOT!

Farage has destroyed the EU as we've known it!

This present EU has always been built around the secrecy of the tax arrangements for its officials, finally one brave man has exposed a piece of such fraud.

When all the facts are known, we will be freed from the deceit and double standards of this already thoroughly shamed EU Project.

The Power that Drives Politics is Shifting

The EU may no longer be ignored as the prime driver of politics all across Western Europe. Old divisions between right and left, which have delivered the West into the non-democratic control of corporatist collectivists, no longer seem significant to ordinary people.

The trashing of people's savings, pensions and home values and concurrent disenfanchisement of their former means of protection and protest, their national parliaments, has now been compounded by the dleiberate confiscation of some of their bank deposits rendering useless the very currency they have been brainwashed into accepting as the symbol of the way ahead for Europe in the future.

How can existing political parties, all of whom conspired to deliver this end, ever again expect to be taken seriously at the ballot box. UKIP are today reported to be advertising in what was once known as the House Journal of the Conservative Party, the Daily Telegraph, to attract the hard-workers and activists who have themselves delivered power to the sullied souls who control the governing coalition in the UK.

Labour,  a century ago, was planting the seeds which overthrew the power base of the 19th century political system. Be in no doubt the same process is underway all across Europe today! When people recognise where the real power lies, they will surely exercise it, faced with the destruction of their very means of trade, exchange and even their daily existence, money itself, what other choice have they been given?