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

§§§

Three Letters which spell out TREASON

I have received the following from Anne Palmer, which is quite clear and in my opinion deserves as wide a circulation within the UK as is presently possible:

§§§§§§

 

My three letters to the PM and the one reply to all three letters.   I am sending these round because this affects you all and future Generations. Your Prime Minister went out to Australia and asked each member of the Commonwealth about these changes yet never even mentioned any of them to the people in his own Country that these changes make a direct difference to. 

To.The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom

20. 2.2013.

Dear Prime Minister,

  

                         RE: The Succession to the Crown Bill. 

This Bill has already been put to every Realm in the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is Head of State, with the matter having been debated in the House of Commons which for now lodges temporary with Members of Parliament. I understand it is presently in the House of Lords.

I therefore wish to suggest, that as it allegedly proposes changes to Parliament’s foundational Declaration and Bill of Rights, that the People of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be consulted as to any changes to this great Statute – for indeed it is their Bill of Rights 1689. The Bill of Rights, as I am sure you are aware, cannot be changed otherwise. Yet this proposed Bill, as I understand it, changes Nine (9) parts of our long standing Common Law Constitution. There is absolutely no need for any changes to our Constitution at this moment in time for there are two other people in line to the Throne and the next in line has not even been born yet.  The two codiciles at the end of the Bill of Rights make very clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.

The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.

I quote from the Lords; “In many ways, this Bill is akin to an international treaty and it is incumbent on us to give this legislation detailed consideration of what I hope is a Bill with a clear purpose. This is not just to assure ourselves that the law is sound, but also to consider that these changes will be brought into effect in lands beyond our borders, lands that are tied together by a common history and monarch through the Commonwealth.”

As the proposed new legislation to change the alterations to this Bill have been sent all around around the world without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed and before it was even put to Members of the Commonwealth, I submit that the people should indeed have their say. Whether they would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter all together, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.

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.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made. End of quotes

I beg you, Mr Cameron, not to alter any part of our long standing Common Law Constitution that so many gave their lives for in World War II.  THEY died in order to keep their own Common Law Constitution rather than be ruled by foreigners at that time.  We could not control whoever became leaders in other Countries then, and we cannot control who becomes leaders in other Country’s now. Our own Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts which are there constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law Constitution, our Constitution that has remained ever thus because twice the people have fought and died to keep it.  I know what that last war was like Mr Cameron because I was in it. The old people on the Continent of Europe could perhaps tell you what it was like living under a Dictator they couldn’t get rid of. 

There is absolutely no need to change any part of our Constitution at present.  The Duchess may well have a boy anyway, and our Queen is a perfect example that there is absolutely no problem to change any part of our Constitution at all.   I beg you, please think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight for their freedom ever again.  Once was enough, and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present must remain so. 

 Yours most sincerely,  Anne Palmer. Address removed

As I had no reply, I wrote another letter.  Please note the dates of my LETTERS-all before it became an ACT.

To

The Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mr Cameron

10 Downing Street,

London

23 March 2013.

Dear Prime Minister,

                      Regarding the Succession to the Crown Bill

There are many concerns regarding the proposal to put through the above Bill.  First and foremost of course is the proposal to alter our long standing Common law Constitution that has lasted for over 600 years.  The people of this Country fought two World Wars to keep our way of life and in particular our Common Law Constitution.

The proposed changes are absolutely contrary to Her Majesty’s Oaths she made at Her Coronation.  Most people watched that Coronation all day long-as did I- on what was then, a black and white Television.   I understand that what is proposed now is indeed contrary to the solemn Oaths Her Majesty made on that long day, she cannot take part in what is proposed and placed Her Prerogative with Her loyal and true Government Ministers.  However, as Her Majesty’s Ministers also make loyal Oaths  before they may take up their seats in the House of Commons, even though some of the people have freely voted for them, they may not take their seats until their sworn Oath is read out loud,  Therefore I suggest none of the proposed changes in the above Bill can be passed or acted upon for the reason below.

Even as 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.

I question whether, as each and everyone of us here in the United Kingdom, especially those that were born here, from the moment of birth it is as though they had made that Oath, for from the moment in this Her Majesty’s Realm, it is as if they have already said that Oath for they have the protection of the Crown from that very moment.   Though some of us make other solemn Oaths as Magistrates, Police, MP’s etc each of us make them to the British Crown, yet none of us can accept or change what her Majesty so swore on that very special day when she became Queen. We cannot accept any of the proposed changes. Prince Charles also made certain commitments when he became Prince of Wales. 

To even put the proposals in the Succession to the Crown Bill is completely wrong, and it is putting our Monarch and the next in line to the Crown in impossible positions.   Our Monarch cannot agree to any of these changes because of the very Oaths she made at Her Coronation.  Although I am aware that, “No Parliament may bind another” whilst that may be a matter of fact, that applies to day to day matters, but the Oath is of course part of our long standing Common Law Constitution and it is indeed long standing because of the wars fought to keep it ever thus.

Parts of Our Constitution may not indeed be altered or passed over.  Too many died in the protecting of them rather than allow foreigners to force their Constitutions upon us.  We cannot change our Constitution like those on the Continent because they were able to create new Constitutions after the last war.

Also made clear is that the use of the Prerogative Power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (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.

Two codicils at the end of 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.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

We know-without doubt, a female can become Queen, for we have had two Queen Elizabeth's and one Queen Victoria. But I suggest that perhaps the real reason why the changes to our Constitution are so desired is to fit in with the EU's Equality Act. However, according to R v Thistlewood 1820  , "To destroy the Constitution is treason".  The Treason Acts are for all time, to protect our Constitution. To try to change nine parts of our long standing Common Law Constitution at the whim of “today’s” foreigners, when others gave their lives in two world wars to protect and to keep in tact is sheer treachery and a betrayal of all those that gave THEIR lives for all of us.

I am aware that the “Succession to the Crown Bill”, has already been put to every Member of the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is Head of State, but they do not have the same long standing Common law Constitution we have, yet they have indeed come to our aid in our hour of need in that terrible World War II.  I doubt very much that some, if any, continental European Country would do the same as those brave members of Her Majesty’s Commonwealth.

Sadly, I have noticed that most, if not all legislation this Government has put through since it came into power started its journey from the European Union, from the EU’s Localism Act to same Sex Marriage, yet I never thought for one minute this Government would ever try to change our Constitution at the whim of an EU dictact or for any other reason either.

The people of this Country cannot accept such deliberate changes to our Constitution that has lasted 600 years and have fought in two World Wars to keep.  The Act of Supremacy 1559 included the words:  "…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever." Its central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament. It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by Parliament. 

Having placed the above, can we indeed even contribute financially to a foreign power?  Most Countries in the EU are indeed in financial difficulties quite simply because none have recognised the heavy cost to them in Governance and especially the financial burden.  Financing yet another layer of Government here in the UK, through the EU Regions that have now been set up is yet another reason why this Country is in so much debt.

 I wait longingly for the day when those we send to Parliament proudly and freely also uphold their own very long standing Common law Constitution also, ready to fight to keep it as those ordinary people fought so, guided and encourages by one magnificent Prime Minister, one Winston Churchill. 

With  respect, Anne Palmer.   Address removed

To. The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom

15.4.2013

Dear Prime Minister,

  

                         RE: The Succession to the Crown Bill. 

I beg you once more not to continue with the “Succession to the Crown Bill”. There is absolutely no need of any alteration especially and more importantly because of European Legislation through the Equality Act, an Act brought about by foreigners.

Those Commissioners in the EU bear absolutely no allegiance to our Monarch, nor to our Country as we here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain do. Anyone born here in the UK, it is as if they have so sworn their solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown from that moment.

Many people in two World Wars gave their lives fighting in those wars for freedom for this Government to be able to govern itself and according to its long standing Common Law Constitution, rather than having foreign constitutional documents forced upon the free people here in the United Kingdom. Many innocent people, children and babies also died in the bombing of this Country for all that this Country and Nation stood for. I was in that Hellish War too Mr Cameron, as was our present Queen, and sadly it can all happen again if you continue to allow foreigners dictate laws even our freely elected Prime Minister must put forward because of the treacherous EU Treaties ratified by others that alters the pattern of even how our long standing Monarchy is deliberately altered through the EU’s Equality Act.  

I find it difficult to believe that you would go ahead with these nine (9) proposed changes to this Country’s 600 hundreds year old Constitutional foundation Documents, especially the foundational Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 the latter having two codiciles at the end of the Bill of Rights which makes very clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.

I repeat, there is absolutely no need for any changes to our Constitution at this moment in time for there are at least two other people in line to the Throne and the next in line has not even been born yet, plus it might be a boy anyway. The only “rush” seems to be because of the EU’s Equality Act. 

Noted the Nine Changes Here: The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.

As the proposed changes required for the above Succession to the Crown Bill have been sent all around the world to the Members of the Commonwealth without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed, I submit that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain should also have their say. It is indeed necessary for the Bill of Rights anyway and unlawful otherwise.  Whether the people would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter altogether, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.

From the Bill of Rights. II.  Repeated quotes removed for ease

We could not control whoever became leaders in other Countries then, and we cannot control who becomes leaders in other Country’s now.  Yet here, if this goes ahead, we are allowing foreigners dictate what even our Monarchy must abide by. Nine alterations to our long standing Common Law Constitution at the behest of foreigners. We went to war in 1939 to prevent having to forcefully obey other people’s orders and Constitutions.  Continental Country’s can now easily alter their Constitutions for those Country’s were over-run, we however cannot Mr Cameron, for the stretch of water between us and the Continent prevented such an invasion.  We gave our all to keep our Constitution as it is at present.  Our own Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts which are there constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law Constitution, a Constitution that has remained ever thus because twice the people have fought and died to keep it.  I know what that last war was like Mr Cameron because I was in it. The old people on the Continent of Europe could perhaps tell you what it was like living under a Dictator they couldn’t get rid of at that time and sadly, it could happen again.

I beg you, please think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight for their freedom ever again.  Once was enough, and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present, must remain so. 

 Yours most sincerely, Anne Palmer.  (Mrs) Address removed

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/equality_between_men_and_women/   Noted, UK Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and later Equality Act 2010. Except that none can ever be equal to our Monarchy. May it always be so.

And here is the reply I have had today 17.6.2013. From the Cabinet Office,  4^th Floor (SE) 1 House Guards Rd, London SW1H 2HQ   Dated simply, June 2013.

Dear Mrs Palmer.   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.

You express concerns regarding the Succession to the Crown Bill, as you believe that there is no need to make alteration to the Constitution.  You sustain that changes are not necessary and that changes are being rushed due to the Equality Act.

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.

[…] “   (I do not know what that is supposed to mean.-however, I have put it as it is there in the letter.  Anne)

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.

The Succession to the Crown Bill received Royal Assent on 25^th April and became an Act.  It can be found at;

http://sevices.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html

I hope this letter clarifies you concerns,

Yours sincerely  (A squiggle signature)   Constitutional Reform Team.

                              ******************************

My comments and  please note.  I had no reply to my three letters on this subject UNTIL THE BILL BECAME  AN ACT.

They have changed our Constitution in all these parts.  Because this has been allowed to happen NOW, they can do so again and again, or, when the time comes can get rid of every bit of our Constitution to prevent any charges of treason or, just to become Regions of the European Union-forever.  Germany lost the war but won the alleged peace.  Anne

§§§§§§§

Plebgate - Let's confront the true treachery

In the broad sweep of political conspiracies and historical power changing plots and intrigue, "plebgate" (as the swearing at the gates of Downing Street by the former Tory Chief Whip has come to be called), is but a minor ripple in a very small teacup. Consequently, one presumes as a distraction from the real EU crisis, it has grabbed the attention of Britain's lightweight mainstream media this morning read here and here.

The main concern is the imminent collapse or fragmentation of the EU. The removal of Margaret Thatcher by the scheming of Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke, which allowed the treachery of fellow Conservative, PM Edward Heath, to continue to reach its now approaching climax. This is pushed to the forefront of my mind by Maggie Thatcher's welcome recovery from surgery, read here.

Earlier this week on UKIP Uncovered, I posted an extract of a posting on this blog's forerunner, Ironies, from August 2003, which called for a then ill and failing Edward Heath to be offered a pardon in exchange for the names of his co-conspirators in delivering our nation into the hands of its historical continental enemies for its certain economic destruction and subsequent political domination. This is more briefly again quoted here:

With Heath having recently been flown back from Australia due to ill health, would it not be timely, sensible and a matter of the utmost urgency to now grant him immunity from the possibility of prosecution for his known treasonable actions. In exchange we should demand a detailed explanation of his motives and full details regarding his Continental co-conspirators and their possible next targets in the attempted destruction of our economy, so that we are able, while still just barely surviving as a nation state, to belatedly take some preventative measures to ensure that their schemes, rapidly reaching fruition with the pending Constitution, can at last be thwarted.

posted by Martin at 8/28/2003 06:49:00 AM

That chance to get closer to the truth was then apparently ignored. This week a similar opportunity arises with the news of ex-PM Margaret Thatcher's welcome recovery from her operation. In the archives of her Foundation, given the tremendous foresight we know this formidable lady possesses, there may already be set out full details, as she knew them, of the part played in her downfall by  Heseltine, (in Germany on the evening of the eve of her ousting) Clarke and others.

What may not be known is how Margaret Thatcher, herself, feels as to how those complicit in this probable treason should be dealt with by the nation once EU exit is achieved. Her views on how John Major, whose treachery at Maastricht and benefit from the Heseltine putsch, also makes her opinion on his proper eventual fate of more than a little interest to her countrymen and women!

Those presently in control of the once honourable Conservative Party are the heirs to these dubious dealings. Whether Cameron, Osborne or Mitchell, they are thus beneath our contempt; not least for their own inaction once becoming beneficiaries of the power (for which they plotted, salivated and lusted) was attained. 

Recreating the vain tyranny of Louis XIV in Brussels' EU

David Starkey's first episode of a new series is a tour de force, particularly for its relevance to events in Europe today, (just as for the two periods it covers, namely the 1680s and 1930s,) should be watched by whatever means you can find. A review from The Independent of this morning is linked from here.

Starkey's underlying theme was that Winston Churchill, while researching a biography of his illustrious ancestor, John Churchill, Ist Duke of Marlborough (so created following his victory at the Battle of Blenheim which changed the course of European history) was able to spot by 1932 the dangers in the rise of Nazism in Germany. So far he has not gone on to draw the similarities between events today and those around the turn of the 17th to18th centuries, the resulting tyranny from which, John Churchill eventually put down, but I will now do so.

Louis XIV, ruled France as an absolute monarch for over 72 years in such a manner as many believe made the eventual and bloody French Revolution a racing certainty, although its arrival was delayed for another 70 odd years of such rule. The programme did make clear the importance of the difference in outcome of the earlier religious wars between France and Britain and the impact in England of the arrival of so many Huguenot refugees, fleeing the Catholic tyranny in France, but has yet to signal the importance of John Churchill's West Country roots, which I consider especially important.  

Earlier posts of mine on this same topic may be read here from May 2008; "Why does Europe seem to hate Britain"; also in November 2009 "Europe's New Rulers" and most recently and importantly "Britain's Greatest UK Traitors at Westminster Hall", the latter with the sole tag "treason" reflecting the occasion and nature of the Pope's visit.

Starkey did highlight one very interesting point that had previously not occurred to me, right  at the end of this first episode, that being that it was only after Blenheim that French and British history can truly be said to have really parted.

Clegg, Treason and Xenophobia

The leader of the Liberal Democrat party and Deputy Prime Minister is reported in an interview in The Guardian, linked here, as follows:

 He (Clegg) says it is significant that the EU council has granted the UK observer status at the meetings of the new group. Equally, he is firm that Britain will not block or legally challenge the 26-strong group from using institutions such as the commission and the European court of justice. "We have made some very big steps in the last few days. If you get behind the headlines of the big domestic argy-bargy in Britain, we have signalled we are happy for them to use EU institutions.

The article was datelined Friday 16th December and timed at 18:33 GMT.  This may be significant in any enquiry set up to establish whether this known EU sympathiser has exceeded either his authority or legality, should he be found to be the individual who made such an ill-judged and legally impossible assertion.

Clegg has also named Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond in a wide-ranging attack against xenophobia (the hatred or fear of foreigners) during this weekend. I feel certain the leader of UKIP and the Scottish Nationalist parties need no help from this blog in defending their policies. Clegg, in his attack on all Eu-realists, should be made aware that sensible diplomacy involves the protection of one's country's interests against the designs of foreigners whose objectives are often the opposite. Selling out your own nation's interests for the main benefit of foreigners, is on the other hand, treason.

Eurosceptics weary of the intentions of foreigners, whose fears are now proved to have been entirely correct in recent days, would be quite correct in demanding the Deputy Prime Minister retracts for the clearly false slur against their intent and motivation!.

Treason and Appeasement over the EU.

There is a very timely and perceptive posting on treason, written by A.K. Haart, on the Orphans of Liberty blog today. It is linked from here.

Reminders of Edward Heath's treason and the years of appeasement that have followed have led me to dig out this old posting from the Financial Times forum files, which I see was written exactly nine years ago today. It is as true now as it was then, and the traitors infest the British establishment. Now we must begin to root them out and hold them to account, there is no more time for any excuses! Here is an image of that old posting:

Can one believe that Churchill's words were ever thus twisted to refer to the present European Union:

"We must proclaim the mission and the design of a United Europe whose moral conception will win the respect and gratitude of mankind."

As I wrote in the posting presented in the image above, facts even then obvious:

"Any who support their countries' continued participation within the structures of the EU, risk being judged in history as guilty of appeasement as was Churchill's opponent Chamberlain."

Others are clearly guilty of treason, for the word and the act are not defunct, as Mr Haart, so clearly points out in his posting today. Many in the UK must now be held to judgement for their treason!

Update 2110 GMT: Apparently somebody is doing something about it at last:

http://judasclass.net

The Middleton Mettle of the Duchess of Cambridge.

I posted yesterday on the absence of royal wedding invitations for officials of the odious EU organisation, regardless of their assumed level of self-importance and the two former British Prime Ministers, chiefly complicit in foisting the renamed EU Constitutional Treaty upon Britain, without the solidly promised referendum. I also made note of the total absence of the loathed EU flag on the processional route and from many places elsewhere in the country.

It was if the entire Royal Family, after decades of retreat and prevarification, had finally obtained some proper backbone. Somebody, somewhere had dug their feet in, methinks!

The despair at the decades of decadence and double speak, daily chronicled on this blog, yesterday could momentarily have been forgotten.

It is too early yet to hope for a new era and a possible return to a renewed constitutional democracy, but with the arrival of the new Duchess of Cambridge, Princess William, as a future Queen, a glimmer of daylight perhaps can be discerned at the end of the long dark tunnel which has had our country ever deeper entrapped within the EU.

Eleanor of Aquitaine brought huge new territories in Aquitaine  as a dowry for the Planagenet Henry II when she foresook the French King in his preference. Kate Middleton, a so-called commoner, brings no such wealth, pedigree or lands into her marriage. It appears she has something far rarer and of perhaps greater value, a quality shared by the Queen of the Troubadours, the quality of a strength of character, tensile as that of the highest quality tempered steel and as cutting as diamonds. The very epitomy of national character that has been missing from Britain's entire national leadership since the death of Sir Winston Churchill.

Dare I hope that the new Duchess of Cornwall has this spirit, so as to champion the British people against their milksop leaders, clearly scared witless by the evil monstrosity they have permitted the European Union to become?

The shadow of the gallows over today's Royal Wedding.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, has seized the rare opportunity, provided by today's Royal Wedding of her Grandson Prince William to Kate Middleton, to demonstrate her loyal subjects' absolute contempt and complete disgust for the treasonous activities of her two most recent former Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

By refusing to invite these two men to attend the celebrations in Westminster Abbey today, she has indicated to her subjects, the enormity of their crimes whilst  holding the highest office in the land, compounded by their amending the penalty for such crimes they and their accomplices were knowingly committing. The price for treason when New Labour took office was to be found at the end of a rope, today it is not! Are not such changes strong evidence that they well knew of what they were about?

Blair and Brown, in the arrangements for the transfer of power, delivered the governance of Britain to foreigners by devious manouevres, sidestepping our Parliamentary protections and contrary to our longstanding constitutional arrangements. All as spelled out day by day in great detail on this blog as the changeover was made.

It is to the shame of those other senior politicians in Britain, particularly the present Prime Minister, David Cameron and his Deputy Nick Clegg, (but also former Prime Ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher,)  that  these two men are still allowed to continue to walk free, while they should be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, allowing a thorough review of each detail of exactly how and by whom else the nation was thus betrayed, thus sparing the Sovereign from today having  been forced to stand alone in giving form to her countrymen and countrywomen's smouldering outrage at what has been wrought upon our country.

I have queried the silence of our Monarch on this blog in recent years, while these treacheries have been played out. The Queen's gesture today provides some comfort that all may not yet be completely lost.

My own wishes from this blog go to the young couple, embarking on their life together today, especially given the gravity of the duties and responsibilities thay may one day have to assume.

Lords amendment tabled on European Union Bill confirms EU primacy in Law!

It could not possibly be made any clearer than this as to just how much our country has now conceded to the non-democratic and corrupt EU:

Link.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2011/0055/amend/ml055-ii.htm

Clause 18

LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK

LORD DYKES

LORD TOMLINSON

LORD RICHARD

57        Page 12, line 9, at end insert— “( ) This section does not alter the existing relationship between EU law and United Kingdom domestic law; in particular, the principle of the primacy of EU law. ( ) This section does not alter the rights and obligations assumed by the United Kingdom on becoming a member of the EU.” (Blog editor's emphasis). How can these traitors be held to account?  One way is to not vote for any of the three main parties - Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat in ANY future election, whether national or local.

Forexyard confirms this blogs prediction that Finland will block Portuguese bail out!

The posting from Forexyard is linked here and contains the suggestion that the Finnish Social Democrat party may come out against any rescue for Portugal before polling day on Sunday, in view of growing opposition to the earlier rescues for Greece and Ireland in the country at large.

Some commentators have even suggested that there would have been no parliamentary majority for a rescue package for Portugal even within the previous parliament.

As pointed out on this blog last weekend, Finland has the right to stop new bail outs under the EFSF in its Parliament. One small hope for some relief for Britain's taxpayers, see my post below! (Strange is it not that Finland has such a right while Britain, not even within the Eurozone, has no such right, are our politicians bought, blackmailed or just plain incompetent?)

British Taxpayers to pay for the Merkel/Sarkozy pledge to save the Euro!

The three leaders of Britain's main political parties pledged to save the Euro last May when no lawful Parliament was sitting, no Government had been formed and the agreement was outside any correct legal interpretation of the EU Treaties, in fact in direct contradiction of all the EU Treaties before Lisbon. Given this unlawful and treasonous commitment from Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg the French President was able to make the following commitment at the Davos World Economic Forum, in February of this year, linked here and quoted herewith:

"Whether it be Chancellor Merkel or myself, never, never will we turn our backs on the euro. We will never abandon the euro, we will never drop the euro," Sarkozy told the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"The euro spells Europe. The euro is Europe and Europe has spelled 60 years of peace on our continent, therefore we will never let the euro go or be destroyed," he insisted.

"For us, it's not simply an economic issue, it has to do with our identity as Europeans. For those of you who want to bet against the euro, be careful how you invest. We are determined to ensure the strength of the euro."

"It is of such importance that we will be there whenever it needs to be defended. The consequences of it failing would be so cataclysmic that we could never entertain the idea," he declared.

The video report of these words from France 24 may be seen in the following clip.



A new phase of the crisis is about to begin with the final acknowledgement (in the USA) that the ECB itself is facing bankruptcy, read one report in The Trumpet from here, and an analysis by Anthony Harrington titled "Why Greek debt spells goodnight to ECB independence" on the qfinance site, linked here.

Supporters of all three main political parties will be out on the streets of Britain in force between now and the local elections in May (indeed Parliament which should be devising a means to stem the bleeding of our country's wealth has been deliberately suspended to allow them so to do).  Confront them on the streets with these facts, particularly if you can collar a national politician, and demand an explanation for their parties' treachery. Withold your vote from any who belong to the three treacherous parties concerned, Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.

This is a national, rather than European crisis, for the Country's cash is being spent to save the euro, leaving nothing for local politics and the services you rely upon!

Establishment Lying over the EU Bail Out Fund.

Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph this morning has charge and countercharge over who knew what and who did nothing to avoid Britain having to stump up, what is now known to be, billions and billions of pounds for the EFSF.

Happily, as is nowadays so often the case, unlike all the mainstream media, this blog was alert to the dangers and carried details of all the developments as they unfolded, while the rest of the nation followed the sycophantic garbage that was the media reporting on the formation of the coalition government.

Below I will supply links to my own reporting, during the actual events as brought out in Mr Waterfield's column today. The following passage contains the crux of the dispute:

Mr Cameron attacked Mr Darling for taking the wrong decision during an emergency meeting in Brussels on May 9 and suggested he ignored advice given to him by Mr Osborne. But Mr Darling said: "What we discussed was not voting against but abstention, recognising that Britain could have been outvoted."

Mr Cameron replied: "I have had a full discussion with the Chancellor about this issue and he was absolutely clear it was not something Britain should agree to."

A government document, signed by Justine Greening, a Treasury minister and seen by The Daily Telegraph has suggested that the Prime Minister's account is wrong. "It should be noted that while agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the administration, cross–party consensus has been given," said the briefing note, dated last July. 

 I summarised the entire disaster looking back to early May, on 21st December last year, and concluded that charges of negligence would eventually need to be brought against all those involved: I quote a small part of that posting, which is worth reading in full, together with its several links, for a full understanding of the depth of the lies now being told:

The use of Article 122 was widely known to have been an illegal ruse at the time. The incoming administration led by Cameron, Clegg and Osborne could have refuted Darling's concurrence to such illegality and instituted proceedings to exempt the UK from the disastrous financial consequences.

Can any now doubt that it was a complete dereliction of duty NOT so to do? Indeed can any voter not now perceive that all three main political parties in the UK are complicit in the illegal squandering of the nation's wealth at the behest of the Euro Group member states of the EU of which  assemblage Britain is not even a part?

It was absolutely clear that Darling should never have been allowed to attend the 9th May meeting, as I blogged on that very day, the country was without a government AND not part of the Euro Group which was the only portion of the EU then in crisis. That posting concluded as follows:

Alistair Darling belongs to a defeated party and should have no authority to attend an ECOFIN meeting charged with reaching a pan-EU agreement as commanded by members of the euro currency group.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg should clarify Darling's status immediately and if possible prevent his departure from the country!

Matters did not rest there however, for the Coalition had ample opportunity to clarify the situation when the new Chancellor attended his first ECOFIN meeting as I set out in my posting of 17th May, linked here.
Instead of so-doing he involved himself in the known illegality at a cost to the country which it remains impossible yet to calculate.

To conclude, let me highlight again in red, as I did last December, the main point at issue first posted on 9th May 2010, as is now confirmed by the Treasury Official Justine Green as revealed by Bruno Waterfield in today's Telegraph:

Alistair Darling belongs to a defeated party and should have no authority to attend an ECOFIN meeting charged with reaching a pan-EU agreement as commanded by members of the euro currency group.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg should clarify Darling's status immediately and if possible prevent his departure from the country!  

Treasures from the threads - number sixty-one

On the Spectator Coffee House discussion on why Cameron made no demands in conceding an EU Treaty amendment which required unanimity came this powerful point.

denis cooper

March 25th, 2011 9:09am

Trevorsden -
So as a thinking person, do you believe that it is our national interest for our government to sign us up to a "Save the Euro" campaign?
I remember when Hague was more interested in "Save the Pound".
Under present treaty arrangements the two are incompatible in the long term, because THE EUROZONE CAN ONLY GROW.
There should be a treaty mechanism for a country which has joined the euro to make an orderly withdrawal, but there isn't.
There should NOT be a treaty obligation on all EU countries to eventually join the euro, but apart from the UK and Denmark there is that legal obligation and it is automatically imposed on all new member states.
Cameron had it in his power to insist on those two treaty changes to cut the eurozone down to size and limit the long term threat it would pose to our national interests, and to demand other concessions such as an end to the EU Parliament sitting in more than one place and permanent exemption from the WTD, as the quid pro quo for the treaty change wanted by Germany and France in particular.
Instead he is prepared to give them whatever they want and demand nothing in return, and Matthew Hancock and 309 other MPs, including all the Tory MPs bar about 20, have just voted in favour of that policy of appeasement.

The few (29) MPs who still believe in British democracy.

Westminster ceded legislative power to the EU by the following vote on Wednesday evening. 310 MPS voted for this treason, only 29 against. The link to the Hansard report is here. It appears as follows with a full list of the 310 traitors:

23 Mar 2011 : Column 1063

Deferred Division

Section 6 of the european union (amendment) act 2008

That this House takes note of draft European Council decision EUCO 33/10 (to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro) and, in accordance with section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, approves Her Majesty's Government's intention to support the adoption of draft European Council decision EUCO 33/10.

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 29.

The 29 who opposed this outrage were as follows:

Bone, Mr Peter
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chope, Mr Christopher
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davies, Philip
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Drax, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Henderson, Gordon
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Main, Mrs Anne
McCrea, Dr William
Nuttall, Mr David
Paisley, Ian
Percy, Andrew
Redwood, rh Mr John
Shannon, Jim
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilson, Sammy

Question accordingly agreed to. 

Treason at Westminster (continued)

The full text from Hansard of the debate in Parliament last evening, when Ministers point blank refused to attempt to gain any concessions from the EU when agreeing to a Treaty amendment by use of the Lisbon passarelle is linked here. I quote merely from the speech of Bernard Jenkin MP:

In the few minutes for which I intend to speak, I shall concentrate on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). The Government should be worried when there is agreement between those two Members. On this occasion, they agree that momentous events are afoot. My hon. Friend seemed to be saying, in so many words, that while we had always opposed the formation of a federal Europe which would inevitably be dominated by Europe's major economic superpower-Germany-we were now facilitating the creation of a federal Europe, at least within the eurozone.

The matter will now receive further debate on Wednesday 23rd March, demand concessions be obtained by Britain before acceding to this change from your own MP!

The Criminal Misgovernance of Britain's three main political parties in May 2010.

The admission by the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde last weekend that all the rules of the EU were broken to rescue the euro currency places Britain's political leaders of last May at serious risk of prosecution for dereliction of duty, mis-application of the nation's assets if not simply for plain old-fashioned outright treason.

To refresh your memory of the events of last May I suggest my readers re-visit this blog's archives for that month particularly this post for Sunday 9th May on the emergency Ecofin meeting when I stated the following:

Alistair Darling belongs to a defeated party and should have no authority to attend an ECOFIN meeting charged with reaching a pan-EU agreement as commanded by members of the euro currency group.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg should clarify Darling's status immediately and if possible prevent his departure from the country! 

Prime Minister Cameron stated the following complete lie about that agreement yesterday in Parliament: (as taken from the Downing Street press release linked here):

Second, the issue of liability for any potential bail out of the Eurozone in future.
Britain is not in the Euro. And we are not going to join the Euro.
That is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the Eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013.
With the current emergency arrangements, established under Article 122, we do.
This was a decision taken by the previous government.
It is a decision we disagreed with at the time. And we are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism.
But I have been determined to ensure that when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain’s liability should end.

The use of Article 122 was widely known to have been an illegal ruse at the time. The incoming administration led by Cameron, Clegg and Osborne could have refuted Darling's concurrence to such illegality and instituted proceedings to exempt the UK from the disastrous financial consequences.

Can any now doubt that it was a complete dereliction of duty NOT so to do? Indeed can any voter not now perceive that all three main political parties in the UK are complicit in the illegal squandering of the nation's wealth at the behest of the Euro Group member states of the EU of which  assemblage Britain is not even a part?

The position the Coalition Government could have taken was set out in my posting the day before George Osborne's first ECOFIN meeting held on 18th May, linked here. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne chose to act otherwise, therefore they are as complicit as Brown and Darling with all the illegalities and misgovernance that took place and all the outright lies spoken by David Cameron before the mace yesterday in Parliament.

Greatest Ever UK Traitors at Westminster Hall.

Click on the image to better view the captions for each individual's treachery in destroying the sovereignty and democracy of the country they were appointed to protect.

The body of the geatest living Englishman of my lifetime, Sir Winston Churchill, once lay in State in Westminster Hall before his State Funeral in St Paul's to which he was carried on the River Thames. Also within Westminster Hall the concept of Absolute Monarchism was brought to an end within England at the trial which resulted in the execution of King Charles I, one of the charges being: The secret treaty with the Scots was considered particularly unpardonable; "a more prodigious treason", said Cromwell, "than any that had been perfected before; because the former quarrel was that Englishmen might rule over one another; this to vassalise us to a foreign nation."^[142] Cromwell had up to this point supported negotiations with the king, but now rejected further diplomacy.^[142] (see Wikipedia) Yesterday on 17th September 2010, a mere 70 years since our victory over Germany of the Battle of Britain a clutch of former premiers backed by their treacherous facilitators gathered under the ancient hammer beam roof of this noble hall to witness the greatest celebration of vassalisation that the UK could ever imagine would have been possible in a mere 65 years since the nation had saved Europe from tyranny. Never has this ancient roof been forced to preside over such a treasonous assembly! But is it treason? Were their motives, however mistaken, possibly not taken with the best interests of the nation at the forefront of their minds? In the past some small doubts, could perhaps, have been allowed in that direction. In September 2010 none such can any longer been maintained. These betrayals were undertaken for their own personal enrichment and the removal of democratic constraints from their own self-serving political parties. In the very week that the first EU Council President Van Rompouy (hopefully also the last) has stated that without the Euro there can be no EU, outside of Westminster Hall that same currency continued to be shaken to its core as the price of gold and silver reached new dizzying heights and rumours of the possible demise of Irelands banks shook the markets. The irony of the situation must surely have struck home as the Pope, the last beneficiary of the principles of Absolute Monarchism, (which Sir Winston Churchill's illustrious forebear John Churchill had strived to remove from mainland Europe at the Battle of Blenheim), head of the Vatican State and present leader of the expansionist, secretive and overbearing Roman Catholic Church, chose to address the attendees on the dangers of materialism and the benefits of public service which once were the true ground beliefs of English Protestantism, now effectively rubbished and destroyed by these same pictured ex-Prime Ministers in their pursuit of material gain and non-accountable power for their Party successors. The EU has been designeed to establish a self-perpetuating non-elected elite, nothing could be ever clearer than that in this Autumn of 2010. Were these former Premiers not traitors, then they would clearly have refused to attend this shameful charade. The EU is now up a blind alley, as the meeting this week of the European Council in Brussels more or less effectively confirmed in the vexed area of economic governance. The present Treaties do not allow effective sanctions for the Euro Group members, but because of the trickery, double referendums and sheer serial lying about the final intentions of the EU project no new Treaty can conceivably be rammed through all 27 former nations ever again. E Everywhere across Europe the citizens have to prepare to pay the bills for the greed and mis-governance of those in charge of the EU, continuing this very week with huge forward payments planned to effect the EEAS which cannot possibly have any value as there remains no common foreign policy in Europe. The video of the shameful scenes from Westminster Hall may be watched here. Note the YouTube caption to this video clip is incorrect, the scene is the historic Westminster Hall, once part of England's betrayed and neutered Parliament. (Edited at 1225 GMT)