Sunday, October 27, 2013

Are YOU content for the EU & UK politicos to be party to every detail of your life?

The latest communication that I have received from Anne Palmer, is copied below. I think as PM David Cameron appointed his own man,  a senior Tory Grandee as the Head of the Intelligence oversight arrangements for the UK, such questions for MPs suggested by retired JP Anne Palmer,  are particularly important for us all! Is all our personal data now available to the big political parties, such awesome power makes a mockery both of democracy and individual freedoms, never mind that old-fashioned concept of privacy


Did YOUR MP agree to implement this EU Directive or did they object?  Why not ask Him or Her?

Mrs Merkel seems a tad upset that she, along with other 'important people' are being spied on by the USA.  Perhaps this might bring home to ALL our Leaders in the EU and especially those in our own Parliament that are supposed to Govern and protect us, how we felt and feel when the EU eagerly brought in THEIR legislation to spy on each and every one of us "ordinary" people through their "Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC. But is it being enforced here in the United Kingdom?  Surely not. Surely your MP did not vote for thisWhy not write and ask HIM or HER if they did indeed vote for the EU Directive to go through to spy on each and every one of us here in the UK?   Will our own elected Politicians obey these EU Directives that want, need and must have every tiny detail of what we are watching and who we are contacting?  Our Government really should let us know, for so many gave their lives for our freedom. Surely the people of this Country will never forget or forgive them if they have betrayed the people of this Country if they have put this intrusive legislation through? Knowing that they deliberately betray all those that sacrificed their lives so that we may live in FREEDOM.
Many people however, just like Mrs Merkel herself believed that those she worked with would not stoop as low as the EU did when THEY spied on many ordinary people throughout the EU through the EU's 'Snoopers Directive 2006/24/EC?   Has this Government accepted or implemented the Data Retention Directive?   Would our own Government deliberately betray their own people by accepting this intrusive Legislation?  If Mrs Merkel didn't know she was being “monitored” are our own Politicians as well us being monitored?  What else do the people here in the UK not know? Please do ask your own MP if He or SHE did indeed vote FOR this intrusive legislation.   Anne
The UK is in full compliance with this EU wide Directive, and is one of the countries who most often access and act upon the information obtained as a result of it. It does this with little or no judicial oversight, and over 200 agencies and police have been authorized to access personal data logged by ISPs and VPN providers, including the following 
Note=Not all Countries are applying this Directive

Chapter:  II. Surveillance policies
National security, government surveillance and law enforcement.   This is a long debate but it can be accessed here below.

The EU Data Retention Directive

The UK is in full compliance with this EU wide Directive, and is one of the countries who most often access and act upon the information obtained as a result of it. It does this with little or no judicial oversight, and over 200 agencies and police have been authorized to access personal data logged by ISPs and VPN providers, including the following: 

Anne Palmer email received today 27/10/13


Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Independence or Oppression by China or a New Hansa?

The visit to China by UK Finance Minister Osborne and the Mayor of London Johnson, highlights the stark choices facing democrats and believers in individual liberty who populate both the East and West coastal regions of the North Atlantic ocean and its islands.

The Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, read here, the spark for which was a religious matter, was more likely a punitive venture by the dying Hanseatic League into the home territories of the adventurers and seafarers, who along with their colleagues from Brittany, Gascony/SW France; the Basque Country and Navarre were challenging their hegemony and the rights of Spain to keep the New World trade all to itself. The British Crown and City Corporation seem to have then been under Hanseatic  control, which was not broken until the reign of Elizabeth I, and the establishment of the Exeter Guild of Merchant Adventurers, in the earliest years of her reign; read here in pdf.

Will Britain fight the growing world trade power of China from within the EU, so remaining  under similar non-democratic control as applies in China itself?  Or can we once again cast aside the shackles of continental hegemony and unite with the heirs of such Merchant Adventurers everywhere, new enemies of despotic collectivism, often still living along  both coastal reigions of the North Atlantic, while restoring where necessary, our own sovereign democracy. That, IMHO is the issue of our times!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Protecting Value in a World of QE & Fiat Currencies

In the posting immediately beneath this may be found a blog entry made at the start of last weekend concerning the tragic tale of  treason perpetrated against the people of Britain by their rulers over recent decades.

To complement that posting, I would here like to review another publication, which while touching upon some similar aspects of our slide towards EU tyranny, more explicitly highlights the wealth destroying aspects of this voracious new form of collective despotism, some have chosen to label post democracy.

Saxo Bank have issued a series of papers under the generalised heading: "Trading Debates White Papers".  To provide a general feel of the stature of the authors and the direct pithiness of the views expressed I first offer a few quotes:

Chapter One by Lars Seier Christiansen "Merkel's Lack of Vision is the Achilles' Heel of Europe" 'To be loyal towards your rulers in Brussels and disloyal to your own population often equals a great job and plenty of distinctions and stars, along with the illusion of political significance among your friends.' 

  Chapter Two by Vaclav Klaus "The Shattering of Illusions" 'On the contrary, Western Europe eagerly and voluntarily accepted die Soziale Marktwirkschaft (the Social Market economy). This unproductive, paternalistic, excessively over-regulated socio-economic system became further decimated in the following decades by the arrival of the market-hostile green ideolody of environmentalism.' 

'Greece made one fatal error-- to enter the Eurozone.' 

'..their way of thinking was evidently based on an almost communistic type of reasoning.' 

'The EU has conquered Europe and deprived it of its democracy.' 

Chapter Three by Nigel Farage "Is the UK Better Off Outside the EU" 'It is a tragedy that for the sake of an experiment, tens of millions of people in Southern Europe are being forced into poverty and misery.'

(On Cameron and Coalition) 'This is clearly a Prime Minister not in control and a government in total disarray'

'The EU is not just undemocratic it is fundamentally anti-democratic' 

The above I believe gives an ample taste of the quality of the comment and depths of the criticism of the EU; but there then follows paper after paper of financial advice from various experts at the Saxo Bank on the cost implications of the disaster now clearly underway, as laid out in the earlier papers. These titles cover a range of subjects, for example, "Is Merkel's Victory Europe's Wake-up Call?" through QE, the Euro and the Oil Markets to end bang up to date with a questioning paper entitled, "Forward Guidance, the Latest Fad".

All the above conclusions, of course, were predicted on my various blogs for more than ten years, but here in one downloadable file, ready for reading at will, (with the consequences which I previously could merely foretell), are now detailed as fait accompli

There are limited free copies available at this website:  Eventually, I  hope the "White Papers" may also be put on sale, in which case I will post details on this blog.

I left the world of oil and gas trading long ago, but were I a trader today, it would be a comfort to know that there was a financial institution with such clear insight on the state of the West, offering tools to try and preserve value, in such uncertain times, and with such faltering and misguided political leadership as we see today all across the EU!

NB: Martin Cole has no connections with Saxo Bank nor has he received payment of any kind in writing this freely offered review! Nor has it been submitted to Saxo Bank nor to the Authors of the quoted papers, for their prior review. Like all else  on my blogs and Twitter, it is what I think, that's all! 


Saturday, October 12, 2013

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,  4th 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 20th 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 18th 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]


Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

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:

Labels: , ,

Monday, October 07, 2013

Why Cameron wants to push EU Referendum beyond 31st March 2017

Last evening I received a message from an always reliable source the essence of which is the following:


On the 1st November 2014 the right of Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, the important ones, will be removed and be made subject to approval, by majority vote of the lying undemocratic and unelected bastards fronting the EU.
They call it QMV, Quality Majority Voting, which translates in English to: You’ll do what we tell you, or else.
Heath – Thatcher – Major – Blair – Brown, are all, by allowing this, acting in High Treason, but as every important Government post is now held by an EU Common Purpose trained thug, waiting to take over from elected local government officials from 1st November 2014, there seems to be little we can do about it.
Below, are the 43 areas of ‘competence’, areas we British have been declared incompetent to decide for ourselves.

Make a note of the last one because it says we cannot leave the EU unless the other members allow it.
On 1st November 2014 the following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only:
(43) Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Citizens' initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV


A brief review of the Treaties confirms the substance of the above. Transitional arrangements allow, only on specific votes, for the Nice Treaty Provisions to apply from 1st November 2014 until March 2017, hence I imagine PM David Cameron's determination to delay our referendum beyond that date, tying Britain for ever within the non-democratic, totalitarian and now clearly despotic EU.

All Parliamentarians must be made aware of the deep danger the nation now faces when casting their vote on the 2014 Referendum possibility that Adam Afriyie's referendum amendment has suddenly appeared to provide.

Labels: , , , , , ,