eurealist.co.uk

Not in my name

I forget where I stole most of this from but do extend my thanks to the person who did most of the work.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has forced EU citizenship on me, which is in breach of article 20 (2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?

Article 20. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

I am unable to exhaust available remedies as the UK Human Rights Act 1998 does not allow me to challenge parliament.

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

6.- (3) In this section “public authority” includes-

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

Recently in the UK, we have been faced with two new and highly questionable charters of Human Rights, both of which seek to prohibit discrimination. I am told my ‘rights and freedoms are secured without discrimination on any grounds such as…association with a national minority…birth or other status’. Since the UK government has foolishly subscribed to these terms it must abide by them. By attempting to impose an unwanted foreign citizenship on me they are directly breaching my human rights, as defined above.

I have a right and freedom to be a subject of the crown, and to be described as English within the UK. By being described as an EU citizen as well, I am being discriminated against as a member of the English minority in the EU. On these grounds alone, logic would suggest they should now withdraw mine and all other unwanted EU Citizenships and EU passports.

Questions.
1. How can the EU (a non-country) claim it can impose citizenship on me without my agreement?

2. Where in law does the state take the right to create the notion that dual-citizenship is somehow compulsory?

3. Where in law does the UK parliament claim sovereignty over my birthrights?

4. Given the terms of the oath sworn by the monarch of the UK at her coronation, and the oaths sworn by her ministers and senior civil servants, how do they explain or attempt to justify the present inherent and fundamental contradictions involved?

5. At one stage in the EU’s metamorphosis, the issuing of an EU passport was merely a ‘recommendation’ by the EU. In which case, was citizenship merely a recommendation, too? And is it still?

6. What happens to the legal status of supposed citizenship if and when the EU purports to seize ‘legal personality’ for itself in the forthcoming European Constitution, after which it can then claim to be a country?

European Constitution
Article I-8: Citizenship of the Union

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall
not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties
provided for in this Constitution.

I do not accept that unelected Eurocrats in any way have the right to claim power of life and death over me, have the power to allow me to marry or have children, or to decide if I may or may not have freedom of association or may join a union. Or that they have the right to allow me to work, or own a home, or business, or allow me to worship any god of my own choosing,

I do not accept that unelected Eurocrats have the right to define my rights to vote for any political party I may wish, or have the right to define political parties, or to define which laws I must obey and any punishment I may incur if I do not obey their law.

The charter appears to be based on the cretinous idea that mere unelected officials can grant rights and freedoms to free-born Britons.

I do not wish to be a citizen of the EU or any other name it gives itself; it does not act for me; it does not represent me; I owe it no allegiance, and I refuse to accept any rights and or duties it purports to bestow on me.

I do not accept that the British parliament has the right to force me to be a traitor to my country, or that they themselves have that right. I do not accept that the British parliament has the right by its own constitutional documents to force Britain and British people to accept rule by a foreign power that we the British people do not have the ultimate sovereignty over.
The time has come to remind them that our rights and freedoms are not in the gift, nor at the mere discretion of a passing parade of petty bureaucrats, or our elected government. They answer to us, not the other way around
As long ago as 1621, Parliament itself said that it could not diminish or give away its own powers. The British people are free to withdraw their consent from a Parliament at any time, and have the right to use any means to regain control of their sovereignty.
The Bill of Rights, 1689, is still the statute law of this country. The suggestion that it is just an ancient statute and no longer relevant under modern conditions, is invalid. The authority of the Bill of Rights was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement in November 2001. Desuetude (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law.
On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’ The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void. It specifically forbids handing power to foreigners.

The Bill of Rights proclaims what were then taken to be self-evident freedoms, which exist by right, and nothing has changed that situation lawfully over the intervening years. The Bill includes the words: ‘…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.’

We must reclaim our Constitution and the rule of our law from the supposed divine right of our politicians.

The Bedouins Camel

When I was small I use to curl up comfortable and warm on my father knee, whilst he would tell me stories, my father was not a particularly moral man, but his stories always had a moral attached somewhere. I do not know this was intentional education on my father’s part, or if these stories were the only ones he remembered but educate they did, and although now I cannot remember those stories they are inside my subconscious somewhere, because occasionally, almost as the need for them appears so does the attached story with its guide toward the correct part to take.

The Bedouins Camel is one such story, and as many will know concerns the fate of a wandering Bedouin who as evening dew near decided to camp for the night. Although it is very hot in the desert in the day when the sun is out, at night it becomes very cold. In the middle of the night the Bedouin awoke to find that his camel had put its nose inside the tent, Oh master cried the camel it is so very cold out here, do you mind if just put my nose inside your nice warm tent, that kindness will be such a blessing and God will bless you for this little kindness on such a cold night, a little later the camel again spoke and said oh master it is so warm in the tent do you mind if I just put my ears in your nice warm tent, obviously little by little the camel got more and more of itself inside the tent until eventually the Bedouin found himself outside in the cold, whilst his camel was the sole occupant of the tent which he now considered as his own.

Now of course the morel of the story is if the camel had come right out and asked the Bedouin for his tent all of us know the short answer he would have received (well perhaps not all of us)

This children’s story is the best description of the Monnet Method I have heard, it clearly shows the method that has been and still is the main driver towards a European super state.

The moral of which is if Ted Heath in 1972 or Mr Wilson in 1975 had said to the British people there’s this dream of a nation to be forged out of all the countries in Europe, we want your authority to join with the other countries to form a central government which will make all our laws and run the whole of Europe. To do this we need to ask you to give up the rights you presently have to elect your government. Then when we have formed this country called Europe, we will set about breaking up Britain into regions, which will have their own parliament and each parliament will report directly to the state government, until eventually there will be no need to have a government of Britain because all of the decisions will be made in Brussels and implemented by the regions, all of us know what the answer would have been (well perhaps not all of us).

So what was decided instead was to break the policy up into bite size pieces, so that each piece would be easier to digest and as each piece was passed into EU law, that itself would then become be the impetus for the next piece, and so on. Of course several strands could be run concurrently to each other so we see in practice integration moving forward in different areas at the same time, then of course advances in one area can be used to require complimentary advances in a different area. In this way the whole European edifice is being constructed little by little brick by brick until eventually the dream of a united European continent will appear from the mists of confusion the Monnet system creates.

The Monnet approach also has the added benefit to those who are involved in the construction to hide their eventual aims, we see this to often to mention, but the arguments are always the same, those doing the building, project themselves as the future the forward thinkers the ones who are trying to do something to alleviate the problems and elevate mankind to a higher plane. Of course should anyone stand in their way, these people are cast as the laggards the little Englanders the one who refuse to get on board the ones who have a vested interest and would like to see us all return to the dark ages etc.

But what of us, those who can already see the final construction and do not like it, and have grown weary of all the lies and disinformation, what do we do. In short what we do is to fight every step towards building the structure on the ground of the builders, in the main we do not look at the big picture, we argue instead to stop a particular brick being cemented into place. Sometimes we win a battle and that brick is placed aside, but only for the time being, sooner or later the builders will need that brick and will return to the fray with renewed enthusiasm and new reasons and so on, all we have achieved at most is to delay part of the structure for a little while.

What we EUsceptics really need to do is to bring the whole building down, but how to achieve that becomes harder all the time, the builders have been very busy, building a network of supporters in high places, the political parties, the education system, local government, national government, the Foreign office and law departments the media, big business, charities, so much so that which ever way one turns we find people in powerful positions in every walk of life who are all determined to do one thing and that is to create a country called Europe.

Many of these people are wholly or partially supported by our own money given for their research projects or EU promotional projects, through our own government and the EU. These are the elites the ones who spend their lives undermining our own constitution and our norms, garnering accolades from others in the set for doing so. We hear and see professor so and so, who has done this or that report for some department or other, this supposedly independent report that just happens to show the only way forward is through Europe, this report is of course then used by Sir such and such or the right honourable something or other, to prove the point. It is like a dangerous new style old boys and girl’s network who will willingly leap the barricades to defend the breach if any of their schemes gain too much adverse attention from the media. Last week I wrote about Sir Stephen Wall, a leading Foreign Office mandarin. Who has been a special adviser to two British Prime Ministers yet now admits that all the time he has been working against the wishes of the British people. So if we are going to achieve anything other than a delay in the inevitable we need to do something about this establishment of Europhiles we really do need to do something about the BBC and other media outlets which do not consider the British way, important enough to report on let alone support.

There are, people working to undermine the foundations of the EU in Britain, these people deserve all our help and encouragement in their efforts to show that the British Constitution will not allow any government to give away its powers. There are those like Neil Herron from the North East who is on the front line of the present battle on devolution if they loose in the North East then game is up because the next fight will be that much harder to win and even if that fight is won the battle will be lost because we all know we cannot possibly have just one part of the country with regional government and the rest not, and they are not going to remove the elected parliament once it is in place.