eurealist.co.uk

Part Three
This is a Country that is allegedly doing battle in Iraq to bring to the people of Iraq, “Democracy”. Yet we see time and time again that the Government of this country totally ignores the people wishes. We need “democracy” here desperately. We thought we had democracy but in reality, we find it was only an illusion.

Much of the destruction of our constitution has been done by “the threat” of terrorism, and although I pray that we never have to suffer a real terrorist attack, I fear our Government’s reaction to a terrorists attack almost as much as an attack itself.

All British nationals have a duty defend their Queen and their Country. This too is the great difference between a Foreign National and a British National and it is a great pity the British Judges ruled the way they chose. They saw, in their wisdom, that the rule of law was to put the European Convention on Human Rights before this Country’s Common Law Rights, yet our politicians believe that the UK Parliament prevails, they are unhappy at the Judges ruling, but the Judges are actually obeying UK law for it was this Government that incorporated the ECHR into our Law.
Whether it is ‘right’ to take note of the Convention on Human Rights yet pay no attention to our Constitution, is another matter entirely for are they not both part of our Constitution? But I speak as an ordinary citizens (subject of Her Majesty), and not as a judge.

There is proof beyond doubt that our Common Law Constitution is still valid and applicable-every bit of it-for it has recently been recorded in the debates on the Civil Contingencies Bill (now Act). On each new Act is a quote to the effect that the new Act is compatible with the Human Rights Act. I believe that it should also be recorded that it is compatible with our Constitution as a whole.

A decision therefore has to be made soon to the question, “where does true Kompetenz Kompetenz lie”? International law, European Union Law, or our Country’s Constitutional law? We shall see for the game isn’t played out yet.

However, have the Judges nudged the British people a little by their judgement? Enough to open one sleeping eye? What happens when the people become fully awake for are they not the sleeping giant at the moment?

The times may well be changing, but there may also come a time too when our politicians will not be able to walk down the street without being stopped, just the same as the people are now when they are stopped and asked to produce papers, ID Cards, explanations as to why they are out? Where are they going? Breathe into this or that, even though that person might not drink alcohol at all and does not take drugs. The police once had to have a good reason to ‘stop’ and search etc. Yet one day these same police may still want people to be their ‘friends’! Should the British FBI (SOCA) come into being, then it could be a march to a police station and possibly intimate searches may well take place, with or without consent, and data stored forever and shared with many other organisations and Countries. I suggest every one should read the proposals for this Serious Organised Crime Agency.

The Freedom we once had has not been lost because of terrorists from abroad, our own government has removed this freedom from us, they have done the work of the terrorists. It may seem we have more to fear from our own Government than we have from terrorists. To destroy our Constitution is an act of treason and it is also a cowardly act by traitors. Fine words, but how many people have been to Court to try to uphold our constitution? Quite a number of people but they are finding the law on “Treaties” rather tricky, especially when Government says time and again that Parliament is still sovereign for all they have to do is to repeal the European Communities Act (1972). (I am aware of the ruling that the Treaty of Rome was declared as being somewhat different to ‘ordinary’ Treaties, and I am also mindful of Lord Denning’s ruling re repudiating Treaties and saying expressly so) However, the Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe is just that, establishing a CONSTITUTION for all its Member States, a Constitution that contains its own withdrawal clause which, should we ratify the Constitution through referendum, we would have willingly and knowingly agreed to all its contents.

If any member of this Government wanted to be remembered in history, the actions that they are taking now will cause them eventually to hope the people will have short memories and will not be able to remember even their name, never mind the ‘history’ that they are making today. The people have never forgotten Guy Fawkes and the people will never forget this Government, or the Official Opposition Party that forgot what the word ‘opposition’ meant, the Official Opposition has time to change and remember that ‘meaning’. I hope they do.

I leave you with one final thought. Terrorists, particularly the terrorists that slammed into the twin towers on 9/11, would, I feel sure and without any doubt what so ever, if they could have smuggled an atomic device, a “dirty bomb” on board, or used chemical/anthrax, they would have done so. Did these ‘terrorists’ have any thoughts of the Convention on Human Rights? Are we dealing with a type of terrorist we have not had to deal with before? People that are prepared to die and take as many people with them as possible? I happen to think that it does not really matter how you die for once dead, you remain dead. People died through war, through IRA bombing taking young innocent lives away without a thought, and it usually is the innocent that suffers every time.

Have the IRA won through their bombing? Will they have a one Island of Ireland? Will Gibraltar no longer have to fight to remain British because it will eventually be in one country called Europe? Will the terrorists win with their campaign? Isn’t one man’s terrorist another person’s freedom fighter? So, will the people see that bombing was worth it, that it has got them what they wanted in the end? Will the message get across that violence really does win? Without a care in the end for other people’s Human Rights? But I also have to ask, how many innocent people could be incarcerated for years without end? Without trial? Without charge? Is that right too?

I have asked the questions. Can the Judge’s give me an answer? Anne Palmer.

Pt Two
There is a great difference between British Nationals and foreign Nationals and if that difference is not clear to Judges then British nationals-all 56 million-should fight against discrimination. To believe that British nationals and foreign nationals should be treated equally misses the point in having separate Countries, separate Constitutions, or having Laws at all if one Country is no different than any other

The Queen’s protection extends to all British people even when abroad, but not to foreign nationals. Our oath of allegiance also brings with it “duties” such as conscription. It is against our Constitution to recruit foreign nationals into any of our services or the magistracy and the same applies to serving in the British Police Force, and for which the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty is also clearly set out in ancient law. The time may come when, should a British national be charged of an alleged offence directly by a foreign national serving in our Police Service, British citizens will see the dangers and challenge the decision. It is after all the people’s Common Law, a compact between the Crown and the people and one that should be respected by any government of this Realm.

In a recent article the Daily Mail called the proposed Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) “The British FBI”, and pointed out that members of that organisation will not swear allegiance to the Crown. I suggest that if ever the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” is ratified, SOCA will eventually come under the control of Europol. If SOCA was designed to remain completely under British authority (Sovereignty), there is absolutely no reason why they should not swear allegiance to the Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. Our Police, if we remain in the European Union, will eventually no longer swear allegiance to the Crown-from the report and previous comments here, this is happening in certain places already- and in time, under the EU constitution our Police Force will be part of the European Police Force. I think many people are coming to realise that the process of abolishing our proud Regiments of Scotland is all part of preparing to belong the proposed European Union’s Army-the Rapid Reaction Force-the European Defence etc.

Our Courts will also become the European Union’s Courts and in fact are referred to as this now in European Union documentation, even though the Royal Coat of Arms is still on display behind the Judges chair. Our laws are already being changed, not because WE want them changed but to become “compatible” with the Continental system of law known as Corpus Juris.

A British Government may eventually begin to see that we should never have joined the European Community in 1972, and in fact there are those that believe our involvement in it is unlawful/illegal and has been ever since 1972. This may even be seen to be the correct assumption yet for there is enough evidence to show that most politicians from the 1950’s onwards, knew that the European Community was to eventually become a Political Union.

The present Government have deliberately set out to put the Union’s needs for further and deeper integration, (as according to the treaties they have signed) before their own Country. What they will probably get is civil war because the vast majority of people will come to understand what our politicians are doing or have done already and we will have eventually our own violent bloody situation here on mainland Britain as there has been in Northern Ireland.

The Government knows for instance that the vast majority of people do not want to have Identity Cards nor all the information on them given away to any organisation that wants to make use of it. Against all opposition, the government will get its way and to prevent any action against ID cards, they will make sure that people will be fined heavily (suggested fine £2000) if they do not turn up to give details, fingerprints, biometric etc and give the authorities the information they require. Most will have to comply should they require Passports, for ID cards will be automatically be issued with them. Why is all this necessary? What for? Because it is a European wide ID card. Big brother is watching you-all of the time.

The IRA fought all along for one Island of Ireland, they will get that under the EU constitution as will the Island of Cyprus also become one whole. However, in the eyes of the European Union they will be classed as “Regions” as are Scotland and Wales (recorded and explained as such in the Scottish Parliament-meeting No 7 22nd May 2001 by Manfred Dammeyer from the Committee of the Regions)

That is of course as long as they do not mind being governed from the “Heart” of the European Union for all time to come, to recognise the Union flag, sing the European Union anthem, stand up and respect it and obey Union laws and fight when they say fight no matter whether they want to or not, to become in fact an EU National. Many organisations will be deemed “Criminal” and hounded out as they are being done at the moment. (It is of no importance whether you think this is right or not-you will not be asked-your opinion does not matter- it is not respected now-get used to it.)

From Anne Palmer Pt one
Belmarsh detainees, and other matters. December 2004.

It was sheer folly for this country to officially adopt the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. (Shock, Horror-how could I suggest such a thing?) Prime Minister Blair was advised of the many disadvantages this would hold for us, and he was advised in particular about the loss of sovereignty if he took the course of action he was set on. We have, over the years seen for ourselves this to have been truthful and wise advice.

From the moment that people are born here in The United Kingdom of Great Britain, they have the protection of the Crown and, without uttering a word, bear allegiance to the Crown. The Crown is the continuity, the safeguard that makes this Country different from other countries. To bear “allegiance” to Government places too much power in the hands of a would be dictator. This has never before shown itself to be so patently obvious than under this present Government.

The reason that “foreign nationals” are treated differently to British nationals is that the British are sworn to defend their Queen and Country, foreign nationals are not, but there is a strong likelihood that they are sworn to defend their own particular Country. The Law Lords have found that foreign nationals should, according to the Convention on Human Rights, be treated the same as British nationals. We have seen in recent years a change in the swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen (Crown) such changes are not in accordance with our Common Law Constitution.

Under the times we live in, and the constant threat from terrorists, it appears that our present Government believes there is a need to hold foreign nationals for a longer period without charge or trial, but there surely should come a time when, (and a time limit should be made clear and according to our Constitution) if there is not enough evidence these foreign nationals should either be charged or deported from this Country. This is a government that has thrived on the “fear” of terrorism, yet left open its borders allowing any would be terrorists easy access into this Country. A serious threat should have automatically brought about the closing of borders throughout the European Union. This would have been a sensible precautionary measure for the safety not only of this Country, but also for all continental Countries-it may even have prevented the Madrid bombings, instead, terrorists as well as the people have been given free access to all countries in the EU.

If the excuse is given that charging them would/may jeopardise our security services when giving evidence, (whether on the cases above-Belmarsh- and or other cases) two questions should be asked, do we come up with evidence or are foreign nationals to be incarcerated in prison for the rest of their lives? The second question should be, what or whose “security services” are we protecting? Is it the same security bodies whose competence and integrity must surely be questionable following such flawed evidence which was presented to justify going to the terrible on-going war in Iraq?

There is no doubt what so ever, the safety of the people in this Country must be at the forefront of minds, but if there is reason to put people in Prison, there is reason to charge them. If ‘security’ are in danger because of the giving of evidence, and we have seen from the proceedings in Northern Ireland where soldiers in danger of their lives have had to give evidence certain precautions had to be made, so can our security services also be provided with that same protection? If, on the other hand through the giving of such evidence, State secrets might be in danger of becoming ‘common knowledge’, then even further precautions (held in camera) must be taken, but taken it most certainly should. One person’s freedom cannot be held against another persons freedom? Both should be judged equally surely?

The simple answer is that we should withdraw from the Convention on Human Rights. Foreign Nationals should, when found to be a danger to this Country and this Country’s own nationals, yet not enough ‘evidence to convict’, should be sent back to their own Country. There are treason and other laws already in place that are adequate to deal with British nationals that would work against this Country its laws and its Constitution. This Government has made and agreed to so many new laws, then surely they can make new laws that would deal with such a situation? As certain “Treason Laws” were repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, I put forward that new up to date treason laws should be brought in. We cannot do without such laws for our Queen, Country and Constitution need more protection in ‘today’s’ world than at any other time in history.

After the EU Commission recently suspended disciplinary procedures for budget deficits against France and Germany, they have decided to pick on the smaller states instead, and are to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Hungary and Greece for breaking the rules underpinning the euro, because the budget deficits of both these countries surpasses the three percent limit set by the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact, as of course does France and Germany’s. But the Commission would not dream of applying the same rules to the big boys, as perhaps they carry to much weight to tangle with.

If this Union is not supposed to be about running the thing for the sole benefit of France and Germany, perhaps spreading an equally amount of pain around a bit more, would help convince doubters that the thing is fair. I do not see any reason for the French and Germany people to be let off from the problems of meeting the Growth and Stability Pact which their own governments insisted on, whilst the Hungarian Greek, the Portuguese and the other governments are having to impose very painful policies on their people to try to meet those same obligations, this only has the effect of allowing a false sense of well-being in the big countries.