eurealist.co.uk

EU Referendum is about the only place where you can get real information on the formation of the EU Army, the only other place I have seen any reference, is the Booker column in the Telegraph and Christopher Booker gets his information from the same source as Richard North, Here you can read the evidence which unequivocally points to the adoption of a “Europe first” policy on defence procurement, and a gradual, even stealthy reorganisation of British armed forces aimed at harmonising both doctrines and equipment with continental forces which are clearly set out in a “defence paper” researched and written by Dr North.

The items which have been uncovered by this investigation are completely off the scale of normal reporting which we get from the main media outlets, it is as if the major media live on a totally different planet.

It is clear that even as the evidence mounts for this ongoing defence integration that it simply cannot happen without the proper statutory instruments which allow the government to proceed.

EU referendum

“What we suspected was that, following the summit meeting between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac in December 1998 at St. Malo - when Blair agreed to integrate Britain’s armed forces with those of the EU – there must have been a British government “directive” to the MoD telling it to adopt the new policy.

But, as we now learn, if there had been such a “directive” – and there surely must have been – this was not the primary executive instrument. This, it turns out was actually a new treaty, signed between the British government and five other nations – France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden – on 27 July 2000.”

But I hear you say; this new treaty passed through parliament, the people we elect must have agreed to so what’s the problem?

”The treaty itself was signed on behalf of the UK government by the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, at the Farnborough Air Show, an event that was completely missed by the mainstream media and reported by specialists in the same misleading terms as the treaty title, viz: “Six European Nations sign defence industry restructuring treaty.”

“What happened then demonstrates much of what is wrong with our system of government and what passes for parliamentary scrutiny. To sign the treaty, Hoon invoked “Crown prerogative”, but it then had to be ratified. To do this, the government applied what is known as the Ponsonby Rule which simply means that the treaty is “laid” before parliament for 21 days and, in the absence of an objection, is deemed to be approved – the so-called “negative procedure”.

Read the full details and request a copy of the “defence report” EU Referendum

And what of the opposition in Parliament were they asleep, or perhaps the argument that the Tories are against further EU integration is just more misinformation.

EU Referendum looks into to this aspect as well: The dog that didn’t bark

“One of central tenets of Conservative Party policy on defence, most recently repeated in the 2005 election manifesto is that it supports European co-operation on defence but strongly believes that such co-operation should take place within the framework of Nato.

Yet, despite the dramatic intensification of European defence integration pursued by Blair’s Labour government – to which, it would seem the Conservatives are opposed in principle – the Conservative front bench has been mute on the developments which have occurred since Blair’s agreement with Chirac at St. Malo to re-energise the process.”

This from A TANGLED WEB: A TANGLED WEB: AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP?: “AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP?

Get this. Last May, Labour won 36% of the vote, and the Conservatives won 33%. This resulted in 355 seats to Labour and 198 to the Conservatives. Had the Conservatives won 36% of the vote and Labour had come second with 33%, they would still have won a substantial majority of seats!

This all links back into the changes wrought by the Boundary Commission back in the early 1990’s. As a consequence of these alterations, the Conservatives won the 1992 election securing 43% of the vote but only enjoyed a 21 seat majority over Labour which won 34% of the vote!

Writing in the Spectator, Peter Oborne covers this vital area. It is disturbing to think that the UK has become a virtual elected dictatorship in which the leftists in Labour get to stay in power in perpetuity even though more people vote for the Conservative Party. It is also a MASSIVE damnation on goons like Norman Fowler who presided over the carve up of seats in such an ineffective way. Political debate in the UK has been forever changed by an unelected quango - the Boundary Commission - and it may mean that the Left rules us for the forseeable future.”

In the comments section somone argues for PR to solve this inbalance and argument I have seen several times, the answer: The problem here is not one of PR, in my opinion, but one of treating each Party fairly. In 2005, Labour voters cast 27,600 votes for each MP, Conservatives cast 45,000. How is that fair? It’s not, that’s how. It is a skew that is destroying our Parliamentary democracy by keeping Labour in power forever.

Commentators, have pointed out that the euro is a vulnerable currency because there is no government committed to a single decision-making authority. At a time of crisis one or more of the governments could decide the currency is no longer relevant.

So obviously there needs to be closer integration of the Euro states fiscal policies, this of course confirms Monnet`s idea that cooperation in one area will require closer cooperation in another and eventually the states will merge into one united block.
The Euro in Crisis report says unless EU-member states can agree a common taxation system and public spending policies, the future of the euro could be in doubt. It warns that slowing economic growth in the eurozone means member states should reduce public deficits rather than increase them.
The report says the 12 eurozone countries should centralise spending and taxation policy. Otherwise there was doubt whether the euro could survive.
Chief economist with Friends First Jim Power said success and survival of the euro depended on closer policies among EU nations. “You need a much more politically unified block. Fiscal policy needs to be more co-ordinated, and this will lead to a much closer union,” he said. “If the project is to survive in the long-term, we need central policies. To speak of the euro’s demise is exaggerating, but they must move to harmonisation.”
“If you have proper political union, every country should be viewed on individual merits. Ireland, which has a big requirement for capital spending, should be allowed to run deficits,” he said, adding that day-to-day spending on public services should be agreed among the 12 eurozone states.
In this way they will eventually for a United States of Europe.

The Telegraph today reports that Islamic extremists who incite violence or praise suicide attacks in Britain could face charges of treason. The head of the anti-terrorism department at the Crown Prosecution Service will meet senior officers at Scotland Yard this week to discuss what charges could be brought against preachers whose endorsement of the suicide attacks could incite further acts of terrorism.

I can not see the government allowing treason laws to be used, Tony Blair abolished the death penalty for treason along with 1795 act of treason in 1998, one of his first acts when he was elected. We would now have to refer to the Treason Act 1351. Although certain people have inquired for the reason the 1795 act was abolished the government do not seem to be able to give an answer, the debates in parliament at the time, were about abolishing the death penalty for treason, the abolition of the 1795 act was just tacked onto the end of the bill which was passed without debate.

The reason the government will not like this sort of legal action is because it would raise all sorts of questions relating to the EU, the question could be asked if it is treason to preach against the state, is it then not reasonable to assume that it is also treasonable to undermine the power of the state by allowing our laws to be dictated from outside. Would for instance those privy councillors who have taken an oath to uphold our constitution be in the firing line for signing treaties which have the affect of removing power from our parliament, or by using the royal prerogative in an innovative manner.

Who for instance is the a biggest traitor Omar Bakri Mohammed or Peter Mandelson one of them see his religion as greater than the state, and therefore recognises a higher authority than the British crown, and the other who was a privy councillor and took an oath to protect the British crown and serve only this state, has gone off to Brussels and taken another oath to serve another master. Both are guilty (if that is the correct term) of serving a system that does not accept the British crown as being the highest authority in the land. Accepted one of them gives support to people who will make bombs and blow up people, but that is a different matter, if we are going to use treason as the basis for a prosecution and not any other law, then it must be on the basis of not accepting the British Crown, it must be on the basis of working for a higher authority against the Crown.

The definition of treason is the act of betraying; betrayal of a trust undertaken by or reposed in anyone; a breach of faith, treachery. High Treason or Treason Proper is the violation of a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state, “if a man do levy war against our lord the kink in his realm” and “if a man be adherent to the kings enemies in his realm giving them aid an comfort in his realm or elsewhere.

As Omar Bakri Mohammed said he would not report to the police if he knew people were planning a (treasonable) offence if that is how terrorism is defined, then I would have thought that he would not himself be committing treason, he would however be committing the offence of misprision that is when a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report it imidiatly. This has been attempted when some people issued writs against government ministers for treason. In each case the attempts were ignored by the legal systems.

Where neither the primacy of the nation nor the authority of a sovereign is recognised, against whom is treason committed, recently the liberal internationalist ideas have been so successful that treason has an old-fashioned ring to it, along with the very idea of patriotism. It would be a bit rich at this stage when the very idea of the nation state is laughed at by internationalist, to suddenly commit someone to trial with a charge of treason against the nation state.

If treason is the conscious decision to act in a way which will weaken the integrity of the nation state, then our politicians are as guilty of committing treason as are Muslim clerics. Is not the abrogation of the sovereignty of the nation state by immersement in larger political entities and through the signing of treaties which restrict the opportunity for national self-determination also treason.

Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is irreconcilable with the Oath of Allegiance. There is an absolute constitutional case that there is no statute authority for the executive acts that have bound the UK to the EEC, this is contrary to the interests of the Crown and people.

The High Court of Great Britain disallowed an Act which was passed by our House of Commons and House of Lords and received the Royal Assent. This Act was the Shipping Act of 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. This was the first case in the history of parliament that an Act passed by both houses of parliament with the Royal Assent and the regulations under it have been set aside. A British Court has interfered with an act of parliament in the interests of a foreign court. Is this not High Treason.

If we are having to go back to the Treason Act 1351to find laws that can punish a Muslim cleric, then why not go back a bit further to the Magna Charta, or indeed why not two years before to 1353 when Edward III by his statute of Praemunire forbade appeals being made to foreign courts. Or even less far into antiquity to Richard II who came to the throne in 1377 and issued a Statute of Praemunire which stated that anyone who procures from Rome or any other place any thing which touches the King, against him or his Crown or realm and all those aiding and abetting them shall be out of the King’s protection. Blackstone, states that Praemunire is “introducing a foreign power into the land and creating an Imperium in Imperio [State within a State] by paying obedience to other processes which constitutionally belong to the King alone.

All of which means that today’s politicians will not want to open the particular can of worms by allowing a prosecution under any treason act unless they are exempt.