Dear Correspondent Please see my interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89h0pCV5Mcs It is unusual for a substantial period of rule, by a single party, to be succeeded by an indecisive election; and, when it is, the result tends to signal the beginning of an unusually fundamental change in the country's attitudes and goals and, thus, in the arrangement of its political parties also. Typically, a series of temporary coalitions follows, as the establishment attempts to shore up the old order; but, eventually, a major party is superseded - as was the Liberal Party, in 1923 - and is replaced by some more vital force. In 1923, it was the Labour Party, whose advocacy of better conditions, for the urban poor, finally, and rightly, received recognition. Today, the issue, which the establishment is refusing to recognise, is the perilous and unconstitutional transfer of British sovereignty to Brussels - and, thereby, the demise of the self-determination of the British electorate. However the BBC, and other media, may attempt to distract attention from this fundamental question - without consideration of which next Thursday's election would be without meaning - the electorate is decidedly uneasy about the limited options being presented to it. Hence the indecision portrayed in the opinion-polls (insofar as they are at all reliable) and the distinct possibility of an outcome featuring fragile alliances between parties of the incumbent pro-EU cartel. The BBC et al. are also attempting to portray a small, unelectable, fascist party as the only alternative to this cartel, hoping that many will not notice UKIP, the Party, which came second in the nation-wide election, last June, and which I heartily recommend to you, as the only party dedicated to restoring the sovereignty of the electorate, to governing the United Kingdom in her own interests, to nurturing her self-respect and to linking her with the British Commonwealth, continental Europe, the USA and elsewhere, as a fair, vigorous and independent trading-partner. Yours sincerely Finally, at the risk of being accused of overkill, here is Anne Palmer's latest column that explains the issue further: IGNORE OUR CONSTITUTION AT YOUR PERIL. 24.4.2010 by Anne Palmer So very near to the General Election now and it is still difficult to know what to expect when the votes are cast. On reading some of the "Blogs" the people's anger at what is happening seems to be at boiling point. Yet nothing, at this moment in time, seems to get through to the three leaders of the major political Parties. Only UKIP seems to have got the message, and at this late hour, I urge all those that have said they will change and vote UKIP, actually do. Put your Country before your Party, for if you don't you will surely lose both. I have recently read the Parliamentary Standards Bill, which touches on our Bill of Rights, remembered now by some MPs because they want to use it for themselves, mainly Article 1X of the Bill that reads: "That the Freedome of Speech and Debates in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament". The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 are still fully in operation and part of our constitution, as is Magna Carta. I am aware that people say that there are only four articles left in Magna Carta the rest having been repealed. However, some years ago, I collected a hundred pages from Hansard (I stopped at a hundred) where certain clauses, that had allegedly been repealed, had been used to emphasize a point to win an argument. I find that "odd" to say the least, for how can you "win" an argument when something is allegedly repealed and is therefore no longer applicable? Clause 61, Magna Carta, a clause that allegedly was repealed, was last used by four Members of the House of Lords, chosen from twenty-five Members of the Lords, to hand in a petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the time of the Treaty of Nice. The petition was accepted and acknowledged by Her Majesty although no action was taken. I understand, through a Private Member's Bill on the Law of Succession, there is an attempt in securing agreement among the Parliaments of all 16 Commonwealth Realms to alter the Act of Settlement. Noted also, the Treaty and Act of Union Article XXII requires 16 Peers in the House of Lords and I understand this Government wishes to "get rid" of ALL the Hereditary Peers so, will the Treaty "fall" and Scotland become a separate Country, and the United Kingdom no longer united? There were only Hereditary Peers in those days and of course there is a great difference between "Life" Peers and "Hereditary" Peers, because if not, why change? Scotland of course with its spanking new Parliament, is, as far as the EU is concerned, a Region of the European Union. Manfred Dammeyer (Committee of the Regions) when he visited the Scottish Parliament on 22 May 2001 made quite clear when he said, "We have to respect that Scotland is a nation but, at the European Level, and in the European discussion, Scotland is like a region." Actually, Scotland is just one of the 12 EU Regions throughout the UK and Northern Ireland. Governments of the UK between them have done a wonderful demolition job for the European Union except we didn't get paid for doing it, we paid the EU for letting us do it, for them. I have mentioned the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta because, although the Treaty of Lisbon makes clear it has "Competence over national constitutions and laws, our Government did not ask the people in a referendum if this is OK with them. BIG MISTAKE. Magna Carta is a Treaty between the British Crown and the people, and I have confirmation that the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 are also beyond the reach our Parliament, they must also be out of reach of the European Union. This is what makes this Country so very different from the other Countries especially those with written Constitutions. This is why our Constitution has lasted hundreds of years. However, maybe the Government have already realised their mistake and are now trying to rectify it by bringing out a new written Constitution and/or Bill of Rights for the people to accept in a referendum BECAUSE by voting to accept the new - which I am sure the people will be encouraged to do by which ever new Government will be in place, perhaps in the doing, would destroy the old. Yet Magna Carta has much work left to do, particularly Clause 61. That is what our Common Law Constitution is there for -to be used -and so it shall be invoked once more. Maybe that is what our Politicians fear? The EU will swallow up any new Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the proposed new Sovereignty Act that a new Government of this Country might bring out, even if the people think it is a good idea, because "it has competence over them". So whom are our politicians trying to kid? Clause 61 Magna Carta is just crying out to be used once more. It depends on the outcome of the General Election and our involvement in the European Union whether it will be used or not. As was made clear on Question Time 24.2.2010, when debating the Bankers, and the taxpayers' money they have used for their Bonuses, it was brought home very strongly that it is indeed the taxpayer's money that is being used. It is our money that is used for MPs and Government's wages and the vast expenses they have so recently "taken advantage" of. Plus, while so many people are losing their jobs, there has been no reduction whatsoever in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Why not? If the EU is in fact making 80% of our laws plus we now have all 12 EU Regions, the buildings to pay for and all in them, why hasn't there been a big reduction? It is indeed OUR Money that has, and IS, being used. Without our money nothing gets done. Nothing gets done in our Country and none of it goes to the EU. Hold on to that thought. It has been suggested that VAT be increased. A percentage of VAT (it used to be 4%, I have no idea if that remains so now) goes to the EU. We have enough to do to help ourselves without filling EU coffers. A better way must be found other than VAT. However, our Country appears to be being deliberately destroyed in the "losing" of so many great industries through following EU Competition Laws to the letter, even our essential services are owned by foreigners, our Forces have been trimmed to "fit in" with the EU's desires to have an EU Army, Air-Force and EU Navy, the latter has been on duty re Somalia, so there is no point in anyone saying, "It will never happen". In a General Election or even a Referendum, I am no longer sure I even trust any British politician to run either of them fairly - it grieves me to say that too. Will the ballot boxes be empty when delivered? Will there be a massive Postal Vote that no one can trust? Will our Forces get a vote? Prisoners get the "right" to vote, after 140 years, following a ruling of European Court of Human Rights, even though many people feel these convicts never gave a second thought to the rights of others when they committed their crimes. Will the Ballot Boxes be guarded all the time? With those we can trust? We trusted politicians with our Country and look what happened. In Derek's April Magazine I pondered how we could be made real EU Citizens by looking at the Constitution of the USA. When our MPs were debating Citizenship before they ratified Maastricht, a number of MPs also believed that it was on the way to making us all real citizens anyway. Others did not believe them. If you want to see how the EU could ensure no country could ever leave the EU, once again look at the Constitution of the USA although much of how it can happen is already in the Treaty of Lisbon. It depends on the interpretation. Firstly a snippet from the USA Constitution, ". Following the Civil War United States Supreme Court, in Texas v White held that states did not have the right to secede and that any act of secession was legally void." Remember also that I doubt that we could even fight our way out of the EU now because this Government has already reduced our forces to comply with fitting in with the EU's proposed EU Defence programme. This Labour Government has paid 13.74 million pounds since 2004 to the European Defence Agency with an estimated 4.01 million for 2010. (Hansard). This at a time when Prime Minister Brown is to cancel a big order for helicopters and while our forces are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Helicopters are the vehicles most in need out there. I digress - but it gets me so ANGRY. We know states can withdraw from the EU because Greenland did in 1985. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Art 54 a unilateral withdrawal is excluded, unless it is explicitly included in the Treaty. Such a withdrawal clause was in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, now in the Treaty of Lisbon. However, I wrote to the Vienna Convention and the UN pointing out that the Treaty of Lisbon did not comply with certain articles in the Convention that the deliberately muddled Treaty did not meet. I had no reply from either. However, my argument stands, for it still does not meet their requirements. The EU Treaties are based on an "Ever closer Union", Deeper and more meaningful integration", "to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" etc, with an unlimited duration which does not seem to imply any intention to admit withdrawal by the ratification of it. With any of those clauses or similar in a Treaty, even with a withdrawal Clause, it could be deemed that those signing it had no intention of ever withdrawing. If a Government decided not to accept a Treaty, that it was felt that it was a Treaty too far, then that might help a case for withdrawing especially if it could be shown that there had been no agreement as the treaty was being formed. However, it should be remembered that Lisbon now has its own legal order. EU law has supremacy over national law. (costa v ENEL Case 6/64, ECR 585) EU Law has direct effect. (Van Gend en Loos Case 26.62.) And pre-emption. To secede from the EU contradicts EU law, which, as already stated is superior to national law. In other words, unilateral withdrawal cannot be allowed not only in international law but also according to EU law. Unless, the withdrawal clause can be upheld. Maybe a future Political party would repeal the European Communities Act 1972? It is to this that our two major political Parties between them have brought us. No wonder at this stage, they have no inclination to talk about the European Union. There is no need of another Treaty, although Germany might want one, but would the people get a vote on it? Would a political party be chosen by the people that would say "NO", "NO", "NO" as Margaret Thatcher once did? However, there is indeed another way, and that is through invoking Magna Carta once more and a second Glorious Revolution. "Glorious" in the fact that it was not violent. Used once more by the people this time not just by four Lords of Her Majesty's Realm. We shall see. Remember though, as long as people keep voting for a Political Party that wants to remain in the EU, the Queen cannot go against the vast majority of people in Her Realm. The Treaty of Lisbon is not compatible in the least with our Constitution; the ratification of it without the people's agreement is questionable to say the least. Not voting is not an option. And, make sure you and all those you know, vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Your vote will determine the survival of your country (please forward)
Hello, this is Don Hank of http://laiglesforum.com. Laigle's is a US-based web site but we know that freedom is sputtering everywhere and if the EU has its way with you, it will have its way with the rest of the world too (I now live in Panama and we are already being dictated to by our new trading partner, the EU, on things like local crime, local fishing and, of course, the ever-present global warming (thanks to EU largesse, you kind folks just sent a generous donation to some wealthy Panamanian investors who want to build a hydroelectric plant. It is supposed to be an incentive NOT to build a coal-fired plant, but oddly, no one would ever think of building one of those here, what with our abundant rivers! And you no doubt know about the Tata Steel/Redcar scandal that cost you 7400 jobs and over a billion pounds of your hard-earned cash).
What can you do to restore sanity and sovereignty? YOU can vote UKIP, the only credible party promoting sovereignty.
First, please read what Peter Hitchens says about the LibLabCons and the uselessness of voting for them. There is only one party he does NOT specifically condemn as treacherous, and that is UKIP. I am far from you physically, but from all I am reading, I would have to say UKIP is the only viable choice for now, since no one else has convincingly stood up for UK sovereignty except that party.
Then please read what UKIP says about themselves in the press release they sent me, and listen to Nigel Farage on video:
If you no longer want to hear from us, kindly respond with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Posts
