I cannot but underline M S words.  

If the R EAL ‘Grass- R oots’ don’t take our corrupted party back quickly, from the ‘worms in the brain’ of central office, it will be lost with the rest of the country in the New Islamic Caliphate of Britain.  He is a very able QC, read his message below.
My learned friend Leo Price QC was quite right.  As I was one of Christopher's sources on Heath - which was not denied by the German or British Governments by the way - I can confirm the intel on Heath.

Nigel is a nice chap, but he's not a lawyer, and UKIP appear to favour staying in the EEA, so they tend to downplay corruption.

Of course the UK can withdraw without notice under either provision mentioned by Leo, although the better view is that say a 6 month notice period ought to be given under the material change of circumstances article.

At the end of the day UKIP's view scarcely matters, because only a Tory Govt will pull the UK out.  UKIP are unlikely to win any seats in the next General Electoin, although they and Labour are now in a race for poll position in next year's Euro elections.

Cameron appears to have firmly ruled out an in/out referendum this morning - at any rate he has left plenty of wiggle room.  His strategy appears to be to conduct bad faith negotiations with the EU knowing they will fail, which would get him out of his weak promise to put the result of any such renegotiations to the electorate.

The German Ambassador, a more powerful figure in British politics than the PM, has ruled out a renegotiation, although a fake Edinburgh style agreement which could be spun as a renegotiation would always be on the table.

The answer for the Tory R ight is to replace Cameron in the spring, break up the Coalition and go to the country on a platform of outright withdrawal (no EEA and no membership of the so-called Single Market), having first had the new Chancellor announce the true costs of membership, which the Treasury calculate at roughly £4 billion a week.


,,, then why is UKIP failing to state this matter of law in every statement
that Nigel makes publicly?

Is UKIP merely a wing of the Tory Party, to get the best deal for Britain
within this Fascist union? .....






 OPEN LETTER

Dear ap
The government are being disingenuous, and downright dishonest, when they
babble on about (a) repatriating powers and (b) offering a referendum.

WE DON'T NEED A R EFE R ENDUM TO LEAVE THE EU, WE CAN JUST LEAVE!

Leolin Price QC stated in the International Currency R eview 2005
“Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there are two key
provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or
multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.
 1. *Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of it's
implementation.*
*snipped - *European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with

corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to
cover up with declining success.
* *
*2. Where there has been material change of circumstances.*
*snipped* - A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the
daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath*. It has

been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt
payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the
nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his
handlers to lead them - and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign
power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.”*

This invalidates all of the Treaties signed both in 1972 and subsequently,
according to the:
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
“*Article 69, Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty “, *
which states:* *
*“1. A treaty, the invalidity of which is established under the present
Convention is void. The provisions of a void treaty have no legal force.” *

Therefore any Laws, Directives and Statutes made on direction of the EU or
the incumbent governments since 1972, are also void and of no effect,
reverting English and Constitutional Law back to the point before 1972, and
negating the current 2013 view on Constitutional Law and Common Law.
Also under the Government R esources and Accounts Act 2000, which calls for
public accounts to ‘present a true and fair view’, and also demands ‘that
money provided by parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by
parliament’, cannot be verified as far as the payments to the EU are
concerned, because for the 18th year in a row, the EU’s Court of Auditors
has failed to approve the Annual Accounts, and therefore taxpayers money
has been paid illegally to a corrupt organisation, against the governments
own restraints, causing great harm to the country and it‘s people.

yours truly
 J B