Letter from Mrs Birkby to Mp's and others

  • 0 Replies
  • 857 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4102
  • +75/-0
Letter from Mrs Birkby to Mp's and others
« on: March 17, 2014, 10:37:25 PM »




Mrs Jane Birkby requests that the Government please explain their actions in continuing to observe a void set of treaties that have no legal force:

The article below by Peter Hitchens does not mention the following, in relation to the first Treaty signed treasonously by Edward Heath & co in 1972, on which all the other treaties are pinned, which effectively made Westminster Parliament an illegal administration of no legal force according to Constitutional Law at the time, and why are we not using the Vienna Convention and our own Constitutional Laws to leave the Fourth Reich forthwith?:

 


LEOLIN PRICE QC article in International Currency Review 2005 vol 30 no.4


THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

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.
PART V   
SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49

Fraud
 
If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
 
Article 50

Corruption of a representative of a State
 
If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
 

SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES


Article 62

Fundamental change of circumstances
 
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
 
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
 
SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 69

Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty
 
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.

----
 Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:07 PM

To

Subject: Angela Merkel and the Eurosceptic Delusion…Peter Hitchins.”


Angela Merkel and the Eurosceptic Delusion…Peter Hitchins.” ‘That fine book ‘The Great Deception’, by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum) , is the essential reading for any who are seriously interested in the matter. Anyone who hasn’t read it simply isn’t qualified to discuss the matter, and it is amazing how many MPs and journalists still have not read it, and do not know the simple basics of the controversy.”


Posted On 01 Mar 2014

By : BritanniaNews



27 February 2014 5:48 PM

Angela Merkel and the Eurosceptic Delusion



One of the saddest things about modern British political life is that so few major figures know or care about history, or about the real nature of power. We flounder around in our ‘War Picture Library’ world, in which mighty Britain won the war single-handed for the cause of justice with a loyal and generous Uncle Sam at our side. 

We delude ourselves that our survival (largely through the politeness of others) on such bodies as the UN Security Council and the various G-thises and G-thats on which we sit,  actually means that we are still rich and important, as our spavined, eviscerated economy hurtles downhill, powered only by gravity, towards a terrible and unavoidable smash.

We maintain a ludicrous and vastly costly nuclear weapon, unusable under any circumstances and far bigger than any conceivable enemy we may face. The only nations against which it might be used are simply not interested in us. It is a form of vanity to imagine that they are.

But out of our old and polished box of antique Edwardian playthings, we can still fetch the beautiful toy soldiers and play-room castles, bequeathed to us by our ancestors, to impress foreign visitors – or, in the case of Mrs Angela Merkel, to make us think we are impressing them.

Does anyone really think that Frau Merkel cares much for these things? She is not a tourist. Modern Berlin is quite an impressive city, especially since it was a flattened ruin 70 years ago but what is far more impressive is the extraordinary level of wealth, the high standards of public service, education and competence, the wisely managed economy (with some notable exceptions) which stretch across the Federal Republic of Germany.  True, the Germans cannot quite manage our levels of ceremony and architecture, and no longer possess a monarchy, but they have other things we lack, which make up for this in their own minds. And in any case they recognise that their country’s specially terrible recent history requires, for the foreseeable future, a low-key and restrained approach to power and pomp.

The ridiculous expectations of Mrs Merkel’s visit, drummed up by the Tories, do make me laugh. Do they really still not understand that the EU never gives back the powers it has gathered in, because that is the whole point of it? Do they really still not grasp that Germany has abandoned national glory and imperial power in exchange for a different dream, of a Europe in which Germany dominates everything but never raises her voice or actually asserts her power in public?

If Britain wants to be part of that, Germany will be polite to us, even flatter us, and allow us various trinkets and tokens to soothe those who still like to think we were the victors of 1945. But the great sausage machine of ever-closer-union will continue to mince up the gristly and bony remains of national sovereignty, and turn them into the smooth, bland, pink paste of ‘Unity in Diversity’, with which the Euro-Sausage is so tightly packed.  If Britain seeks to be a serious obstacle to the sausage-machine, then she will be crushed, overborne in the Commission, slapped down in the Luxembourg Court, regulated to death and eventually compelled to accept total submission by joining the Euro and abolishing what remains of her national borders, and signing the Schengen agreement with trembling fingers as her new masters look on, smiling benevolently.

The German government was apparently so alarmed by the ridiculous suggestions in the British  media (that Mrs Merkel would somehow be David Cameron’s ally in a great return of lost powers to the individual nations) that ti was thought necessary to slap this down hard and fast today.

So, in the part of  Mrs Merkel’s speech delivered in English, these words could not have been clearer:

‘Some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes. I am afraid they are in for a disappointment.’

The qualification which followed was, by comparison, tricky and ambiguous: ‘Others are expecting the exact opposite and they are hoping that I will deliver the clear and simple message here in London that the rest of Europe is not prepared to pay almost any price to keep Britain in the European Union. I am afraid these hopes will be dashed.’

You need to read it several times. Boiled down, it might be thought to mean ‘the rest of Europe *is* prepared to pay almost any price to keep Britain in the European Union’.

At least, that is what I think it is sort of saying. But in fact she said that she would disappoint those who thought she would say ‘the rest of Europe is *not* prepared to pay almost any price to keep Britain in the European Union.’

Which is not quite the same. Of course Germany wants to keep Britain in the European Union. The departure of any major member, even a broke and uncooperative member in the process of physical disintegration, would be a blow to the organisation as a whole. The EU would lose our huge net contribution (a major factor in our economic decline). It would be compelled to give us good terms, in case by erecting tariff barriers it lost our valuable market for its goods. By giving  a non-member such terms it would make membership less attractive to others. Long-term plans for a unified European foreign and defence policy would be seriously set back. The EU’s pet ‘Anglo-Saxon’ nation, Ireland (that’s the EU view, not my own description), would be placed in an awkward position. So would an ‘independent’ Scotland.  Then there would be the loss of valuable fishing grounds, and many other little details.

But the German Embassy in London, and the London correspondents of the German media, must be doing a very bad job if anyone in Berlin seriously thinks that Britain is about to leave. No important political party favours it. No significant newspaper favours it. The fabled referendum (which I suspect would not be binding on Parliament anyway) has in any case been pledged by a party which cannot hope to win a UK general election.

No, we are going through a repeat of the Dance of Death which Harold Wilson conducted round the capitals of the  then EEC in 1974 and 1975,  ‘renegotiating’ the terms on which we had joined. Of course, he did no such thing. All the really bad things, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the Fisheries robbery to the steady, relentless theft of sovereignty which has been going on ever since, were unchanged. Just as they will be if Mr Cameron ever attempts to repeat it.

There are only two genuine, honest positions any politician can take on the EU. You can either be in, or you can be out. If you are in, the full package will always apply. If you are not, you can make your own terms. ‘Euroscepticism’ is a delusion. No such political position actually exists. It is made entirely out of wind, and written on water.

I won’t here go into the subject in much more depth. ‘That fine book ‘The Great Deception’,  by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum) , is the essential reading for any who are seriously interested in the matter.  Anyone who hasn’t read it simply isn’t qualified to discuss the matter, and it is amazing how many MPs and journalists still have not read it, and do not know the simple basics of the controversy.

But I would just like to comment on Mrs Merkel’s statement that it was inconceivable that any EU member could go to war with another. This is another version of the repeated claim that the EU has somehow prevented war by existing. What it really means is that the EU has reversed Carl von Clausewitz’s old dictum that war is the continuation of politics by other means ( how many people know that the great strategist features as a minor character in one of C.S.Forester’s ‘Hornblower’ books – ‘The Commodore’, I think ?).

The EU is the continuation of war by other means. Germany has quite rightly learned that its  Mitteleuropa ambitions to dominate central and eastern Europe,  as set out in 1915 by Friedrich Naumann ( not a drum-beating militarist but a liberal, ancestor of today’s FDP), could not and should not be achieved by conquest, as Ludendorff and Hitler had sought to do.

Yet Germany’s power must find a way to express itself. This it has done by ruthlessly repressing its nationalistic, militarist past and – to its enormous credit – becoming a state of laws and of reason.  But at the same time it has dominated the European Union, neutralised France by flattering and subsidising her, allowed the Low Countries and Scandinavia plenty of nominal independence in return for sacrificing the real foundations of sovereignty. Some of its leaders , notably the clumsy Helmut Kohl,  have come close to hinting that anyone who gets in the way of this process risks war. This is not a threat, but, as far as such people are concerned, a statement of fact.

Germany must expand and dominate, as a tree must grow.  If we do not do this the easy way, then it is reasonable to suppose we must do it the hard way, and who would want to face that for a third time? Coudkl Europe survive it?  And of course many countries have willingly taken the EU yoke,  scared and battered by the risky, rackety ‘self-determination’ of the 1918-1939 period. They and their peoples often welcome it. Who can blame them. Sovereign borders,  the responsibilities of self-defence and alliances, the awkward problems of living, powerless, between the titans of Moscow and Berlin, has persuaded many that they are better off as caressed vassals under Germany’s gentle but insistent domination.

I don’t myself think Britain was in that position. I think our differences with the rest of Europe are so great (especially in law and liberty) that we could never have fitted in this post-modern ironic empire, without losing oyur national soul. What a pity we now lack the strength, wealth or will to get out of it, and so must rot away and disintegrate until we are forgotten.

But I can see why the others are happy to stay. Why should EU countries go to war with each other? They have already willingly accepted defeat in a war without guns and bombs.

But this is not quite so sweet and easy when it moves into such areas as the former Yugoslavia, or Ukraine. Here, we move into places where the Mitteleuropa experiment was never so successful, and where Russian resistance, which defeated it twice in bitter war,  remains strong.  The abiding memory of Stalingrad (now revived in a new film) , far more than Dunkirk or D-Day, makes Russia determined to maintain her independent position. History, which Russian politicians tend to know, makes them sensitive about German/EU influence in Belgrade or Kiev. I am puzzled that Berlin, so sensible and so civilised in its behaviour towards the rest of Europe, has such a tin ear when it reaches east of the Rivers Bug and Dniester.

  Footnote: I cannot resist these two quotations from a column by Al Johnson, Mayor of London, in the ‘Daily Telegraph and referring to Mrs Merkel:

In the first, printed in the newspaper on Monday, he said ‘…she is proof that centre–Right parties can win absolute majorities’ .

In the current website version he says :‘..she is proof that centre-Right parties can win elections’  .

Mrs Merkel, famously I thought, has never won an election outright, and currently governs in a coalition with the Social Democrats, Germany’s union-dominated Labour Party. It is in fact very rare for any German party to win an outright majority. I am interested as to how such a mistake came to be a) made and b) published. We all make mistakes. I certainly do. But this is an especially interesting one. Did someone want to believe something? It’s the source of most mistakes.

February 27, 2014 Comments (42) Categories: Coalition government , Conservative Party (see also Useless Tories, Tories) , European Union , First World War , Germany , History , Moscow , Russia , Useless Tories , Wilson, Harold , World War Two | Permalink

 
 


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk