show/hide profile info
Register to take part

NO, NO, NO, TO MAY’S “DEAL” IT IS TREASON

  • 0 Replies
  • 39 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3564
  • +75/-0
NO, NO, NO, TO MAY’S “DEAL” IT IS TREASON
« on: December 06, 2018, 04:34:28 PM »
NO, NO, NO, TO MAY’S “DEAL” IT IS TREASON
 
Dear Rex
 
I shall circulate this article with my comments below.  If you think that those comments could be of interest to those to whom you circulate, please send them.
 
The learned dissertation assumes that the treaties could have been entered into, that is that the two parties had contractual capacity to do so, and that the proposal was lawful.  As with the ECA, 1972, the present “agreement” fails on both counts:
 
1.   British constitutional law prohibits the ceding of sovereignty and, because of that,
 
2.   the proposed agreement is not lawful in intending to bind the UK, perhaps indefinitely, to do with “backstop”.
As acts of parliament have, as their preamble, a statement that no government may bind a subsequent one, it seems, too, that the intention in the backstop itself could fail whenever any subsequent government decided to change the law, even were the agreement to have been lawful.  If the government hasn’t admitted / doesn’t admit this, it will appear to have been less than honest to parliament, it seems to me, and the P M will have been less than honest to the electorate by stating, as she has repeatedly, that the agreement honours Brexit.   Brexit requires leaving – not still having any ties after 29th March next.
 
It also appears, from the dissertation, that activities in 1971, certainly amounting to subterfuge, such as the Connaught Breakfasts, could indicate that corruption had occurred so that, again, the Treaty of Vienna would have relevance.
 
The U K’s strong position  for negotiating any agreement with the E U would appear as soon as U K had left fully.  From that position, where E U sells to us about twice the amount which we sell to it, we would have held the whip-hand.  There would not have been any worries about how trade would have been affected as the E U and or other countries still called member-states would have been clamouring for agreements so as to ensure that their industries could trade with us continuously – i e without any break – ensuring the least possible disruption to their own trade and balances of payments.  Odd, don’t you think that no-one has mentioned any of this (as far as I have heard/read)?  Odd, too, to attempt to negotiate while still a “member-state” without that whip-hand.#

John
==================================================================
Please send this to your MP and ask everyone you know to do that as well.
 
ANY deal with this illegal foreign dictatorship is TREASON
It’s time politicians understood the electorate’s message  -  OUT MEANS OUT.
====================================================================
When I voted to leave the EU -
I voted for a complete break with it -
not the fudged Oliver Robbins version that Mrs May is touting around.
 
The people are heartily sick of this elite mafia gangster style EU and it's Ponzi Scheme, backed by the German founded World Bank and IMF.
 
TIME TO BREAK COMPLETELY FREE FROM IT'S CLUTCHES.
 
WE ARE GETTING ANGRY AT THE PREVARICATION.
 
ONLY A NO DEAL BREXIT WILL CANCEL THE 46 YEARS WORTH OF TREASON BY THIS PARTY AND OTHERS - MAKE US FREE AGENTS.
 
Use: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 & 86
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
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.
 
Mrs J B
English Constitution Group
http://englishconstitutionalconvention.org/english-law/the-treason-allegations/
http://englishconstitutionalconvention.org/english-parliament/the-origins-rights-and-authority-of-parliament/
 


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



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL