ACT now before the EU is made a recognised Lawful (Unlawful) organisation by the

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
From Anne

Most politicians, if not all, knew exactly what the EEC/EC/EU is to turn into, for it is written clearly enough in the old Books of Hansard from the 1950's onwards, and if you read enough of them, you would realise the Queen was not consulted. It was the politicians of "yesterday and all the way through to "TODAY" that agree the Treaties.

 Prime Minister Harold Macmillan 31st July 1961 (column 928) "This is political as well as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world".
Mr Fell  (Same day Column 935), "Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when 650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for many generation past?"

Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal---to accept as the ultimate goal--political federation in Europe, including ourselves".

I now turn to Sir D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966 (Column474) "On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament.  For many years this country has practised a system of price support.  It may or may not be the best system, but it has operated for 20 years with the assent of both sides of the House, etc, etc".
"But the constitutional question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the system.  That would be irrelevant because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of decision passes from this House".
"I now turn to the political and constitutional aspects, of which there are two. First, there is the immediate affect of adherence to the Treaty on British sovereignty, and secondly, the future question whether membership of the Community carries any implied or inescapable commitment to political federation in the future?"

"I come now to the other question relating to the political and constitutional aspect---the immediate consequences of signing the Treaty of Rome.  Here we can see the position much more clearly.  Two truths are apparent---first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and of our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved".

Mr Stanley Orme, 16th November 1966, Col 489. "I want first to consider the European situation. At a private meeting in the House, M. Spaak, who was prominent in the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers down the spine's of some of my Hon Friends who are very pro-European.  M. Spaak's political concept is that of many statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France, (General de Gaulle, who wanted a Europ des Patries) It is the political issue which we must seriously consider".
"M. Spaak is against the entry of any neutrals.  He regards the Community purely as an extension of the militarily based N.A.T.O. a further extension of a military alliance.

Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495.  "I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome.  It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union. .......................
Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495.  "I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome.  It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union.

Finally I will finish with Mr Peter Shore (as he was then) on 22 February 1972 column 1164. "When we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these arrangements are little short of a national disaster.  No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so clearly against and detrimental to our interests.  It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the Community under the "own resources" rule.  I do not say that was the Community's purpose, but they have been extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have upon us.  Indeed, I cannot recall another example in history of a free country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so damaging to itself."...............

"This is a major development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament.  The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this country, alone has the right to levy taxation.  That has been the basic constitutional doctrine.  Because Parliament three centuries ago insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under the control of elected representatives.  As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the Government conditional on the remedying of grievances.  That was the way in which control by the House of Commons was brought about".

"There should be no doubt about what is intended here.  It is not proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities, which we can alter if we think it is too much or too little.  It is not a contribution at all.  The right to levy taxes, which are specified, is to be ceded to non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of Parliament of the British people
As the Ways and Means Resolution puts it, we shall be,
     "giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities"
That is quite unacceptable to us."  END OF QUOTES.  AND I HAVE MANY MORE.  iF YOU ARE WISE YOU WILL LEAVE THE MONARCHY OUT OF ALL THIS.  There are pages and pages of this and the Queen did not take part in any of it. Anne

Taken from Hansard 2nd and 3rd August 1961  Debates on the EEC.   The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath) Column 1671-parts only-?Col 1764: The third political aspect is the long term future as to whether these economic and consultational aspects?I apologise to hon. Members; I shuddered myself at the word?of the economics and consultation between the Communities are to lead to a further constitutional development along the lines of federalism or confederalism, or in some other sphere. Here again, sovereignty could be involved.    ----------

From the point of view of sovereignty, although we have heard very often in the last 24 hours about surrendering sovereignty, it seems to me that it is a conception much more of pooling sovereignty with others who are occupied in the same joint enterprise. Surrender means the abandonment of sovereignty to others. Pooling seems to me to share sovereignty with other people for a common purpose, and there seems to me to be a firm distinction between those two. It is a pooling of sovereignty over a strictly defined field, and that is laid down in the Treaty itself.

 Col 1692, Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw), Something a little new to some-however, I have read all these before. ?On the 21st anniversary of Federal Union Lord Attlee said this in his message to them: I welcome the opportunity to congratulate Federal Union ? He went on to say: The real challenge for the future is how far we are prepared to surrender the old concepts of absolute national sovereignty. He said later: Europe now has to serve the world. And the people of Europe must get together to put their long traditions to the service of humanity as a whole If that is an honest expression of an honestly held opinion.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith 2 August 1961,   I come to the question of Sovereignty; and here again we must look at it from two points of view.  First the derogation of sovereignty which arises expressly from the Treaty of Rome; and secondly?and inescapably?the consequences of those contemplated further arrangements on the part of European community, acceptance of which would be implied by our adherence to the Community now.---------------------------Hon Members will have in mind the content of Article 3, which lists the functions of the Community, and paragraph H of that article, which requires the member states to approximate their municiple law ?which is international law phraseology for national law?to the extent necessary for the functioning of the Common Market. Thus there is some immediate surrender of sovereignty expressed in that.

The question is not whether the matters in respect of which sovereignty is surrendered are good or bad.  The question arises: in so far as they are good, could they not be achieved by the ordinary methods of international agreements entered into on a basis of sovereignty? We know that in some cases the answer is ?yes?.-----------------------Then there are other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred, such as the control of capitol and services.  Is it right and safe for us to surrender this control?  We are not merely a European power but the centre and chief banker of the sterling area.-------
-----I believe that a glance at history helps to get this matter into perspective. Sovereignty came late to most of the nations of the Six. They were part of the Holy Roman Empire, that physical embodiment of the mediaeval law of nature which preceded the formalisation of the modern doctrine of sovereignty. Our national sovereignty did not follow that doctrine; it preceded it. We were practising national sovereignty and evolving our Parliamentary institutions and our common law when others were looking to Europe. The sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law are for us the twin pillars of our Constitution and our way of life. For the Six, Parliament has its roots less deep; and perhaps the institution is held in less high regard generally than with us. We evolved our own common law. They preferred the general acceptance of Roman law.---------------------------

There is a great deal more, but THIS will at least give you an idea that the Queen took no part at all in these debates.  There are hundreds of pages to go through and remember these people here debating this issue, were voted for by the people of thoses days.  and yes, not ttoo long after that terrible war when so many gave their lif=ves for YOUR Freedom.  Anne

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Stan

Politics List

I support Pete's comment 100%!

We are unarmed and not united - we stand no chance...sadly! It's basically "observe and comment"....which we do!




----- Original Message -----
From: Pete

Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:10 PM

Subject: ACT now before the EU is made a recognised Lawful

This from Mike Stuckey and here we go again. Its not down to the stupidity and ignorance of the UK voter Mike, the UK voter has been out bred and therefore out voted by the new head-butting breed of British (sic) citizen.

We are all more than aware that a vote on an EU Referendum would be rigged, with so many former Third World citizens now resident in our country, we are rapidly approaching Third World status where corruption is the name of the game of which vote rigging, is but one of the joys.

Exposing the Queen as a traitor is definitely a non-starter if we wish to get the majority of patriots on side but, attacking treasonous politicians and scaring them shitless, (not by flooding their inbox's of course), is a great idea. How do you propose that we go about it? I'm coming up to 77 years of age but I'm still willing to fight for what I believe to be right and I do remember what ACTION really means. Do you? We had arms in those days Mike and used to shoot back at our now fellow citizens who haven't changed from the savages that they will always be. Pea-shooters don't have the same effect so constructive ideas please.

We are in the REAL world Mike and do appreciate what needs to be done and, I doubt that there is one person receiving this email who would not give his right arm for the joy of stringing up the treasonous cretins in parliament who have put us in this position. Should Heaven forbid the EU be recognised by the traitors that rule as being lawful, there will indeed be a clamp down on dissidents/rebels such as ourselves and useful guidance and leadership before that fateful day would be really appreciated.


 From: rebellionseattraitors
Subject: ACT now before the EU is made a recognised Lawful (Unlawful) organisation by the stupidity and ignorance of UK voters
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:01:15 +0100

There won't be an in-or-out referendum.  Even if there were - it would be rigged and there would probably be a second or third referendum until the voters had been manipulated - to get the vote dictators and traitors require.
If a referendum were to be held, the pro-EU vote would then be written in stone and it would definitely mean bloodshed for True Patriots to rebel and turn things around.
If that's what you're waiting for, then your wish will soon come true.
You should be concentrating on attacking Treasonous Politicians and exposing the Queen as the Traitor she is.
By "attacking Treasonous Politicians" I don't mean flooding their inbox's or hoping to seriously injure them with a thousand paper-cuts.  I mean - Harass, inhibit, hound etc, in the REAL World!!!!!!! until they are s**t scared and cannot continue with their Treasonous activities or any other daily routine, and hopefully flee into the net of REAL English Common Law to await their well-deserved fate.
If any of you still remember what ACTION really means - then this is the time to ACT, before the EU is officially recognised as a legal and lawful organisation by the stupidity and ignorance of UK voters making it so.
Remember Ireland? Well you can be 100% assured that the EU and Treasonous Politicians won't let the rest of the UK slip through the net either!
Get into the REAL World (as apposed to the 2D one!) and attack the Traitors, or you will see the end of any useful resistance in the very near future.
Once the EU is recognised as Lawful, you will see a VERY heavy clamp-down on dissidents/rebels! and there will be even fewer ready and able to appose the takeover in any way.
No more faint-hearted Patriots please.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk