While I agree whole heartedly that Britain must come out of the European Union it is imperative we come out of it as a nation intact, and not just another version of an independent nation but still yoked to the corporate statutes the EU and the United Nations represent.
UKIP is a seriously deceptive operation under the control of old money families tied to the corporate seat of power within the Adelphi building we call the John Adam Street Gang, a grouping of powerful think tanks and secret society networks centred at Adelphi Terrace off the Strand in London.
The greatest insight in understanding UKIP comes in the title of the party itself, yet not so obvious it would appear for the people of Britain to recognise, and the main reason we find many supporting UKIP in ignorance of its true meaning. To understand this anomaly we must look at a little history and define British law over corporate statutes.
I was born and live in Great Britain, Great Britain is the nation within a constitution which gives certain rights to its citizens while protecting the state built around the constitution from outside threats. Something happened which shifted the country outside the constitution and her laws and into a position whereby commercial contracts became the root of benefits and privileges and to determine things forbidden. The tie to a system foreign to British culture, took a great leap forward in the 1933 bankruptcy declarations of all nations involved in the First World War, tying all citizens via split title, to the launch of the socialist system after 1945 and the Second World War, after a which a new social system was implemented under the dictate of the Bank for International Settlements.
The Term United Kingdom is only a part of the title The United kingdom of Great Britain, today the title United Kingdom is a corporate mimic of the constitutional realm, it is in fact a banking owned corporation.
The United Kingdom Corporation Sole, itself a mere agent of the Crown. It is the title deed under which the British Constitutional Realm has been superseded, without the ‘informed’ consent of the people.
With this in mind I ask you see through the deception that is The United Kingdom Independence Party, that you see it as a smokescreen to usurp the United Kingdom of Great Britain and replace it with the United Kingdom Corporation Sole, answerable to the Crown and ultimately to the secret societies.
The key is to understand that UKIP are the other side to the Tory coin, and nothing other than a means of controlling the Euro sceptic Conservatives, which were many during the Thatcher years. If we are to seek a human inter connector we must look at a very strange and sinister mind called Harry Beckhough. (the last five minutes of the video sees Cameron introduce Harry the German, or is that Harry the Russian as the reason for his then Conservative party)?
Hopefully at this juncture you can now understand the difference between the nation Great Britain, and the corporation that is the United kingdom, and the point at which we can buckle down to understand the deception that is the United kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), because while we believe they speak of Independence from Europe and all those foreigners, O’ no, it means absolute independence from the British Constitution, with a country so full of immigrants, so diluted, it will be this new United Kingdom that will be the idea of what it is to be British, the old one lost forever.
The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)
UKIP Its beginnings :
UKIP founded by Alan Sked at LSE (London School of Economics) which began life at the Adelphi :
Nigel Farage is back as the leader of UKIP after a break brought about they say, in his need to oppose a Conservative MP, but now he has gone again after BREXIT. He made a speech at the UKIP conference in Southport in 2009 explaining that he was standing down as leader so that he could campaign against John Bercow, the current speaker in the House of Commons, a period of absence during which it fell to Lord Malcolm Pearson to lead the party.
Farage is bold and is want to say it as it is, which puts him and his party tight to the frequency of the average mind, and he is taken completely at face value, he is against Europe and all that it stands for.
UKIP under Farage appear to have taken the Daniel Hannan route of clever ranting after his outburst against the EU some years ago, from the youtube hits alone this style proved such rhetoric as a means to grab the attention of the mass of British people. Farage more and more frequently lays siege against the EU and its leaders in a boyish almost cheeky chappie derision of the leaders personally, in so doing it has kept UKIP in the game when it comes to political ranting about our exit from the European Union.
The strategy employed and overseen by Harry Beckhough is to keep UKIP in the game long enough to ensure no other movement can act as the answer to exiting the Union. In or out, so long as the people have unwittingly consented to The United kingdom Corporation Sole becoming independent of Europe, then the realm is lost whether we are in or out of the EU. Either way the population of Britain become subject to the Contingency Act 2004 the moment they can achieve the civil unrest which will activate the Act, handing Blighty over to the private corporate mammoth that is Serco Group Plc and its subsidiary, G4S
It is therefore of the utmost importance we give careful consideration to the people involved in UKIP, what are their real motives outside their known opposition to the EU? How do they square the UK with the British Constitution? Because it is clear in their title, they want Independence for the United Kingdom corporation while grandees of the party are apt to espousing serious racist right wing views, and could be seen as the first move to an isolated Britain under the yoke of the fascist script, aka, full blown corporatism.
Not a man for the people.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (left) is a founding member of Global Britain which says of itself :
The United Kingdom is the most successful nation-state in history. Her reach – cultural, linguistic, military, diplomatic, scientific, political, economic – is global. She has global interests to promote and defend. The security, prosperity and well-being of her people increasingly depend on the success of her engagement with the wider world beyond Europe.
End of Quote
Global Britain continues to say of itself :
Britain’s destiny ceased to be European centuries ago when English settlers began their transatlantic odyssey. Within the next fifty years the USA and China between them will account for half of the world economy; quite possibly, India will account for another quarter. According to the EU Commission, Continental Europe, even after enlargement, will be lucky to muster ten per cent. For the next century the world will be dominated by the USA, China and India. Continental Europe will be increasingly irrelevant.
End of Quote
In case it has not been noted by Global Britain, Britain itself is bankrupt which begs the question what is the real destiny coveted by UKIP for these Isles?
Global Britain goes on to say :
Against that background, Global Britain conducts meticulously objective research and analysis into the key aspects of, on the one hand, the UK’s relationship with the EU, and, on the other, the UK’s relationships with the rest of the world. At the same time, Global Britain examines the feasibility of the UK’s withdrawing from the EU, resuming her role as an independent self-governing democratic nation-state, making her own decisions, choosing her own alliances and sitting, speaking and voting on her own behalf in multilateral bodies such as the World Trade Organisation.
End of Quote
In that statement alone we learn that the vision of Global Britain shared by Pearson, in affiliating with outside bodies when determining the destiny of Britain, in the same manner as New Labours current leader Jeremy Corbyn exacts United Nations charters and statutes over and above British law.
Lord Pearson and bribery :
UkIP leader’s insurance company at heart of Costa Rica bribe claims Global Britain was founded in 1997 by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Harris of High Cross (who died in 2006).
Other Lords sitting in the House who see the world in the same way as ‘Lord Pearson’ are :
Lord Harris of High Cross ( – 2006) gained a first in economics at Cambridge and lectured in political economy at the University of St Andrews from 1949 to 1956. He was appointed General Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) on its foundation by Anthony Fisher in 1956; subsequently, he became the IEA’s Chairman in 1987 and its Founder-President in 1990. He was a director of Times Newspaper Holdings Ltd between 1988 and 2001. Prime Minister Thatcher made him a Life Peer in 1979 in her first honours list; he sat as a cross-bencher until his death in 2006. The IEA under Ralph’s direction has had an enormous influence on public policy and on the views of leading politicians, notably Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, spent his business career as an international insurance broker. Between 1983 and 1992 he represented UK commerce on the country’s largest degree-awarding body, the Council for National Academic Awards. In 1984 he founded the Rannoch Charitable Trust, which has funded, inter alia, refugees from Communism in Europe, research for improvement in British State education and for environmental improvement of the Scottish Highlands. He was made a Life Peer in 1990 by Prime Minister Thatcher, and sat on the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities between 1992 and 1996. A leading exponent of the case for the UK to withdraw from the EU, he left the Conservative Party in 2007 to join the United Kingdom Independence Party.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon, worked for the Central Electricity Generating Board between 1951 and 1972. He joined the Labour Party in 1947 and served on the Reading County Borough Council between 1954 and 1972, successively as Chairman of the Housing, Transport and Finance Committees and, between 1967 and 1972, as Leader of the Council. He was MP for Swindon between 1970 and 1983, serving as PPS to the Minister for Housing and Construction in 1974/5 and Assistant Government Whip in 1975. He became a Life Peer in 1983, serving as Opposition Spokesman on energy until 1988. He was Chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain from 1985 to 2008. He now sits in the House of Lords as Independent Labour.
Lord Willoughby de Broke, was Chairman of St Martins Magazines plc 1992-2008, President, Heart of England Tourist Board 1996-2005, Patron, Warwickshire Association of Boys’ Clubs 1991-2004, and Member of the Anglo-Hong Kong Trust 1996-2006. He was a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities 1996-2001. He was elected to the House of Lords in 1999. He left the Conservative Party in 2007 to join the United Kingdom Independence Party.
Global Britain’s Director, since 1999, is Ian Milne. He is chairman of companies involved in publishing and book distribution. He graduated in engineering from Cambridge University and has a forty-year career in industry and merchant banking in the UK, France and Belgium. He was the founder-editor (in 1993) of The European Journal, and the founder (in 1995) and first editor of eurofacts. His most recent publications, A Cost Too Far? (Civitas, July 2004), an analysis of the net economic costs and benefits for the UK of EU membership, and Backing the Wrong Horse (Centre for Policy Studies, December 2004), a review of the UK’s trading arrangements and options for the future, can be viewed here at the “Publications by Global Britain authors” page.
Global Britain’s Manager, since 1999, is Maxine Thomas (née Nesbitt).
Now lets get into the real nitty gritty :
Lord Malcolm Pearson Receives Jackson Award From Michael Cherney
By Israel News Agency Staff
London—January 31, 2007….. Michael Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy), a prominent Israel industrialist – philanthropist, presented the “Scoop” Jackson Award at a London Conference yesterday. Lord Malcolm Pearson of Rannoch, a leading political thinker and Member of the England House of Lords, was named by Michael Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy), as this year’s recipient of the prestigious Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson Award, culminating the First Jerusalem Summit Europe, held in London.
The Award was established at the Inaugural Jerusalem Summit in October, 2003, which took place in Israel. The first recipient was US former Deputy Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, a leading American strategist. The second recipient was Baroness Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords.
“Lord Pearson fearlessly fought Russia Soviet totalitarianism by promoting freedom in the former USSR through British financial assistance to dissident groups and by establishing the Rannoch Charitable Trust, which funded refugees from Communism who fled to Europe,” stated Cherney, Chairman of the Jerusalem Summit’s Board of Trustees, at a ceremony in the British Parliament’s Moses Room.
“Today Lord Pearson helps head the struggle against today’s new form of totalitarianism, radical Islam.”
A prominent Euro-skeptic, Pearson has been an effective critic of the BBC’s pro-EU bias. He has argued the case for a more balanced approach to EU issues and succeeded in securing BBC management reviews of its reportage. Lord Pearson sits as a Crossbencher in the House of Lords.
Together with Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Harris of High Cross, he founded Global Britain which aims to “provide independent research into what has become the most important political and economic issue facing the UK: its relationship with the EU.”
Pearson introduced, on 27 June 2003, the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill in the House of Lords. He has also been active in calling attention to the negative impact of moral relativism in education.
Born on 20 July 1942, Malcolm Pearson was educated at Eton College. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made him a Life Peer in 1990.
The Jerusalem Summit promotes global diplomatic strategies for the defense of the values of the Judeo-Christian civilisation, including assertive diplomatic measures against gender apartheid and religious intolerance in the Moslem world, in the tradition of the historic US Jackson-Vanik trade amendment.
This law linked commercial benefits to domestic reform and liberalisation in authoritarian regimes and eventually succeeded in pressuring the USSR to open its doors to freer Jewish emigration, effecting greater tolerance in the Soviet regime generally toward minority groups.
Michael Cherney, a prominent international industrialist who made his fortune in Russia’s metals industry, immigrated to Israel in 1994. He devotes much of his time to charitable and humanitarian projects, which reinforce cooperation between Israel and other nations, and also in combating terrorism.
His Fund to Aid Terror Victims assists hundreds of victims of terror attacks, and he sponsors or is involved in many other Israeli, American, European and Russian NGO’s that promote cooperation between Christians and Jews.
Following his repatriation to Israel, Michael Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy) maintains business interests in Russia and post-Soviet states, while developing new business contacts between Russia, Europe, Israel, and the US.
In Israel, Michael Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy) spends much effort on charity and humanitarian projects that reinforce cooperation between Israel and Russia in fighting terrorism.
Michael Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy) established a Website for his Foundation on June 1, 2001, the night of the terrorist bombing outside the Dolphinarium Disco in Tel Aviv. When Michael Cherney learned the number of victims – 21 dead and over 150 wounded – he realised that rendering assistance required a systematic organised effort.
Prior to 2001, Cherney was engaged in charity work in Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, Bulgaria, the US – wherever he did business. He made valuable contributions into Jewish philanthropy in Russia. Following the Dolphinarium terrorist tragedy, the Cherney Fund became the helping hand for all its victims. In a misfortune like this, emigres from the former Soviet countries are even worse off than those born in Israel: they don’t have a support system or savings.
The Cherney Fund, therefore, renders help mostly to the new arrivals, victims of catastrophes and terrorist acts that continue to bleed Israel, as well as to the low-income victims of terror in other countries. Another equally important task assumed by the Cherney Foundation is the media effort in war on terror.
Shortly after the Dolphinarium attack, the Foundation published a book called Dolphinarium: Terror Targets the Young.
The Michael Cherney Foundation has established grants for students from the former Soviet Union in all major Israel universities with an annual endowment of 1 million shekels.
Mr. Cherney and his family live in a suburb of Tel Aviv.
Taken into context today it is clear that Lord Pearson would be over the moon with the move to attack Iran expanding the wars in the `Middle east,’ something the same elites would require for a full shut down of Britain under martial law and full corporate control to fight that war. There is also the domestic agenda to ferment civil unrest with an energised rise against all things Islam, neither script it would appear is missing in the character that is lord Malcolm Pearson.
We have yet another Conservative Lord belonging, not to Global Britain, but to UKIP, and the darling of the anti- climate change lobbies, the hero who single handed demolished the Copenhagen Summit, Lord Christopher Monckton (left).
Lord Monckton was one of the trio of Tory grandees who sponsored the UK citizenship for a serious arms dealer, a man involved in Astra, the arms corp, at the time the nuclear weapons went missing under the watch of Dr David Kelly.
According to Gerald James, the then chairman of Astra, Stephan Kock, was sponsored by Lord Monckton, Malcolm Rifkind, and Michael Heseltine for his UK citizenship, and acted in the manner of a maverick within Astra without James being aware of such.
I hope you have noted the serious connection here between the Thatcher Tories and UKIP, two sides of the same mindset when it comes to policy, yet one continues the old Tory mantle while the other keeps the anti-EU minds at least affiliated, with a political party with the Conservative outlook.
Lord Monckton Joins UKIP :
Thursday, 10th December 2009
Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.
At a press conference in Copenhagen he said :
“For some years I have been concerned that the democracy into which I was born has become a bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars who we, the people, do not elect, cannot question, cannot hold to account, cannot remove and cannot replace.
“Moreover, due to our membership of the European Union, most of the laws we cannot now rescind.
“People, through their elected politicians no longer have the right to propose law or decide on legislation and its amendments. Everything is now merely subject to the agreement of the unelected bureaucrats.
“No other party except the UK Independence Party believes that Britain should remain a self governing country. I have long been a friend and admirer of Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Now that he has become the leader of UKIP, the nation will take our party very seriously indeed.”
UKIP Leader Malcolm Pearson said, “I am delighted that Lord Monckton has accepted my invitation to join UKIP as our chief spokesman on Climate Change.
“He was Margaret Thatcher’s Special Adviser in Downing Street on a number of areas, including science. He is now perhaps the world’s leading expert on the case against Man-made Global Warming, and as such is a household name in the United States and elsewhere.
“To have another heavyweight join us at this time shows how the party is continuing to grow”.
Lord Monckton comes from Rannoch in Scotland.
Now the sane amongst us recognise that the climate change agenda is one of religious zeal. The god of climate change is Gia who demands the people pay for the sins of industry and energy use through taxation, Gia the Sheriff.
I do believe Monckton and his rally against the climate lobby is a master play to bring the alternative media researchers to the side of UKIP.
What price climate scepticism? Ever wondered?
Here is an insight as to the lifestyle to which Lord Monckton is well established, a point of note for those who have taken him to heart as a man of the people. From one of his trips abroad we learn the following :
With just a few days to go now before the climate sceptic Lord Monckton sets off from his Highlands estate and embarks on his grand tour of Australia to spread the good word, a local newspaper in Queensland called the Noosa Journal has revealed how much Monckton’s trip down under is costing his loyal fans. Nice work if you can get it, judging by the comments made by Case Smit, the Noosa resident who has invited Monckton to speak in his home town:
Mr Smit said getting Lord Monckton to Australia came at a substantial cost and he was appealing to supporters for donations. “We have to fly Lord Monkton to Australia, cover all his domestic travel and accommodation and provide a stipend of $20,000 [£11,500],” he said. “Our aim is to cover these costs from donations from individuals, appropriate associations and corporations. We expect the required total to be about $100,000. We would like to keep the cost of admission to Monckton’s lectures to around $20 to maximise the number of people that will come to hear him. We have already had a number of offers of $1,000 and would prefer donations to be of that order, but of course any amount is very welcome. Should there be a surplus, this, depending on the amount, will be given to Lord Monckton and/or the Climate Sceptics Party which is assisting with this project.”
Personally, I would love to know what Monckton has requested to be on his rider. One suspects that if the tour is reportedly costing $100,000, with Monckton bagging a $20,000 stipend, then the organisers can afford him something a little more luxurious than, say, the obligatory freshly pressed towels and bottles of mineral water.
Lord Monckton The Knight Of Malta : UKIP: began at LSE (Adelphi); Monckton a member, also a Knight of Malta
Like Monckton in the role of climate hero he also along with Pearson, has continuously presented the threat of Islam, they same with Tony Blair, the fact the corporate state is indeed using radical Islam to front the corporate empire can only mean a yet another ploy to capture the right wing in the country, such as the BNP and EDL.
Lord Malcolm Pearson on Islam
Here is Lord Malcolm Pearson’s acceptance speech for his 2007 Jackson Award :
Acceptance Speech for the Henry “Scoop” Jackson Award for values and vision in politics
Moses Room, House of Lords, 30th January 2007
Baroness Cox (My Noble Friend), Michael Cherney, Ladies & Gentlemen, you can have little idea how much pleasure it gives a maverick political outsider like me to receive this great honour. Not only is it deeply flattering to be credited with values and vision in politics, but I have always been an admirer of Israel, and so most of the things I hold dear come together in our Judaeo-Christian heritage.
In fact my mother did her best to claim that we had Jewish blood, because her father’s surname was Moysey. His family came over from France in the 17th Century and settled in Devon, and we like to think that Moysey was a Devonian distortion of ‘Moss?’. Be that as it may, I have long regarded the Jewish people as quite simply the most cultured and civilised race on this earth.
Israel is of course also a democracy, the only genuine democracy in its troubled region, but that does not cut much ice with our politically correct friends, who demonise the United States of America and Israel, and who despise our own history of Empire and all the good things we have done over the last few centuries.
Talking of political correctitude, I think your concentration on the sins of gender and religious apartheid in the war against Islamism is quite brilliant. I do not see how they are going to get round that one.
I have two thoughts, two areas to put before you, which might repay greater research and publicity. Mr. Marcus spoke about the abuse of the school syllabus in Palestine, and of course that is wholly pernicious. But something similar has been going on for many years, since the 1950s in fact, in this country and in the United States, and probably elsewhere. I came across it when I sat on the body which validated all the teacher training courses in this country, from 1983-1992. When you come to think of it, one can get very worried about what goes on in primary schools, but primary schools are not really the heart of the problem. Rather, I suggest it is teacher training which is the soil in which the roots of education feed. Then you have primary schools, then secondary, and then universities. And the frightening thing I want to tell you is that the mission statement of the council which validated all the teacher training courses in this country was to “permeate the whole curriculum with issues of gender, race and class”. And they did it, and that is where I suggest so much of our political correctness, and indeed moral relativism, comes from. It’s an area which we should probably examine in greater depth.
Another area concerns Islam. Here I must confess that I am not in the least an Islamic scholar, and indeed most of what little I know I have learnt from Caroline Cox and John Marks’ brilliant book “The ‘west,’ Islam and Islamism: Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?” which they have brought along to distribute today, and from other similar writings. So you all know much more about it than me, but I still want humbly to suggest that perhaps we should look at more closely, and publicise more widely, the Islamic principle of ‘abrogation’. I understand that this principle is pretty well universally accepted across the Islamic world, and it means that where there is conflict in the Koran, it is the later verses which hold sway over the earlier verses. And the Koran gets steadily more violent as it proceeds, as it reflects Mohammed’s sayings after he left Mecca in 622 and moved to Medina, becoming more and more bellicose. So if abrogation is accepted, the Koran is not a peaceful book at all. In fact, it is pretty much an incitement to religious hatred and violence, which is a crime in most civilised countries.
Islam has one other great disadvantage, it seems to me. It is both a religion and a political system, and the penalty for rejecting it and its law, as set out in the Koran and Islamic traditions, is death. Not a very creative arrangement.
Yet we are told “most Moslems are peace-loving people”. Well, they may be, but if they are it seems to me that perhaps our main priority should be to get them to debate the meaning of their religion as set out in the Koran, the hadith and the sunna, and abrogation in particular, with their violent co-religionists; with the Islamists. And we all know how difficult that is to do, but I suppose we just have to go on trying, because we are unlikely to be able to bomb the Islamists out of existence, given they’re growing hold over so much of the world.
You have very kindly mentioned my work behind the Iron Curtain in the former Soviet Union. I must say I thought that that was the great struggle of my generation, of our life times, and we won it. But we didn’t see that an enemy just as menacing would replace the Soviet evil. It is as though the dark side of human nature, at its deep collective level, has moved across from Soviet Communism and taken root in Islamism. And in some ways Islamism is more frightening. After all, nobody actually believed in Soviet Communism after about 1955; it was held together by fear. But these Islamists, who are also determined to dominate the planet, very definitely do believe in what they are doing, to the extent of blowing themselves up and thousands of innocent people with them. So we have to get at them from within, and break them down with the kind of reason you are bringing to bear, and I congratulate you.
I have been asked to say something about another major problem of which I have some experience, and to which you may not have given the attention it deserves. I know it is controversial, but I refer to the European Union, which has I think been less than helpful in the aid it has been giving to the Palestinians. It’s a safe bet that the EU will not be an ally of yours in your campaign, so I want to make sure you know the kind of animal you are dealing with.
Its important to understand that the project of European Union was born of a single big idea; that idea emerged after the two world wars, and was that the nation states had been responsible for the carnage of those wars, and for the long history of war in Europe. The nation states, with their unreliable democracies, therefore had to be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government, which would be run by a Commission of wise technocrats. So, the project of European integration had as its prime inspiration the pursuit of peace, and it was an honourable enough idea at the time. The trouble is that it has gone wrong. But the Eurocrats still claim that the EU has brought peace to Europe since 1945, and that the peace which the EU brings to Europe justifies all its other disadvantages. If you challenge this claim, you immediately become ‘anti-European,’ a dangerous nationalist, a little-Englander, a xenophobe or worse. But it doesn’t stack up. NATO kept the peace in Europe after 1945, and no European country would have gone to war with another in the absence of the EU. Also, if you stand back and take a calm look at it, the EU is actually a well tried model for discord, not peace. It is a top-down amalgamation of different peoples, put together without their informed consent, and such arrangements usually end in conflict. You’ve only got to look at Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, the Transcaucusus, Kashmir, and much of Africa to see that. The EU is also institutionally corrupt, and innately undemocratic. And these are further ingredients for trouble.
Before we look at just how undemocratic the EU is, I take it we can all agree that the fundamental principle of democracy is the hard-won right of the people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws. That’s the heart of the matter; that the people can sack their lawmakers. Yet the German government has recently calculated that 80% of all new German legislation since 1998 has been made in Brussels, and the figure will apply to the other Member States, including us.
How does the EU law-making system work? First, the unelected and corrupt bureaucracy – the Commission – has the monopoly to propose new laws. The process takes place in secret. Second, the Commission’s legislative proposals are then negotiated, also in secret, by the shadowy committee of permanent representatives, or COREPER; bureaucrats from the nation states. Decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers from the member states, again by secret vote, where the UK now has about 8% of those votes. The Treaties ordain that the resultant laws must be enacted by national parliaments, often on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court. The Commission then executes all EU legislation.
The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation. MEPs can block proposals, but they hardly ever do so because the more European legislation there is, the merrier for the project as a whole (including their bloated salaries, fraudulent travel expenses, etc.).
Broadly speaking, under the Treaty of Nice, which is where we stand now legally in the absence of the proposed EU Constitution, the following areas of our national life are already subject to majority voting in the Council: all of our commerce and industry, our social and labour policy, our agriculture, fish, foreign aid and foreign trade. In addition, our Parliament must also rubberstamp any decisions agreed in Brussels by the Government, by the executive, in all of our foreign and defence policy, and in all of our justice and home affairs. So that’s how bad it is at the moment. But of course it all goes back to that original big idea – that our national democracies must be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government, run by a Commission of wise technocrats.
There are at least three other features of this innately undemocratic system which I should bring to your attention. The first is that there is no appeal against the judgements of the Luxembourg Court of so-called Justice. This is not a court of law as you would understand that expression, but rather it is the engine of the treaties. It is encouraged by the treaties to find in favour of the “ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe” ordained in the treaties, and it interprets them with admirable imagination in order to do so. Second, once an area of national life has been ceded to control from Brussels, it cannot be returned to national Parliaments. This is known in Euro-speak as the acquis communautaire – or powers acquired by the community. In plain English, this translates as ‘the ratchet,’ which can only grind in one direction, towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. Third, no changes can be made to the treaties unless they are unanimously agreed by all the Member States in the Council of Ministers. So renegotiation of the treaties to reclaim our democracy is not realistic – the only way out is the door.
Perhaps I should just mention the EU Constitution, which is supposed to be undergoing ‘a period of reflection,’ after the French and Dutch people voted it down. Its worst features were that it gave the EU its own legal personality, superior to that of the member states, and passed most of the remaining areas of our national life under the control of Brussels. But we would be wrong to think that the Constitution has gone away.
Several very worrying initiatives are being taken forward by the Eurocrats, based on dishonest interpretation of the existing treaties, as though the French and Dutch people had not spoken. One of these is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with its new agency in Vienna. This is the initiative which the Europe Minister, Keith Vaz, assured us would have no more force than the Beano, and which the Prime Minister assured us would not be justiciable in the Luxembourg Court. Yet, the Court is already taking note of the Charter in its judgements, and the Commission has ordained that all new legislation must adhere to it. It is no exaggeration to say that the Charter aims to deprive us of most of our remaining legal independence, by imposing the EU social model on our economic, employment, welfare, education, health, environment and cultural policies. It’s a sort of vast EU Human Rights law.
Other initiatives include the EU taking forward its diplomatic corps and pursuing its military ambitions. Our defence procurement must now favour EU suppliers over those of our US allies, at much greater cost. The EU’s space programme proceeds, which includes the Galileo satellite system, in which China has a 20% stake, and which has been set up in direct competition with the US Global Positioning System. Under Justice and Home Affairs a European Criminal Justice system is emerging. And so it goes on. All this and more is going ahead supposedly under the existing Treaties. At some stage in the next 18 months or so there will be a perfunctory Intergovernmental Conference, just to tie up the lose ends – the new voting weights in the Council, for example, and the end of the rotating presidency. Nothing to trouble the ignorant people with, of course; it would be absurd to hold referendums on such detailed and technical proposals.
So the project of European Union cannot stop now; it can only move forward. Soon we will be faced with the new megastate, which will be hostile to the United States and to Israel. Already this hostility is embodied in the Eurabia Treaties, and inspired by France’s deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two World Wards.
There are, I suppose, three great problems facing us today; global warming, Islamism and the European Union. I am not sure how much responsibility we bear for global warming, and I’m not sure we can do much about it quickly enough anyway. I wanted to make sure you understand the nature of the beast in Brussels, and to wish you every success as you ride into battle against by far the greatest threat facing our civilisation today, militant Islam.
Thank you. Malcolm Pearson January 2007
I believe in UKIP we have another face on the same corporate mask, a finite diversion as the corporate realm pulls all political energy into a one party state, under the command of the world government the United Nations. The deception that UKIP want an independent Britain, is false, they want what the corporate realm wants….Britain and all the rights that come from her constitutional ream to be ended, to be replaced with a corporate hell that is the United Kingdom Corporation Sole, under Contingency doctrine administered by Serco and its many subgroups. If they are successful in this endeavour, every living soul on these Isles will be a corporate asset to be used as the corporation sees fit.
 British Law
 In Profile : Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
 Serco Group Plc G4S Private Security
 Jeremy Corbyn, the United Nations and the European genocide via mass immigration
 David Cameron, Somalia and Missing Nukes