|
www Ukip Uncovered
|
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Localism, the last step towards the crushing of the UK by the EU!
I wished to post about this issue on the Orphans of Liberty but found the length of such a posting to be excessive, within the concept for that site. I cannot improve on this research sent to me by Anne Palmer on 7th June. Being of much interest to UKIP members, I hope they will not object to my using this site for visitors to search the link and read the frightening commentary. Regular updates on EU goings on are still covered by this blogger on Ironies Too :
Reprinted as received from its author Anne Palmer on 7th June, 2011.
§§§§§
Article re EU Fines paid through Local Regions. 6.6.2011.
Government wants local Authorities to pay for EU Fines? It is the EU that wants its UK-EU Regions to pay their fines directly. But let us just go into detail a tad more on this very issue, for without any doubt, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is indeed very different in many ways to those Nation States on the Continent. Their Constitutions are quite recently written (After the last war) and can be altered quite easily, where-as our Common Law Constitution is rather old and has actually stood the test of time very well indeed, parts of which cannot be changed unless we lost a war of course.
To get to the ‘nitty-gritty’. If the people (could) accept the proposals in the Localism Bill regarding the EU Fines, this would be the very first time in the history of this Country and contrary to its Constitution that the people would be expected to pay directly towards an EU Fine imposed by a foreign Organisation.
Not one EU Treaty has been put to the people to either accept or reject, and without doubt the contents are absolutely contrary to our Constitution. Particularly of grave concern regarding the Treaty of Lisbon, was the giving of “Legal Personality” for the EU to make Treaties on our behalf, and is ‘questionable to say the least’ because any Treaty or Agreement can only be ratified by using the Royal Prerogative by an elected British Government using the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown. No foreigner, nor citizen may use it on the Crown’s behalf and neither can any such Agreement or Treaty be accepted in this Country unless by the Crown or a British Government Minister using the Royal Prerogative on the Crown’s behalf. Was this an Act of Treason? Most certainly it was an act of sheer treachery to pass on to foreigners something that had been entrusted into the temporary care of our Ministers. Whether any Act or Agreement or Treaty passed by these foreigners can be held as legal in this Country is another question that should be put before the Courts or debated fully in Parliament.
I am aware certain Treaties have been passed by the EU since “Lisbon” using the Royal Prerogative, the SWIFT Treaty is one such and as Government Members are fully aware of the implications and honour of the privilege of using the said Royal Prerogative, the years of history behind it, along with their total Allegiance to the British Crown, the casual giving therefore of Legal Personality to the EU in a Treaty is questionable to say the least for it was not the Government’s of the day to give. No Treaty/ Agreement passed by the EU should have any jurisdiction here in the UK. There is much more to it than that but in the giving of the Royal Prerogative to a foreign Organisation to use on behalf of the British Crown should be sited as treason without doubt. (See also House of Lords Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Extradition Bill pages GC 287 294 quoting EU Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, re EU-US Extradition Treaty, “This is the very first Union Agreement in the field of Justice and Home affairs and it will be a historic precedent,” also recoded in the Debates of the European Parliament 3.6.2003).
With this new proposal regarding EU fines, the suggestion that Councils/Regions will contribute to EU fines imposed upon the UK Government, I guess as long as we remain in the EU, those EU fines will come our way thick and fast, probably until this and perhaps every other Country in the EU are completely bankrupt, because there is nothing and no one it seems, that is prepared to stop the EU, except perhaps the people themselves. But I ask you this. If I, as a top Judge or Magistrate, (Which I am not) 'fine' a person, say a £5000 fine, can he/she then go to a neighbour or another member of the family or perhaps a complete stranger in the street and say. "Hey! I have been found Guilty of breaking UK/EU law but YOU are going to have to pay the fine (or part of the fine) to the EU". Can that be right? This is what the UK Government will be expecting the Local Councils to do? Or perhaps the local people to do. Pay the fine or part of it for the UK as a whole. Yet not one UK Citizen has been asked if they wanted to be party to such an agreement, or to take on the responsibility and pay fines if things go wrong, most certainly they did not have any chance to accept or reject any such Treaty that allowed such intrusion, or break-up of their Country of ENGLAND through a Treaty, a Treaty that should never have been ratified. (See the Localism Bill-it started its Journey in the EU of course-See also Council of Europe)
When, and where was there a Court Case that suggested such fines? Who attended on our behalf? Was a plea of ‘Innocent Me Lud” taken down? Was there a trial? A full hearing? When did the people agree to such legislation that brought this about that a foreign Organisation is making laws for the people in this Sovereign Country, that they can be FINED if found wanting? Since when did the people agree to all this? Was there a debate in Parliament that “innocent until proven Guilty was now illegal/unlawful here in this Country? Do the people not pay through their TAXES for their own Government to govern them according to their own Common Law Constitution? Is the Government going to actually PAY the people for taking on this heavy responsibility, which is part of MP’s job? What is the point of the people voting for British Politicians to govern them if they can no longer govern this Country according to their own Country’s Common Law Constitution? Even though people actually vote and pay for that person, none may take their seat in the House of Commons until they have sworn a faithful and true solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown, the Crown that represents all the people in this Land. All in this Country are innocent until proven Guilty. Have the people been led into accepting ”instant fines” over the years, quite deliberately to get them used to then accepting paying foreigners when required to do so. There is no one in this Country that has agreed to any of this EU Legislation. All three Major Political Parties want to be in and remain in the EU and be Governed by foreigners apparently forever, whilst it seems they want to continue being paid as if they are still governing this Country according to its long Standing Constitution. Yet, that is the only way this Country can be lawfully governed.
Much of this is contrary to our Constitution and yes, charges of treason have been made by the people in the past and some even “today” are being put forward, the people are trying to do their duty. I pray in the end they will succeed, rather through the Courts than by any other means.
As for EU Border guards being allowed in this Country? Perhaps even made up by British people? EU Border Guards hold no allegiance to this Country. The Bill of Rights makes clear subjects of the British Crown can hold guns for their own Protection. However, we all know after Dunblane the peoples RIGHT to hold guns (Bill of Rights), was removed and though that decision was challenged very hard by one Michael James Burke, the case was lost. That decision left the position that only the bad guys, and those that are easily led carry, and sadly use guns. We read of these sad events where guns are used, even on small children-more than ever before. I remember the headlines, “Carjacker put a gun to the head of cancer victim, age eight” (Daily Mail Nov 22 2006). I remember reading the debates in Parliament when there was a possibility of foreign police-border controls and the possibility that they may enter this Country carrying such weapons, which of course they could chase from one Country into another on the Continent, but here, it was decided they would have to leave their guns behind. Will that be the case still now?
However, times change, and now we are at the time when foreigners-the Eurogendarmerie-(even though this Country is not in that organisation-see Article 5 of the Velsen Treaty) the Eurogendarmerie may carry guns? Just how long do you think the people will think that ‘RIGHT’ and do nothing? If foreigners are allowed fully armed here in the UK and the indigenous people may not carry guns-even though, according to their Constitution, they may, will the people STILL do nothing? Do not the indigenous people of the United Kingdom now have the right to challenge the verdict given by those Judges in the Michael James Burke case? What a farce if or when foreigners can carry guns here in our country yet the people are denied their RIGHTS as stated in their long standing Constitution.
Parliament was reminded of the Bill of Rights after the Case of Pepper v Hart when the Speaker at that time said, “This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible. There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights. I am sure that the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts.”
It has been said that there are only four clauses left in Magna Carta. Proof that Magna Carta remains complete is recorded in Hansard, for many are the times clauses have been quoted to prove an argument. I have over a hundred pages printed where Magna Carta has been mentioned-I stopped looking after one hundred. The last time Clause 61 was used regarding a Treaty, was by the Lords at the time of NICE-a clause that was allegedly repealed. Magna Carta is a Treaty and it needs the people’s consent to alter. It was also invoked last December, not yet put to use.
I quote (the late) Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20th July6 2000) “My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta”.
There has been, fairly recently, talk that a new proposed Bill of Rights and new UK Constitution that could be written and be ENTRENCHED, yet in the Government’s own Research Paper 96/82 18 July 1996 page 36 makes clear, “Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and that this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps, a written Constitution itself-can be entrenched-made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order”. Our own Common Laws cannot lawfully be destroyed for, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the constitution ‘is an act of treason’. The only way our Common Law Constitution could be destroyed is if we had lost a war. Parliament may only alter that which Parliament has done. Parliament had no hand in certain parts of our Common Law Constitution.
As was made clear on Question Time 24.2.2010, when debating the Bankers and the taxpayer’s money they have used for their Bonuses, it was brought home very strongly that it is indeed the taxpayer’s money that is being used. It is our money that is used for MP’s and Government’s wages and the vast expenses they have so recently “taken advantage” of. Plus, while so many people are losing their jobs, there has been no reduction what so ever in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. A suggested reduction of MP’s by 50 or 60 has recently been made yet not only has the House of Lords been crammed full to the limits, we are also looking at yet another layer of Governance through the Localism Bill, which also proposes Elected Mayors, full CABINETS with all the regalia and entourage that goes with it. WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD ALL THIS AND NETHER DO WE WANT ENGLAND DIVIDED UP INTO EU REGIONS.
Why are we paying for a full to the brim House of Lords, plus the silly suggestion it is replaced with elected Lords (Before that is taken on, see Clause XII Act of Union, plus Clause II re Act of Settlement) but beware the people cannot afford any of this. Ask also the question just how much longer are the people supposed to pay for a full House of Commons when all in that House of Commons have to obey all the same EU laws as the rest of us AS LONG AS WE REMAIN IN THE EU. It is indeed OUR Money that has and IS being used. Without our money nothing gets done. Nothing gets done in our Country and none of it goes to the EU. Hold on to that thought. Anne Palmer.
Links:
Full List of Treaties
In looking into this, I believe this came from the EU upward, and not instigated by the UN at all. Habitat-Towards a World Charter of Local Self-Government
§§§§§
AND not forgetting for your bookmarks/favourites and regular updates on the goings on of the dreadful European Union: http://ironiestoo.blogspot.com)Labels: EU Fines, Localism
posted by Martin |
3:46 PM
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|