The Great betrayal of the British people

Further reading on how Fabianism is trying to take over .
The following article shows some evidence of the increasingly rapid take over of our country. This take over is illegal, it is not sanctioned by the people of Britain. In Britain our loyalty is to the Crown as defined by our constitution. Any "law" which attempts to change our constitution is treason.


http://www.tpuc.org/News/news.050707.jh.perog..html

The Great Betrayal of the British People Part 3 - The Fabian War from within.
The information contained in this article has been researched by Elizabeth Beckitt, Shaun O'Connell and John Harris.
A question of the royal prerogative is the power we give the queen to govern us. She is in charge of the Judiciary, the armed forces (of which she is the commander in chief). She is in charge of the church, royal assent, chief executive, treaties and foreign relations. These powers are given to ministers to use when necessary, they cannot be used outside our constitutional laws.
In are constitution these prerogative powers are a part of the Monarch and cannot be taken from her even by an act of parliament, so in the 2005 constitutional reform act Mr Blair and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) took them over with the exception of:
Appointment of Prime Minister
Assent to legislation
Prorogation and dissolution of parliament (the Queen accepts ministerial advice on the use of these powers)
The prerogative power is part of her contract with the people to govern them well. In the recent case 23rd May 2007 of the people of the Chagos Archipelago island's before the appeal court, Margaret Beckett as the foreign secretary took the case to the court of appeal after two high court judges had found for the Chagosians and told her she would have to show good cause for a stay on their judgement. Lord justice Sedley said "...by making an order in council under the royal prerogative to stop the islanders returning was unlawful and an abuse of power..." The government claimed that under the royal prerogative powers that belong to the Queen, government ministers in her name were immune from judicial scrutiny. Indeed said lord justice Waller "...the decision had been taken by a minister acting without any restraint, indeed the crown maybe doing something but if she only knew the true position, she would prefer not to do and yet it is said that the government can hide behind the crown's prerogative..."
The storey behind this is that Harold Wilson in the 60's removed the people from their island Diego Garcia giving the USA a lease of this island so they could set up an air base to use to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. A strategy that even then, was set in place so the Americans could wage air strikes against Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran from a conveniently placed air base. The Fabian strategy of globalisation has been on the table for a long time. Tony Blair was the head of the Fabian Society before becoming Prime minister.
Of the three judges in the appeal court was Master of the rolls Sir Anthony Clarke who refused a stay on the effect of their judgement allowing the islanders to return immediately. The judges condemned (as repugnant) Whitehall's decision to "...exile a whole population in the 1960's and 70's..." and the solicitor said "...this is now the third time that the leader of the Chagosian community in exile, has proved to the satisfaction of English judges that nothing can separate his companions from their homeland..."
The present government has claimed for itself the royal prerogative without constraint. It is now claiming the right to alter the constitution made by our ancestors and take the power to declare war when this is an example of their almost insane use of it - in terms of the Chagosians. This is against chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1215, against the power we give the Queen and against us and our contract with the monarch.
Please note the following:
In 1215 King John had been excommunicated for signing Magna Carta which proclaimed our free church and Magna Carta itself was ordered to be destroyed. In 1215 chapter 39 lays down for the king "...No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land..." there was no law for the Chagosians to be removed from their land.
400 years later Charles 1 warned the people before a rump parliament of 58 members backed by the army that "...power without law, making laws, means no man or his property is safe..."
In 1910 barely 300 years later a liberal government which was also Fabian took the first steps to give total power to the Commons.
Asquith put forward a bill to stop the power of the lords controlling the Commons against the treason and felony act of 1848 and to put all decisions on taxation into the hands of the Commons alone, thus destroying the Fiscal Prerogative.
Edward VII then king refused it and told him to take it to the country. Asquith did so and lost his majority. Edward VII died and a new young king George V came to the throne in 1911, his adviser on the constitutional affairs is traditionally the lord chancellor, in 1911 this was Lord Lore another Fabian. king George could not have known that people standing for parliament or taking on parliamentary power (who give an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the constitution) would betray or be intent on destroying it.
So when Asquith told him that the royal assent an essential part of any bill, if it is to become law was automatic because no bill had been sent back by any monarch since the time of Queen Anne 1707-08. This frame work was never put before parliament and has been accepted ever since although it is Treason, against the sovereign and has led to the invalidation of any subsequent law. Through the 30's Ramsey McDonald another Fabian deputy prime minister would have seen to it that no alteration was made. We have since seen under Attley a Fabian, Harold Wilson a communist (from which Fabianism derives) Tony Blair who was the head of the Fabian society and now Gordon Brown who is also a Fabian continuing the strategy to destroy the sovereignty of this country (see Arthur Toynbee's speech of 1931)
The most urgent concern is that these people are claiming they are going to make a new Constitution to replace our Constitution (that was made by us the people) with the usual grace of untruth for the people. The prerogative power is going to be in the hands of the Commons and the people without constraint, the people do not need a new constitution they have one already that is there to protect them, we hope we do not have to fight as our ancestors did to retain it. No democracy can function securely without Constitutional safe guards. Why? Because human beings are always striving for more power, this is why we have a sovereign bound by Constitutional Laws. To make the people Sovereign would give the Commons the power they crave, they act as though they have the power now but they know it is invalid. They need to force the people to commit Treason against the constitution, for their strategy to succeed, hence a new constitution with absolutely no constraint.
No democracy can function without a Constitution we have seen historically how Lenin, Hitler and Mugabe have destroyed theirs and a Ugandan lorry driver talking on news night said "...it is no good voting for another government they simply change the constitution making a banana republic..." For example this government has had a system of demonising other sovereign nations so they can then go to war thus: Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and aiming for Iran because their interest is not the laws that constrain them but globalisation.
In the 1911 Parliament Act (void due to automatic assent) the majority party in power has all decision over taxation. In the fiscal prerogative - all taxation is for government administration and to leave as much money in the pockets of the tax payer as possible. It is not for paying corrupt leaders in Africa. The people of this country are generous and upright and will give generously to help people in Africa through charities and other ways, nor is it to be used for wars (under our Constitutional Laws we cannot go to war against another nation unless that nation declares war on us first FACT), more surveillance equipment , Id cards and a Police State to mention but a few. (to imprison the British people within their own nation, then trick them into abolishing it)
The taxation extension of bureaucracy in this country causes inflation. The civil servants advise on flood protection was robbed of 50 million pounds to pay for government propaganda.
In the interest of making "...every body equal laws..." that have been brought in to force social mobility but they are in fact stopping social mobility. Cardinal Wolsey was more powerful than a king and was the son of a butcher. Arch bishop Cranmer who wrote much of the prayer book was the son of a blacksmith. This government by social repression is causing a paralysis of social mobility on our taxation.
Pension credits have been wiped out to the loss of pensioners that have paid tax all their lives, council tax has the cost of immigrants, assemblies and Councillors pensions of which is really a service charge. We are having to pay 200 billion a year to Europe for the honour of having fisherman's boats destroyed, farmers having their quotas removed and VAT on nearly everything we buy. The entry into Europe itself is none existent because of the Fabians automatic assent. Even under the automatic assent they have to use the prerogative power, which cannot function against the Constitution and they are using the royal prerogative power to make a further Constitution with Europe which will give them permission to remove our Constitution and this is TREASON.
"...treason you say, that does not exist anymore after it was repealed in the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act under section 36.3..." Well here's a fact for you - The treason law could not be repealed as it was made permanent in 1807 and backed up by The Felony and Treason Act 1848.
These are the people we have elected to represent us. They are making out that everything they are doing is legal when it is not they are basically confidence tricksters. The constraint laid down by law upon all members of Parliament (including the Prime Minister) is in the Oath of Allegiance they swear to the monarch. To act against this Oath as they did in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is plainly TREASON. That is why they now intend to do away with the Oath. For to remove this most essential part of which is ultimately, the only way they can have a seat in Parliament, is the final phase to destroy the Queen's Prerogative powers and make the people sovereign - thus the Commons will have ultimate power without any form of constraint. Resulting in the duped people of England handing their country to the EU on a plate.
For your reference
The limitations of royal prerogative are clear. Sir Robert Howard: "No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the king ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
Blackstone pointed out that English law was superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the constitution: "A right of every Englishman is that of applying to the Courts of Justice for redress of injuries. Since the law in England is the supreme arbiter of every man's life, liberty and property, Courts of Justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein."
The Cambridge Law Journal, 1955, referring to (now Professor Sir, QC) William Wade's The Basis of Legal Sovereignty, said that: "sovereign legislation depends for its authority on (what Salmond calls) an 'ultimate legal principle', i.e.: a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be given. If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey (the UK) parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. It is above and beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute.

source http://www.tpuc.org/News/news.050707.jh.perog..html

Who Really Runs the World?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/LSEHistory/fabian.htm



The Fabian SocietyFounded in 1884, the Fabian Society was an intellectual movement concerned with the research, discussion, and publication of socialist ideas. The society was named after the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, 'the delayer' who advocated a war of attrition rather than direct confrontation against Hannibal. The Fabians believed that social reform could be achieved by a new political approach of gradual and patient argument, 'permeating' their ideas into the circles of those with power: 'the inevitability of gradualism' was an early slogan.
As Sidney Webb wrote to the Fabian Edward Pease in 1886, 'Nothing is done in England without the consent of a small intellectual yet political class in London, not 2000 in number. We alone could get at that class.' The Fabians were especially active in London local government. The Fabians aimed for democratic socialism. Believing that voters could be persuaded of socialism's justice, they sought to achieve reform by education, stimulating debate through lectures and discussions initiated by democratically accountable and educated professionals. The Fabian Society grew out of the Fellowship of the New Life in 1883, the object of which had been 'The cultivation of a perfect character in each and all.' Members of the Fabian Society also argued that 'the end of the State…is, in fact, the development of character.' Not only was character - national, individual, moral - a Victorian preoccupation, but its development in the individual was perceived by social reformers as a form of liberation from oppression. Cultivating character involved education and achieving bias-free judgement, and social reform aimed to build a society where altered political and social circumstances improved the conditions of those whom society could and should help.
Leading early members of the society include Annie Besant, Beatrice (A future Fabian Society president) and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, George Wallas, Hubert Bland, and Sidney Olivier. The Fabian Society maintained its independence from the Labour Party, although it helped to create the Labour Representation Committee in 1900. Trade union militancy from 1910-26 and the unemployment climate and depression of the 1930s diminished the attractiveness of Fabian gradualism, but its influence had revived by 1939 through senior members, for example, Clement Attlee was chairman of the Fabian Research Bureau. The Fabian Society continues today with over 6000 members.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=402

The Fabian Society and New Labour

There is occasional mention of the Fabian Society in the media – usually in connection with some report or other. However, many people have never heard of it, and of those that have, most probably have little idea of what it stands for. Significantly, Blair and most of his cabinet colleagues past and present including Straw, Mandelson, Brown, Mowlam and others are members of the centre left socialist intellectual Fabian Society. Fabianism believes in what it describes as “the democratic control of society in all its activities.” The key word is control – whereas most people see democracy as based on the freedom and liberty of the individual, Fabian socialism places the emphasis on control of the individual – a sort of “we know what is best” attitude. It sees this as being best achieved through some form of global government, a goal it shares with Communism, (which is also based on centralised control). Some time ago an elderly friend of mine told me how she had attended Fabian Society meetings in the 1930s, and she confirmed that world government was what was discussed even then. In short, those who adhere to Fabian philosophy, seek a highly centralised power base – the elimination of national sovereignty is fundamental to the process. The emblem of the Fabian Society is the tortoise, which represents slow but steady progress. The Labour Party has always included Fabians, but Blair’s Labour now seems riddled with them. This political philosophy, widespread throughout the so called centre left parties of Europe must explain so much about how and why the EU has developed in the way that it has and why our government is so committed to the single European state. It has also had influence within the U.S. Democratic party. Members of the Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics, which has traditionally ensured that budding socialists receive a thorough grounding in traditional economics and monetary policy! Fabianism would appear to have many adherents on the staff of the centre left newspapers such as the Independent, the Guardian and the Observer that have generally been very supportive of the EEC/EU over the years, not to mention the BBC which has singularly failed over the years to disclose the reality of the EEC/EU to the public. What Blair has described as the “third way” is in fact the coming together of Fabian socialism and the free market global economy. New Labour represents the radical restructuring of the party and its policies to fit in with the “global economy”, modelled on the U.S. Democratic party. New Labour now presides over the growing tendency towards short time, short-term lower paid jobs. Its leaders openly fraternise and seek favour with corporate interests from the City to the far east – it has unashamedly become the new party of big business, on which it now relies for a substantial part of its funding, and whose interests it does everything possible to promote – e.g. genetically modified crops. It has distanced itself from trade unions from which few parliamentary candidates are now drawn. Policy is made at the top, its traditional commitments to employment, local authorities, pensions and benefits have all fallen by the wayside. Spending is kept under tight control and privatisation continues apace. Services in health care, education, care of the elderly and many other services traditionally provided by the state and local authorities, are all up for grabs by the big operators in the private sector under New Labour’s “private finance initiatives”. [1]
The European Union – model for the future?“Let’s stop pretending that the European Union is the product of some starry-eyed internationalism dedicated to peace and harmony….” Spectre magazine The European Union also represents the coming together of Fabian socialism and the corporate free market economy. The agenda is centralisation of power, ultimately leading to some form of global government. The destruction of sovereign nation states is clearly vital if that is to be achieved, and anyone who has examined the reality of European Union can be under no illusion that that is what is happening to the member states of the EU. It is very likely as a result of secret discussions such as those of the Bilderberg group, to which only a select few are party, that cross party consensus throughout Europe on the creation of the EU was established, ensuring that no choice on the EU has been offered to the people of Europe. The sudden imposition of a gigantic totalitarian police state, which is what the EU is becoming, would never be accepted. The key has been a gradual step by step stealth approach so that when people finally realise what the game is, it is too late. To get us to support membership initially, we were told it was just a free trade bloc entailing no loss of sovereignty - now rapidly we are being confronted with political union leading to a single federal state, with a mass of regulations and directives impinging on every aspect of our lives emanating from unelected bodies. The Maastricht Treaty is very complex, and has to be read in conjunction with the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act in order to make sense. The Amsterdam Treaty also has to be read in conjunction with the Maastricht Treaty complicating matters even more. There is almost no possibility that any M.Ps or even government ministers in any member state will have read them - they simply wouldn’t have the time. How many of them really know what they entail? What information was given to our M.Ps. when they were debated in Parliament? The Acts of Parliament incorporating them into our law simply refer to the treaties as a whole, and are only two pages long… The EU may be well be the global model for the future, so let’s look at it closely – first the major institutions: [2] The Council of Ministers, which meets behind closed doors is the policy making institution of the EU, backed by the powerful Committee of Permanent Representatives - a body of appointed paid civil servants. The make up of the Council depends on what is being discussed – foreign ministers discuss foreign policy, agriculture ministers farming, the Common Agricultural Policy etc. Decisions are made unanimously, or by “qualified majority”, which is being extended by each successive treaty. Its individual members are generally, as in the case of Britain, elected members of national parliaments, but as a body, it is not answerable to any elected institution nor can it be disbanded or dismissed. The process is one of reaching agreements at meetings, and then what has been agreed being implemented by legislation or otherwise across the EU by governments of member states. It has been and continues to be a very important method of developing the EU and its policy. It is also employed at the six monthly EU summits attended by the heads of governments of member states. The European Commission also meets in secret, made up presently of 20 appointed members, 1 to 2 per state. It alone initiates EU legislation by turning policy decisions of the Council of Ministers into legislative “proposals” which eventually become “Community acts” in the form of directives and regulations binding on member states, whose elected national parliaments must implement them forthwith. It is backed up by about 13000 appointed paid civil servants. Commissioners are forbidden by the Treaty of Rome to represent their national interests – they must promote and represent the interests of the Union. (whatever they may be – their own and those of big business perhaps which in practice has easy access to the Commission, not readily granted to anyone else.) European Parliament - the only elected institution in the EU, with 626 members of which Britain returns 87. In reality this is no more than an assembly - it cannot even initiate legislation, (it can only “ask” the Commission to do so) and it has no control over money supply or taxation. It often just gives opinions or only has the right to be “consulted”. Even where its approval is required for legislative proposals, a very complex procedure involving strict time limits favours legislative proposals going through unchallenged. In practice the parliament is a farce - the number of legislative proposals in the form of regulations and directives is so great that MEPs have to vote on large numbers of them at a time with little or no knowledge as to what the proposals involve. Debate is virtually non-existent – and with strict time limits of just a few minutes imposed on how long an individual MEP can speak, this barely even qualifies as a talking shop. Sitting in Brussels and Strasbourg it is hopelessly inaccessible as far as the electors are concerned. Once elected, an MEP’s role is basically to promote the EU for which he or she is well paid with lavish expenses. European Central Bank - The ECB is run by appointees, who are completely “independent” (they do not take any instructions from people such as members of the European Parliament who have been elected, or any other EU institution or member state government, none of whom are permitted to attempt to influence it.). They come from private banking interests and meet behind closed doors with complete control over the direction of European economic and monetary policy and interest rates, and are able, on their own, to issue regulations and directives carrying the same force as those issued through the community legislative procedures. These people are totally unanswerable to anyone. This is where the real power lies. For those states that sign up to the single currency, the ECB will determine monetary policy and set interest rates that control the amount of money and credit in circulation, and thus the general level of economic activity, at a given time throughout those member states which adopt the Euro. What it decides will determine levels of direct and indirect taxation, spending in every area of economic and social activity, wage deals, government borrowing, the budgets to be allocated to the newly created regional assemblies etc. National Central Banks become an integral part of the European System of Central Banks and must act in accordance with its instructions. It therefore has the power to controls cycles of “boom” and “bust”. Its regulations and directives do not require the approval or consent of any of the other institutions, which are obliged to recognise its “independence”, by not seeking to influence it. The only control is a judicial one exercised by the European Court of Justice which is limited to deciding whether or not it has acted in accordance with it’s very wide powers! The granting of full independence, and control of monetary policy to the Bank of England by the Labour Government immediately after it was elected, was essential to prepare for the handing over of power to the ECB and the incorporation of the Bank of England into the European System of Central Banks. The Euro is fundamental to the continuing creation of a single European state. Our government, despite what some ministers may say publicly, is almost certainly ideologically committed to getting us in. The so called 5 economic tests that have to be met are really just a smoke screen to conceal the political objective, and to allow time to try to convince people that the single currency should be adopted. The government will try to avoid calling a referendum on the issue until they are satisfied they will get a yes vote. Even the protocol in the Masstricht Treaty that permitted Britain to remain outside the single currency is something of a sham, because we are already committed to managing our economic and monetary policy for the benefit of the community as a whole, and with a view to entry into full monetary union, no matter how far in the future that may be. What is the difference between running policy in readiness for going in and actually being in? It certainly means public spending, taxation, public sector borrowing and public sector wage deals are being tightly controlled to comply with the so called “convergence criteria” for joining the Euro. On the economic front, the shots are called by big business and multinational corporations, through organisations such as the European Round Table of Industrialists, whose founder Etienne Davignon chaired the Bilderberg Group meeting in 2000. So many new regulations seem designed to force small business people right out of business. European Court of Justice - (NOT to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights which is separate and not an EU institution - yet) Its job is to interpret the rules of the treaties and all community legislative acts, regulations and directives made under them. Since the only law it applies is that contained in the treaties, which is designed to further European integration, it is essentially a political court, whose decisions and interpretations are intended to make sure member states give effect to that process. There are other general features that need looking at as well: Europol - A Europe wide police force known as Europol is being created. It has very wide powers but is not answerable to any elected body. It reports to a special committee appointed by the Council of Ministers. It exists ostensibly to fight crime, but it has a much wider function. Not only will it collect and store information on known and suspected criminals, but also on anyone's political and religious beliefs and activities. The building up of large databases is specifically provided for under the Maastricht Treaty. Europol has recently been empowered to form its own anti terrorist squad with access to information held by MI5 and MI6. All Europol personnel are immune from prosecution. Corpus Juris - The European Commission and the European Parliament are pressing for the imposition of a uniform legal system throughout the EU known as Corpus Juris. If fully implemented in Britain, all criminal prosecutions would be heard solely by judges or other professional paid officials appointed by the state. Trial by jury would be phased out, to be replaced by a single judge sitting alone. Recent attempts to get legislation through Parliament reducing those cases where an accused can demand trial by jury, should be seen as the start of this process. In addition a Home Office report has recommended that lay magistrates should be replaced by stipendiary (i.e. professional paid) magistrates, another measure that clearly fits in with the Corpus Juris plan. In both cases the government claims the measures are simply in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness. The involvement of ordinary people in the judicial process as magistrates and jurors is fundamental to the system of justice employed through much of the English speaking world, and goes back hundreds of years - it is designed to protect the citizen against the risk of arbitrary or malicious prosecution, and is a healthy feature in any democracy. Corpus Juris would also introduce detention without trial, since under this continental system, a person suspected of an offence can be arrested and held in custody for a period of six months or more, pending such further investigations and enquiries as the public prosecutor sees fit, before being brought before a court. This is radically different from our own system of Habeas Corpus (which has its origins as far back as Magna Carta of 1215), whereby an accused person must be brought before a court within a very short period of arrest, and evidence against the arrested person produced. The Anti –Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 rushed through parliament in the aftermath of September 11th includes provisions enabling the Home Secretary to make changes such as these to our court system, by statutory instrument, rather than by a bill requiring full parliamentary debate. A European public prosecutor has already been appointed and will have authority in Britain and throughout the EU, initially only in respect of cases involving fraud against the EU budget (e.g. people who make dishonest claims for EU grants and subsidies etc.) this is now being extended via Eurojust, a new agency which will have powers of investigation in all EU member states. European Army - Under the new Nice treaty, an old European defence pact known as Western European Union is to be incorporated into the European Union itself. It will lay the foundation for a European Army, hailed by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as another pillar in the process of European unification. The first steps to create the European army were taken at the EU Helsinki summit in December 1999, where agreement was reached to set up a so called “rapid reaction force” of 60,000 soldiers complete with command, planning and intelligence bases. It is likely to have an offensive role rather like NATO adopted and put into practice in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. More significantly, French PM Lionel Jospin has stated that “by pooling its armies, Europe will be able to maintain internal security, as well as prevent conflicts throughout the world..” Indeed, Foreign Office sources indicate that the setting up of a 5000 strong internal emergency reaction force was approved at the EU summit at Feira, Portugal in June 2000. In many parts of the EU, it is normal practice already for riot police, with tear gas and water cannon, to be used to confront even peaceful protests Banning Political Parties? - In April 2000, the European Parliament approved the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen Report, article 6 of which makes provision for the setting up of EU wide political parties. However, this is subject to the proviso that “parties that do not respect human rights and democratic principles as set out in the Treaty of Rome shall be the subject of suspension proceedings in the European Court of Justice”. Despite the rhetoric in its preamble, the Treaty of Rome is not based on democratic principles but rather on European integration. Is the framework being created that any party opposed to the EU such as the United Kingdom Independence Party, could be subjected to such proceedings? The banning of political parties characterised the former Soviet Union. They never abolished elections - the ruling Communist party simply outlawed all other parties as “fascist” or “counter revolutionary” and maintained itself in power that way! EU Constitution etc. The Treaty of Amsterdam, signed in October 1997, provided for the removal of border controls between EU member states, although Britain has a temporary opt out on this. Plans exist for a written constitution for the EU incorporating the existing treaties - the Nice Treaty declares that this will be presented to the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. The last intergovernmental conference that produced the Nice Treaty laid the foundations for this under the guise of a charter of fundamental rights – this may sound great… until you realise that the only rights you get are the ones specifically mentioned in the charter – and that under article 51 all rights can be suspended if “the interests of the Union” so require. This along with the possible future replacement of the Council of Ministers by a president with power to appoint a cabinet would ensure that member states’ governments would no longer have any involvement in EU policy making, or be able to amend the treaties or a future EU constitution. The Nice Treaty also provides the framework for the enlargement of the EU from the present 15 states up to 27 – mainly the former communist states of eastern Europe and some of the old soviet republics. Devolution - There’s been lots of spin and hype about bringing power closer to people by devolving power to Scotland and Wales. The devolved assemblies have very limited powers in practice – they have no revenue raising powers such as the council tax raised by county councils. Fixed sums are allocated to them annually by central government. What they can spend the money on is also limited to health, education and certain aspects of economic development. The devolution plan is fundamental to the ongoing creation of the single European state, which may explain why our government launched such massive campaigns in favour of a “yes” vote in the referenda for Scottish and Welsh devolution. The 1998 “Good Friday” agreement, presented as a breakthrough in the Northern Ireland peace process, was a vital part of the same plan, because, crucially, it set up an assembly for Northern Ireland. Under the umbrella of the Committee of the Regions (set up by the Maastricht Treaty) the EU is divided into 111 regions of which Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are each a region. England is divided into 9 regions and the plan is for these regions also to have assemblies – John Prescott is a vigorous promoter of these. The first English assembly (Greater London) is already in place. The remaining eight would complete the EU pattern. Their forerunners, the regional development agencies, have already been set up. These assemblies will play no part in the EU legislative process - they too simply decide how a budget allocated to them will be spent in limited areas such as health and education. Their voice in the EU will be confined to 2 members each appointed to the Committee of the Regions which is only consulted by the other institutions in very limited areas of legislation. In 1998, Tory MEP Roger Helmer was told seriously by a fellow Tory MEP that in 10 years that Britain’s national government would be gone, in its place the U.K. would be divided into 12 regions governed from Brussels. With major constitutional and law making powers being transferred to the federal institutions of the EU, and limited spending powers being devolved to the regions, elected national parliaments are already becoming just “clearing houses” for passing on EU made policy, rules and regulations – part of major global moves intended to deprive democratic structures of any real power and substance. [3] Some people defend the EU saying without it we would all end up at war. This is nonsense - it is thanks to such things as modern communications, television and travel that have brought us together in ways that were impossible 50 plus years ago, making it highly unlikely that we would ever fight each other again as in the past. They also ignore the fact that most wars in the world today are being fought within states with totalitarian regimes which refuse to accept minority and individual rights to run their own affairs. This is the pointer for the future – conflict in Europe with the grass roots rising up against undemocratic centralised control that the EU, especially an enlarged EU represents… Indeed mass protests are already starting to take place throughout the EU as more and more people see their livelihoods being sacrificed on the altar of what is becoming a banker corporate dictatorship.
NAFTA, APEC and “DOLLARISATION”A similar process as we have with the European Union is now beginning to take place on the other side of the Atlantic. The embryonic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is presently comprised only of the U.S. Canada and Mexico. It is presented at this stage as no more than a free trade bloc, as was the EU’s forerunner the Common Market. However, Bill Clinton spoke latterly of expanding it to take in central and south American states and extending its powers. All central and South American countries are already tied into at least one of several free trade blocs of which Mercosur is the largest – these seem likely to be merged into NAFTA in due course. A vastly expanded NAFTA to be known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas was the central theme at the “Summit of the Americas” held in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001. This whole process is backed by George W. Bush and the New York based “Council of the Americas” comprised of bankers and big corporate bosses. Although there are rules and arbitration procedures and an enforcement tribunal, as yet NAFTA does not have formal institutions like the EU’s. However, in addition a process of “dollarisation” is afoot. There has been serious debate in Canada and Argentina to scrap their currencies and adopt the U.S. dollar instead, and Ecuador and Panama have already done so. Ultimately, a single currency for the Americas (the US dollar), like a single currency for the EU, is a probable objective in certain corporate banking and government circles. A third major bloc is starting to be formed, namely the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation zone (APEC) – within that region is AFTA (the Asian Free Trade Area.) which covers ten states in south east Asia. Are these the forerunners of “the American Union” and “the Asia-Pacific Union”? 1 For details of the full extent to which new Labour has become a part of the corporate agenda see “Captive State” by George Monbiot and “Prawn Cocktail Party” by Robin Ramsay – address note 3 above. 2 This summary of the powers of the EU institutions was compiled by me from having studied the texts of the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht and the Single European Act. 3 Two good sources of information on what’s going on in the EU corridors of power are Eurofacts, P.O. Box 9984 London W12 8WZ, and Facts Figures & Phantasies, from Independent Media Digest & Commentary, 20 Ramillies Road, London W14 1JN.

Did you know that Bill Clinton is also a Fabian, no. Google Bill Clinton Fabians and have a look yourself. He went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.

We live in a historic times indeed, we are at the point of major changes to our way of life, how much say do we have? From what I have managed to glean, not a lot.

WHO IS IN CONTROL?

Maybe this following article will help you to start to see the reasons why our political "leaders" do the things they do. For instance Mr. Milliband is very aware of what he is doing in Turkey today, helping to open the EU door http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0584853820070905?rpc=401& , his reasoning though eludes us. The plan is unfolding rapidly but they are past the point of weakness and believe they have enough strength to be bolder and more progressive. Many people look at the elite as bumbling, disconnected, incompetent, directionless and downright stupid. Do not believe it, they are very smart, charming, articulate, educated, focused, connected and determined.

They have a strong, binding common goal. The obvious unifying bond must be the party they belong to one would think, but I believe there is more to it than that. Party politics in the UK can be too fluid, needs to change some what from time to time for lets say, appearances. Only a little mind and usually a few speeches and waffle, a new name, a law or two and it is put aside and back to the agenda as soon as it is appropreate to do so. So what is the guiding light that keep them on track. Have you ever heard of The Fabian Society? Its been around for a long long time, it is very influential, for instance, every labour prime minister, ever, has been a member up to and including the current Priminister, most of the past and present labour MP's have been and are members. The labour party emerged as the political arm of the Fabians, the Liberals are also historically closely connected, I have found that a number of conservatives are also members.

We see today that the liblabcon are hardly different politically, might that be because of a common goal?

Fabianism believes in what it describes as “the democratic control of society in all its activities.” The key word is control – whereas most people see democracy as based on the freedom and liberty of the individual, Fabian socialism places the emphasis on control of the individual – a sort of “we know what is best” attitude. It sees this as being best achieved through some form of global government, a goal it shares with Communism, (which is also based on centralised control). Some time ago an elderly friend of mine told me how she had attended Fabian Society meetings in the 1930s, and she confirmed that world government was what was discussed even then. In short, those who adhere to Fabian philosophy, seek a highly centralised power base – the elimination of national sovereignty is fundamental to the process. The emblem of the Fabian Society is the tortoise, which represents slow but steady progress. The Labour Party has always included Fabians, but Blair’s Labour now seems riddled with them. This political philosophy, widespread throughout the so called centre left parties of Europe must explain so much about how and why the EU has developed in the way that it has and why our government is so committed to the single European state. It has also had influence within the U.S. Democratic party. Members of the Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics, which has traditionally ensured that budding socialists receive a thorough grounding in traditional economics and monetary policy! http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=402

I hope you would read the full article by clicking the link and also do your own search to find out more.

Am I right or am I wrong, time will tell.

THE PLAN TO DESTROY BRITAIN

I had the head line and was doing some research when I came across this. http://uktabloid.co.uk/Main%20News.html , well you could have knocked me over with a feather, I have decided to use it .

The plan to destroy Britain
Imagine, if the traitors in our midst had all got together, to formulate a plan to destroy our Nation - it would probably read something like this:
Fellow Globalists. If you believe, as we do, that, Britain, but especially, England, is too arrogant, and too xenophobic, to willingly accept global governance, then we will have to destroy its identity, and weaken it sufficiently, so that it is no longer able to resist. Surprisingly it won't be too hard to do. Look at history. History shows that Nations are far more fragile than their citizens believe.
Arnold Tynbee observed the lessons of history, in essence, when he said, "...all great Nations commit suicide". We simply have to speed things along.
Here's the plan:
1. Firstly, we must promote "Multiculturalism". To support this, we will make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, and that cultural differences are not important.
For instance, if any point out that drop-out rates are high for young Blacks, we respond by saying that this is entirely due to the prejudice and discrimination of the indigenous population. We refuse to countenance any other explanations.
2. The religious beliefs of immigrants must be accepted, not only as equal to, but superior to, those traditionally held in Britain. This must be done most carefully, so that liberal elements in the various churches can assist in their own downfall.
3. Encourage immigrants to settle together so that they have no need to take on the culture of the majority. Again, the key to this will be the constant promotion of 'Diversity' rather than 'Unity'. When all that is left to hold us together is tolerance and pluralism we will have destroyed what is meant by being British!
4. We will encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture.
It will be important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in close proximity. Thereby reinforcing their differences.
5. But this isn't all. We must make our fastest growing demographic groups the least educated. This will add a second underclass; a class unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to the indigenous majority. If we can make this underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school, so much the better.
6. We will of course have to get big business and liberal foundations to give our efforts to create diversity lots of money. We will invest in ethnic identities, and establish the cult of victimology. We will persuade the minorities that their lack of success is the fault of the majority.
This will enable the development of a 'grievance industry', which will blame all minority failures on the indigenous population. This will keep the majority intimidated. Because they won't want to be labelled xenophobic or racist, they will rapidly become afraid to, even question, what is happening.
7. We will constantly find reason to celebrate Diversity. 'Diversity' is a wonderfully seductive word, don't you think? It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Never forget that diverse peoples, artificially thrown together, worldwide, generally end up hating each other. That is when they are not killing each other. So preach 'Diversity' at every opportunity!
Remember, it is against historical precedent to have a diverse, peaceful, and stable society. Remember also that in general terms, people undervalue the unity that's needed to keep a nation together. We will take advantage of this natural Myopia.
If we are successful, and we will be, (just so long as can keep the plan hidden from the majority for long enough) we will be able to Balkanise Britain as easily as Yugoslavia.
(And now for the really good bits)
8. We will place all these subjects 'off limits'- taboo to talk about. In the Middle Ages the threat of being called a 'Heretic' stopped discussion and paralysed thought. For our purposes, words such as 'Racist', 'Bigot', and 'Xenophobe' will serve to halt argument and conversation opposed to our plan!
9. Having established 'Multiculturalism', (and 'Multilingualism') alongside the doctrine of 'Victimology' we will next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. We will repeatedly say that as immigration has been good for Britain in the past, it must always be good. We will endeavour to ensure every immigrant (especially those with strong religious beliefs, i.e., Muslims), whilst occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas as the indigenous people, do so with minimal interbreeding. We will of course ignore the cumulative impact!
10. And finally, we will no doubt have to create one or two new political parties to facilitate this. They will serve political blind alley's to siphon off any who question what is happening. We will help the leaders, we select,
keep control, by ridiculing their organisations, whilst labelling their supporters as right wing and out of touch.
A similar approach will be adopted towards any genuinely 'Nationalist' organisation that showed signs of growth, for such an occurrence would be a direct danger to 'The Plan'. So, if such a group appears, on top of labelling them racist and xenophobic, we will also launch a massive negative-publicity campaign against them. We will use the police and intelligence agencies to harass their activists, and, amend voting procedures to deny such a group access to political power.
Final section
Did you recognise the 10 points of the plan to destroy Britain? You should do, as this 'Plan' was put into operation decades ago. The final section of the 'Plan' is now being actively used - against the BNP, UKIP, other legal parties, unions, blogs,and many indivuals.
Does this mean that all is lost? Far from it! The 'Plan' has only succeeded so far because it's secret purpose has been kept so well hidden by the political establishment!
It beholds all of us to fight through the abuse, intimidation, and harassment (that activists have had to contend with on a daily basis), to bring the truth to the man in the street. In other words, we all have to become activists. For the enemies of Britain have almost completed project, 'Destroy Britain'. Time is short, but we, the present generations of this country, also have a duty to generations yet to come. A duty that demands that we expose what has been done to Britain - by those charged with its protection! If you call yourself a patriot, and/or a Nationalist, you cannot stand idly by.
Exposure is the only thing our enemies really fear. So let's expose them and their squalid plan. Everyone can do something. Talk to friends and neighbours, work colegues, write to blogs, newspapers, councils, read to educate yourselves. The list of opportunities is endless. Friends, Britain needs you. Please, please, don't let Her down!
The inspiration for this article was a speech (earlier this year) to an 'Immigration -
Overpopulation Conference' in Washington, DC, entitled, 'I Have a Plan to Destroy America'. The speech was given by Richard D. Lamm - a former Governor of the State of Colorado. Article Source

TIME TO WALK THE WALK

Apparently the British are world renowned as moaners and whingers . Always blaming things on "them and they". Expecting others to do things for us because its beneath us to stand and be counted, but quick to blame others for trying. Others have their heads up their arses and live a life of denial saying things like "I am alright", "Can't be arsked", "wont make any difference", "If it gets worse I'm off" and many more which I have heard.
Ignorance is no excuse, you are all aware of the dangers facing this country right now, I will not even try to educate you as to what the dangers are if you are so thick as to what is going on. I consider you to be part of the problem.
Now many of you would travel the length of this country to go to a football match, a gig, a music festival , a dog show, to save the planet, for the suffering in the world, for your pensions.
Would you inconvenience your self to save your country? To march peacefully, to make your objections known, to maintain your freedom?
There are some who are prepared and some who work bloody hard to make a stand and speak out, but there are way too many who expect us to do this on their behalf and do absolutely nothing.
We need to do this for ourselves and our children. What excuses will you make up?
There is nothing more important than our country and our children's future. We demand to be heard. Saturday 27th October

There is now just a matter of weeks before Brown signs the new EU Constitution Treaty, and so joins the long list of traitor Labour and Tory PMs - Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major and Blair - who have hammered the EU nails into the coffin of British freedom. It is important that we make a special effort to make it a matter of public record that the British National Party opposes this treason, practically as well as in principle. In addition, the continued spiral of demoralisation in the electorally irrelevent UKIP makes this a crucial time for the BNP to press to become seen as a major player in the Euro-realist, anti-EU camp.

You may already have seen on the Internet calls for patriots to get involved with the ambitious plans for a pro-Referendum Rally being organised by Dr. Jonathan Wilson. What you will not know is that Dr. Wilson - despite saying that all anti-EU bodies have been invited to join the rally - has refused to invite the BNP. Well, we're going anyway!

Either the rally will fall far below the 500,000 hoped for by the organisers (the likely result of the deliberate shutting out of the only anti-EU party with any serious nationwide organisational structure and a memvbership not propped up on zimmer frames) or it will be surprisingly successful. If the former, then we need to be there in serious numbers to show how central the BNP is to the fight for British freedom. If the latter, then we need to be well represented in the crowds so as to make them as large and effective as possible - and to win new recruits with a show of polite and well-behaved strength.

Being far more realistic than the naive anti-EU lobby, we do not believe that anything that we peasants do will 'force' Brown to have a Referendum. We know that the only way he'll call one is if he's sure he can win it - just as the Europhiles rigged the one in 1975. But that's not the point. The achievable aim is not to stop Brown acting undemocratically, but simply to raise public consciousness of the fact that he is acting undemocratically, and that the whole EU project lacks any democratic mandate. We don't care what Treaties the politicians sign, because - provided we can mobilise enough public anger - once we're in power we'll simply rip them up!

The process of getting that power will be greatly speeded up if we can bring on board more of the good-hearted but naive activists who are realising that they've been wasting their time with the UKIP sideshow and various paper anti-EU groups. The extract below from the latest from the Referendum Campaign shows very clearly how the whole thing - at the organisational stage as well as on the day itself - is almost custom-built as a giant recruitment opportunity for the British National Party. Please read their bulletin carefully and - without mentioning or giving away your BNP connection - register as a supporter and a local volunteer on their website.

When the organisers put you in touch with other local signatories, work with them to organise transport and maximum attendence (make sure that if you get involved with hiring transport that you insist on full payment in advance so as not to end up forking out for useless Tory types who fail to turn up if it rains!) We will produce the appropriate recruitments aids and finalise our precise plans when we have a better idea of how many demonstrators - and how many BNP activists - will be marching through Central London on Saturday 27th October

THE PRO REFERENDUM NEWSLETTERThe website http://www.proreferendumrally.co.ukis operational.

This is not just about the BNP, we have 120 Labour MP's who want a referendum, we have Liberals, Conservatives, UKIP and many others. This is a cross party national march by the British people for their hard won rights.
There are many things which we dont agree on but this is something we all agree on.

So, what are you doing on 27th october 2007?