You were of course warned BEFORE the corrupt Referendum …

DO SEE OUR MAIN WEB SITE
@ CLICK HERE

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

You were of course warned BEFORE the corrupt Referendum …

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail Address:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Blog About The Main Web Site:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

“THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE PRACTISED ON THEM, A TRICK, EVEN, CRUDER AND MORE SHAMELESS THAN THAT WITH WHICH THEY WERE CHEATED OUT OF THEIR INHERITANCE OF SOVEREIGNTY”

So very little has changed as before we entered the Common Market, EEC, so duplicitously slid into being the economic and political EU > European Union, the peoples of these United Kingdoms were lied to, deceived and propagandised by their own elected political scoundrels in collusion with their lakeys in the media.

This has occured again as the Government of the day lied, deceived and spent many £Millions of OUR money to dupe the naiive and the gullible to try to have them persuaded to remain as vassals of the most evil and dishonest construct of modern history – The EUropean Union.

Fortunately the majority of the British peoples in the largest free vote these United Kingdoms have ever had saw through the outright lies of both the Government and the Remain campaign and those of the crassly incompetent Leave campaign.

The electorate chose by a notable majority to either abstain from voting or voted LEAVE.

Yet still the scoundrels both in and out of government and extensively in the much debased and politicised modern media seek to betray Britain and the very principles of democracy, seeking to emulate the corrupt practices of the odious EU, whereby if a vote does not suit the wishes of the corrupt self styled elite it is merely rep[hrased and yet more tax payers’ money is spent on propaganda and s[in, lies and deception and the question is rephrased and voted on again to suit the outcome the corrupt desire!

You were of course warned BEFORE the corrupt Referendum:

25-Feb-1970 – Don’t Say You Were Not Warned! Enoch POWELL WARNED US ALL!

Posted by Greg Lance – Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/02/1970

25-Feb-1970 – Don’t Say You Were Not Warned! Enoch POWELL WARNED US ALL!

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WHITE PAPER)

HC Deb 25 February 1970 vol 796 cc1213-338

Mr. Powell

My hon. Friend is trying to take me into other and perhaps more distant fields by his intervention.

The fact is—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer settled for this in his argument—that our prospects of growth depend not upon association with one country or the other, but upon our own internal and external environment. Incidentally, I noticed that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, almost alone in this debate, made the point that, after all, something does depend upon us and on the way in which we manage our affairs in this country.
The wider argument which is put forward is that of the large market. A very simple piece of sleight-of-hand is performed by those who operate with this argument. They start by saying, “Nowadays, in the important and progressive branches of production, it is necessary to have a large market.” In the next sentence, they slip in the word “domestic”. They go on to say, “Having agreed, then, that it is necessary to have a large domestic market, it follows that this, that, or the other.” There is a gap in the argument, across which there is no real bridge.
Of course, a large market is needed for certain lines of production; but that market does not need to be a domestic market wholly under the control of the producers. The world is littered with examples of firms in some of the countries with the very smallest domestic markets which dominate the world and have got the world market. Firms of this sort in such countries as Switzer- 1264 land, Sweden, and Denmark are household names. There is literally no co-relation between the size of the domestic market of an economy and its rate of progress. The whole idea of a specific relationship between the two is mythical. Perhaps the only case in point that one can find is that of the United States, which is at the top of both leagues.
Of course, if we were just talking about free access to that European market to which 20 per cent. of our trade goes already, it would not be necessary to have this debate. But the large market which Britain needs and will need for her most intensive forms of production is not one which we ought to circumscribe even to the market of Western Europe. What this country needs is the utmost freedom to choose and to find, for each commodity and line of production, the market which offers the best opportunities. So I reject the argument from the assumed necessity of a large domestic market, which is really a false deduction from the necessity of a large market for many, though not for all, lines of production.
I come last in this economic section to the blood-curdling argument with which the Foreign Secretary ended his speech. He said, “Ah, yes, but what will it be like for us at the end of the century —for little us, with the giant United States across the Atlantic and the giant unit in Western Europe?” He asked how we shall fare under the shadow of these two great political—and I will come to “political” in a moment—and economic units. I refuse to be frightened by this prospect. In any case, I regard it as an unreal bogey. But, supposing it to be real, and accepting the hypothesis for a moment I refuse to be frightened by it.
Are we at any great disadvantage in our international trade because of the immense size and power and economic strength of the United States? It is one of the very best markets of the United Kingdom, and surely it will continue to be. Is the argument that our trade today would be healthier and more lucrative if the Confederates had won the Civil War, or the plantations had never been united? The existence of that tremendous economic unit in the Western Hemisphere does not damage this country. If I were put to it, I would rather argue the thesis that it assists than that it damages this country.
1265 Similarly, I see no reason why we should be damaged by trading with a large, efficient and economically prosperous unit, if there is to be such, in Western Europe or in Europe. But that brings us from the economic to the political. Let us look at the sort of unit that it would be on the Foreign Secretary’s hypothesis. It would be a unit compact “economically, legally, commercially and politically”. The right hon. Member for Belper brought the House to the real issue before us when he said that we have to envisage on behalf of our fellow countrymen all that would be implied in the United Kingdom being embodied in a Western European unit, compact “economically, legally, commercially and politically”.
Most hon. Members are agreed that the movement of public opinion in the recent past has been unfavourable to entry to the Common Market. Time and again in this debate, hon. Members have asked what has been the reason for this sudden, sharp and indubitably hostile crystallisation. I believe that the reason is that the deeper implications, especially the political implications, have at last been candidly disclosed both from the side of the Common Market and from the side of its advocates in this country. There is no disposition in the White Paper to mince matters. Paragraph 9 refers to the prospect before the Community as being progress towards “economic and monetary unification”, towards “a common social policy”, and towards “political unification”.
We are now told that, whatever be the form—federal, confederal, or whatever—that is what the Common Market is about. Whether or not we are to be compacted with it, it is to be a unit which increasingly has common monetary, economic and social policies. Only today, in a report from Paris, I was reading how the political leaders in the European Economic Community accepted “that there must be meaningful harmonisation of policies”. The report goes on: This means that such things as growth targets, rates of inflation, unemployment, budgets and taxation must eventually all conform to a community standard. Are not social policies, growth targets, unemployment, development and taxation the very stuff of politics, about which 1266 we in this House argue day and night? Are they not the subjects about which we compare our differing opinions and objects before the electors, seeking to bring them to our point of view? This is what politics is about, what this House is about, what the electoral system of the country is about—how our social services shall be organised, how we shall be taxed, how the development of different parts of the Kingdom shall be managed or not managed, [Interruption.] Yes, and ways and means. I do not go into legal matters: I will rest with these economic and social questions.
The President of the Community has told us that, in his view, there will be a common currency by the end of the 1970s; and think what we have all gone through together in the last few years for the value of the £ sterling. If the Community is to be a community in which these matters increasingly are decided in common, then his other prediction must come true, too, that there will also be a European Parliament elected on universal suffrage by the end of the 1970s. It is the view of Her Majesty’s Government that a true Parliament—one like this, one which sustains and criticises a government dealing with the heart and soul of political matters that affect ordinary people—is implicit in the European Common Market. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy said in a Written Answer on 2nd February: I would remind the hon. Member “— my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)— of the Government’s view, set out in the Anglo/Italian Declaration … that ‘Europe must be firmly based on democratic institutions and the European Communities should he sustained by an elected Parliament …[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 3.] All pretence is now aside. All the words with which we amused ourselves two or three years ago, eight or 10 years ago—I confess that I also amused myself, along with the rest—that this was really an economic matter, a matter of trade, and that the rest was pure theorising: “a few European theorists, perhaps, but we pragmatic British take no notice of that”—that is all stripped aside. The question we are deciding is whether we can and will enter into a political unit that deals with all the major matters of 1267 political life affecting the daily lives of all the people in this country, under a Government sustained by a European elected Parliament. Elected it must be; nothing else would be imaginable or acceptable.
We have to say whether that makes sense or nonsense to us. The British people have to say—I think that they are saying already—whether it is sense or nonsense to them, whether they can imagine it and whether, if they can imagine it, they want it. Now, an electorate which sustains a true Parliament has to be an homogeneous electorate. By that I mean that every part of the electorate has consciously to say, “We are part of the whole; we accept the verdict of the majority as expressed at the polls and then, somewhat curiously, reflected in the composition of this House”.
That is why this Parliament works. That is why this Parliament is our pride and our guardian, because it rests on an electorate which, with vanishing exceptions, is in that sense homogeneous in that it is prepared to accept the verdict of the majority, because it feels that it is the majority of themselves.
The question posed to us is: can we now, or in the next 10 years, or in the foreseeable or imaginable future, believe that the people of this country would regard themselves as so much part of an electorate comprising 200 to 250 million other electors—

§ Mr. George Brown

Three hundred million white people.

§ Mr. Powell

—that they would accept the majority view on taxation, on social policy, on development, on all the matters which are crucial to our political life? I have to confess that I do not believe such an attitude of mind is foreseeable.

I do not believe that is the outlook of our people. I do not believe that in that sense, which is the necessary sense, they identify themselves, as part of a whole, with the electorate of Western Europe. It may be that they should; but that is not the question. It may be that we should be a different people from what we are; but that is not the question. The question is whether this is sense or nonsense, practicable or impracticable.

§ Mr. George Brown

If it is a question whether they should or should not, may 1268 I ask the right hon. Gentleman what advice we should give them? I repeat the interjection that I rudely made while sitting down, against the rules of the House, that they are all white. Why should not we say to 300 million white people that we should all agree and work it out and accept the majority decision? I ask the right hon. Gentleman: what is so wrong about that?

§ Mr. Powell

There is nothing right or wrong with it. The question is: what is the present or the foreseeable outlook, feeling and belief of the people of this country? We cannot alter that by saying “Oh, would that it were different! Would that they did regard the people of Western Germany and the people of Sicily as so much a part of the same electorate that they would bow to the general majority decision, as the people of Cornwall and Devon, however reluctantly, today accept the decisions of the United Kingdom Parliament!”

Moving into the third and last of the areas—the military area—I want to put this to the most acid test. We are told that the European Common Market is necessary to us, with all its political implications, for defence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said yesterday: European unity is equally essential from the standpoint of military security”.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1970, Vol. 796, c. 1053.] I accept that, as has been pointed out many times, the United States is contributing more to the defence of Western Europe than all the Western European countries together. I accept that the probability is that the American contribution will diminish over the years to come. But I, then ask: what is the relevance of that to the question of political unity for military purposes?
We have an alliance in N.A.T.O. with all these countries that links us with them and with Canada and the United States. Is the contention, since our contribution to European defence is deficient and since the continental countries are paying a lesser proportion of their national income for defence than we are, that, if we were amalgamated, if there were a central political authority, a central political will, we would all pay more? Is it the proposition that what the individual countries are not willing to 1269 contribute they would be made to contribute by a unitary Government? Is that the argument?

An Hon. Member

Yes.

§ Mr. Powell

If that is the argument, I am not sure that I like the idea of a unitary Government with power to impose upon these populations a military effort which apparently they do not at present voluntarily accept.

Of course, there can be a genuine military argument here. If the military capabilities of all the countries concerned were put under one command and one political leadership, in the sense that the American forces are under the President or the British forces are under Her Majesty’s Government, then the same forces, I agree, would be more effective; but let us follow this through. Let us imagine that the alliance has been replaced by political unity, and that one of the essential functions of that political unity is military organisation, military preparation and military decision.

§ Mr. George Brown

And foreign affairs.

§ Mr. Powell

Yes, and foreign affairs.

I want to put this most solemn question to the House, a question which we have a duty to face; for we are asked to say yea or nay, and the country is asked to say yea or nay, on this issue above all others. The question is this: in 1940 we were members of an alliance. Let us suppose that instead of being members of an alliance, we had been members of a political unit with a military function.

An Hon. Member

There would not have been a war with Germany.

§ Mr. Powell

Someone says, “there would not have been a war”. I proceed, ignoring the foolish optimism of those who think that because there are military preparations there will be no war. [Interruption.] The use of military force to balance other military force is what we are talking about—I go back to 1940; for this is how the people of this country instinctively see it and put it to themselves.

Suppose, I say, there had not been an alliance, but suppose, instead, that we and our forces—I mean the forces raised 1270 from this kingdom—had been part of a political and military unit with a single political Government and a single command, a unit much larger in relation to the United Kingdom than the alliance of France and Britain was. I ask: does anyone suppose that the force which saved this country and saved liberty would not have been thrown into the lost battle by that political unit and swallowed up in defeat?
That is what is meant by political unity. [HON. MEMBERS: “No.”] Hon. Members will not face it. [HON. MEMBERS: “It is not true.”] Hon. Members have to come to face the difference between political unity, which means what is says, and alliance. This is the acid test of whether we identify ourselves with the electorate of the rest of Western Europe, so that we regard ourselves as part of that whole just as surely as Coventry and Bristol regarded themselves as part of the United Kingdom in 1940.

§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton) rose—

§ Mr. Powell

I have almost finished. This is my last word.

I do not believe that that is the outlook of the people of the country. I do not believe that they so regard themselves now or will so regard themselves in the foreseeable future. That is why I believe that, whatever we say in this House, whatever White Papers we publish, whatever negotiations we enter into, when the reality is comprehended it will be rejected by the people of Britain.

I first published this CLICK HERE.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain with 16% of EU GDP and 13% of the EU’s population yet having only 8% (if united) say whilst holding less than 3% of the various offices within the EU Do note The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy!

Do note that many senior apparatchicks and even elected politicians speak openly of the ‘Post Democratic era’ with no sense of shame or irony and in complete contempt of the so called electorate – yet The EU & many of its vassal States/Regions are all too willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States, to impose The EU’s chosen brand of democracy on them!Now as President Junker announced in his ‘State of the union’ speech 2017 the aim is to create an EU military force and centralise ever more of the decision making and control!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.

There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU, using a better negotiated, customised & updated version of the ‘Norway Model’ as a stepping stone to becoming a full member of the Eropean Economic Area, where all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU’s vassal regions, with an EFTA style status and can trade and negotiate independently on the global stage, as members of The Commonwealth and the Anglosphere.

Do not overlook the fact that politicians have plotted and schemmed since the 1950s and we have actually been vassals of the EU, when it was still using the aesopian linguistics and calling itself The Common Market in the early 1970s, a name the bureaucrats arbitrarily changed to EUropean Union in the early 1990s as they worked towards their long term goals of an ever closer centrally controlled Political and economic Union with its own anthem, currency, flag and rigid central control by its self appointed bureacrats towards a new Empirate –

It will take many years to rectify the mess our political class got us into and we have no other peacefull means by which to extricate ourselves than to depend on that self same self styled elite, who all too often forget they work for us!

One huge benefit of BreXit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly, in our own interest and that of our partners around the world, in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and terms imposed by unelected EU bureacrats and their interpretation of the rules handed down, as if they were some great achievement of the EU’s!

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future wellbeing from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensely tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

You will find me on both Skype & Twitter but I do not utilise the attrociously regulated FaceBook nor similar social media.

Skype: GregL-W
TWITTER: @Greg_LW

You are encouraged to contact me with information or to effect a correction on any of my postings – BUT I only respond to individuals providing a verifiable name, address and land line telephone.

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I DO NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I DO NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I DO NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I REGRET due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I AM NOT a WARMIST
13. I DO NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR, Thorium & Psi/Si technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I DO NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I VALUE the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I BELIEVE in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I BELIEVE in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I BELIEVE in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I DO NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I DO NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I BELIEVE in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I DO TRY to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all consequential corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Tweets

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail Address:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Blog About The Main Web Site:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

Advertisements

The #Zinoviev_Letter 15-Sep-1924 Full Text & Comments …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

The #Zinoviev_Letter 15-Sep-1924 Full Text & Comments …

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

THE ZINOVIEV LETTER

 

The Zinoviev Letter; published in the London Daily Mail, 25-Oct-1924, prior to the British election of that year.

 

The Zinoviev Letter appears to be a letter from Gregory Zinoviev, head of the Comintern, to communists in Britain.

 

The USSR Government claimed that it was forged; a standard “Left” line is that it was produced by British Intelligence!

 

Socialist revisionist historians have made numerous attempts to try to show Conservative politics and Intelligence Services had faked the letter to discredit Labour.

 

One of the most resolute efforts was by the British Foreign Secretary of the Blair government, Robin Cook in Feb-1999 – however it would seem he failed to establish its forgery as his published conclusion contained no evidence to that effect, merely the varied speculations of others!

 

More recently: The left wing Guardian paper has endeavoured to show it was a forgery, but have also failed to convince anyone, save those similarly promoting Socialism!

 

Interestingly the only occasion during which British Intelligence has abused its position and acted directly in accord with Party Political aims would seem to have been during the era of Tony Blair’s Labour government where there were two notable occasions:

 

–         Firstly in matters surrounding the deliberate introduction of Foot & Mouth to sabotage the British livestock industry to aid Blair in his pro EU machinations.

 

.-.        Secondly in the provision by John Scarlet, for which he was rewarded by Blair with a Knighthood, the provision having been the pack of lies passed off as British Intelligence known latterly as ‘The Dodgy Dossier’ which I personally exposed as being the much doctored Phd thesis of a student at Berkley University in California, published some years earlier!
It was this document Jack Straw presented on behalf of Blair’s corrupt government to Colin Powell who then delivered the information as genuine on behalf of the USA to the UN. An act, which when Colin Powell discovered he had been lied to honourably retired from politics.

 

Given the deception about the true nature of Bolshevism, authenticity must be considered quite possible.

 

The Zinoviev letter:

 

Very Secret

To the Central Committee,

British Communist PartyExecutive Committee

 

Third Communist InternationalPresidium

 

Sept. 15, 1924,

Moscow

 

Dear Comrades:

 

The time is approaching for the Parliament of England to consider the Treaty concluded betwee the Governments of Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. for the purpose of ratification.

 

The fierce campaign raised by the British bourgeoisie around the question shows the majority the same, together with reactionary circles, as against the treaty for the purpose of breaking off an agreement consolidating the ties between the proletariats of the two countries leading to the restoration of normal relations between England and the U.S.S.R. ……

 

Organize a campaign of disclosure of the foreign policy of MacDonald. …

 

The IKKI {Executive Committee of the Third Communist International} will willingly place at your disposal the wide material in its possession regarding the activities of British Imperialism in the Middle and Far East. …

 

Armed warfare must be preceded by a struggle against the inclinations to compromise which are imbedded among the majority of British workmen, against the ideas of evolution and peaceful extermination of capitalism. Only then will it be possible to count on complete success of anarmed insurrection. ……

 

It would be desirable to have cells in all the units of the troops, particularly among those quartered in the large centres of the country, and also among the factories working on munitions and at military store depots. …

 

In the event of danger of war, … it is possible to paralyze all military preparations of the bourgeoisie and make a start in turning an imperialist war into a class war. …

 

Desiring you all success, both in organization and in your struggle.

 

With Communist Greetings,

President of the Presidium of the I.K.K.I.Zinoviev

Member of the Presidium McManus

Secretary Kuusinen

 

.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

.

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

Speech by Michel Barnier 20-Nov-2017 ‘The Future of the EU’ – The Full Text …

DO SEE OUR MAIN WEB SITE
@ CLICK HERE

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Speech by Michel Barnier 20-Nov-2017 ‘The Future of the EU’ – The Full Text …

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail Address:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Blog About The Main Web Site:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

Michel_Barnier Explains Dozens Of Sound Reasons For Britain & Our Peoples To Want BreXit …

The Full Text of the Speech by Michel Barnier at the Centre for European Reform on ‘The Future of the EU’

Brussels, 20 November 2017

Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank the Centre for European Reform, and its Director, Charles Grant, for inviting me today.

If I may say so, it is good to see that this UK-based centre is stepping up its presence in Brussels. Good timing!

It feels a bit unusual to speak about Brexit here.

Because this is a conference on the future of the EU.

And Brexit is about disentangling the UK from the EU, and settling the past.

But Brexit could prove to be a turning point in the European project.

For future historians, the year 2016 – with the UK referendum, the change of power in Washington, geopolitical tensions, terrorist attacks, and the rise of populist parties – will perhaps be seen as a time of awakening.

2016 could become the moment when the EU realised that it had to stand up for itself. And that nobody would do for us what we don’t do for ourselves.

In 2012, the UK Prime Minister published a table to show his strong support of the Single Market and incidentally his support for the Commissioner in charge of the Single Market.

It shows that, in 2050, there will be no European countries left in the G8. But by remaining together, the 27 will stay, in the long term, in the top 5.

We need to continue speaking with one voice in the world. Even though we speak many different languages, as the novelist Fernando Pessoa said. Otherwise we will not sit at the table where decisions are made.

And we also need to act together to build a stronger Europe.

• The Eurozone needs a more complete Banking Union and a fiscal capacity with a finance minister. The EU needs a more integrated Capital Markets Union. Such increased risk sharing needs common rules and common enforcement.

• The EU needs a stronger capacity to prevent and tackle internal and external threats – with stronger cooperation in fighting terrorism, but also with respect for fundamental rights.

• The EU needs a truly common foreign policy and European defence.

• The EU needs to lead on global challenges, from climate change to openness in trade based on its social market economy. And it needs to continue leading in global financial regulation, to make finance work for the real economy.

• And we need more solidarity in our Union – with a humane and efficient migration policy, and a strong pillar of social rights, as agreed last Friday in Gothenburg.

This stronger European Union will want to have a close relationship with the UK.

We have a shared history – it started long before the last 44 years.

That is why the “no deal” is not our scenario. Even though we will be ready for it.

I regret that this no deal option comes up so often in the UK public debate.

Only those who ignore, or want to ignore, the current benefits of European Union membership can say that no deal would be a positive result.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are three keys to building a strong partnership with the UK.

First, we need to agree on the terms for the UK’s orderly withdrawal.

The 27 Member States and the European Parliament have been always very clear on what this means.

And we have been consistent:

• on citizens’ rights;
• on settling the accounts accurately; we owe this to taxpayers as well as to all those benefiting from EU-funded projects, in the UK and the EU;
• on Ireland.

Let me say a few words on Ireland specifically.

We need to preserve stability and dialogue on the island of Ireland.

We need to avoid a hard border.

I know that this point is politically sensitive in the UK.

It is not less sensitive in Ireland.

Some in the UK say that specific rules for Northern Ireland would “endanger the integrity of the UK single market”.

But Northern Ireland already has specific rules in many areas that are different to the rest of the UK.

Think of the “all-Island” electricity market, or of the specific regulations for plant health for the whole island of Ireland.

Think of rules that prevent and handle animal disease, which I know well as a former Minister for Agriculture.

There are over one hundred areas of cross-border cooperation on the island of Ireland.

Such cooperation depends in many cases on the application of common rules and common regulatory space.

We have nearly finished our common reading of the Good Friday Agreement. We have agreed on the principles for the Common Travel Area.

The UK and the EU have recognised that Ireland poses specific challenges. And that the unique circumstances there require a specific solution.

On the EU side, we must preserve the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union at 27. The rules for this are clear.

The UK said it would continue to apply some EU rules on its territory. But not all rules.

What is therefore unclear is what rules will apply in Northern Ireland after Brexit. And what the UK is willing to commit to, in order to avoid a hard border.

I expect the UK, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, to come forward with proposals.

The island of Ireland is now faced with many challenges.

Those who wanted Brexit must offer solutions.

***

The second key is the integrity of the Single Market.

Public debate on what leaving the EU means needs to be intensified. Everywhere. Not only in the UK.

There are two contradicting sound bites from ardent advocates of Brexit:

• The UK will finally “set itself free” from EU regulations and bureaucracy, some claim.

• Others claim that – after Brexit – it will still be possible to participate in parts of the Single Market. Simply because we have been together for more than four decades, with the same rules, and we can continue to trust each other.

None of these views seems to offer a sound basis for going forward.

The same people who argue for setting the UK free also argue that the UK should remain in some EU agencies. But freedom implies responsibility for building new UK administrative capacity.

On our side, the 27 will continue to deepen the work of those agencies, together. They will share the costs for running those agencies. Our businesses will benefit from their expertise. All of their work is firmly based on the EU Treaties which the UK decided to leave.

Those who claim that the UK should “cherry-pick” parts of the Single Market must stop this contradiction.

The Single Market is a package, with four indivisible freedoms, common rules, institutions and enforcement structures. The UK knows these rules like the back of its hand. It has contributed to defining them over the last 44 years. With a certain degree of influence…

We took note of the UK decision to end free movement of people.

This means that the UK will lose the benefits of the Single Market. This is a legal reality.

The EU does not want to punish, once again.

It simply draws the logical consequence of the UK’s decision to take back control.

On financial services, UK voices suggest that Brexit does not mean Brexit –Brexit means Brexit, everywhere.

They say there would be no changes in market access for UK-established firms.

They say joint UK-EU Rules would be decided in a new “symmetrical process” between the EU and the UK, and outside of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

This would contradict the April European Council guidelines, which stress the autonomy of EU decision-making, the integrity of our legal order and of the Single Market.

The legal consequence of Brexit is that UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million businesses.

But the EU will have the possibility to judge some UK rules as equivalent, based on a proportional and risk-based approach. And in those areas where EU legislation foresees equivalence.

The global financial crisis was not so long ago.

It destroyed value and millions of jobs.

It was the cause of social suffering, including in the UK.

Let’s not have a short memory! We will not compromise on financial stability – we will never compromise on financial stability – in the EU and in the Eurozone.

Globally, we will continue our regulatory cooperation in the G20, in the Financial Stability Board, and perhaps even through bilateral regulatory dialogues, like we have with the United States.

We will remain committed to convergence of global rules. And avoid fragmentation of financial markets.

Once again, the integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable.

The Single Market is one of our main public goods. It is the main reason why countries around the world – such as China, Japan, and the US – look to us as a strong partner.

***

Ladies and gentlemen,

The UK will, of course, have access to the Single Market. But this is different from being part of the Single Market.

And a good deal on our future relationship should facilitate this access as much as possible. And avoid a situation where trade would happen under the WTO rules for goods and services.

To achieve this, there is a third key: we need to ensure a level playing field between us.

This will not be easy. For the first time ever in trade talks, the challenge will be to limit divergence of rules rather than maximise convergence.

There will be no ambitious partnership without common ground in fair competition, state aid, tax dumping, food safety, social and environmental standards.

It is not only about rules or laws. It is about societal choices – for health, food standards, our environment and financial stability.

The UK has chosen to leave the EU. Does it want to stay close to the European model or does it want to gradually move away from it?

The UK’s reply to this question will be important and even decisive because it will shape the discussion on our future partnership and shape also the conditions for ratification of that partnership in many national parliaments and obviously in the European Parliament. I do not say this to create problems but to avoid problems.

Ladies and gentlemen,

If we manage to negotiate an orderly withdrawal, fully respect the integrity of the Single Market, and establish a level playing field, there is every reason for our future partnership to be ambitious.

This is our preferred option. This is why we have started internal preparations with Member States. To be ready to talk about the future, as soon as we will have agreed on how to settle the past.

The EU will of course be ready to offer its most ambitious FTA approach.

And the future partnership should not be limited to trade. It should be based on our common values. We need to work together to protect the security of our citizens, to combat crime and terrorism, in Europe and globally and logically we will need to cooperate on foreign and defence challenges.

But in none of these fields, the EU will wait for the UK. We must continue to advance.

We are negotiating new free trade agreements in addition to the ones we already have with 60 countries.

We will continue to develop our internal market and to make it fit for digitalisation; we will step up our investment in research and innovation; we will continue to use the strength of this internal market to shape globalisation.

We will continue to show solidarity to refugees, while better protecting our external borders and tackling root causes of migration, notably by continuing our development policy, in particular with Africa, where the EU and the UK will keep a mutual interest.

And we are developing our defence cooperation, with unprecedented steps taken to set up a European Defence Fund and, last week, to finally launch the Permanent Structured Cooperation on which I worked closely with Chris Patten at the time – a very different time.

Against the backdrop of global turmoil in an interconnected world, Europe is today more necessary than ever. The future of Europe is more important than Brexit.

But in all these fields, the EU is willing to cooperate with the UK. And it will be in the UK’s interest to have a strong EU as a close partner.

I hope that these ideas and orientations will help the discussion that John Bruton, Monique Ebell, Peter Mandelson and also Paul Adamson with now have on squaring the Brexit circle, in which I find myself.

Thank you for your attention.

To view the original text CLICK HERE

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

.

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

The Balfour Declaration, Text – Whereby Zionism Disspossesed Palestine In The Name Of Judaism …

 

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

The Balfour Declaration, Text –
Whereby Zionism Disspossesed Palestine
In The Name Of Judaism …

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

in 1917 the British government decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and consultations with Jewish leaders, the decision was made public in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild.

The contents of this letter became known as the Balfour Declaration:

---

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

A talk given at a ‘Keep Talking’ gathering in London

7 November 2017

By Gilad Atzmon

In Heidegger and the Jews, the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard points out that history claims to narrate the past but, in practice, what it does is conceal our collective shame. The Americans conceal slavery and imperial genocidal aggression, the Brits conceal their colonial blunders, the Jews turn their eyes away from anything that may have contributed to turning Jewish history into an extended shoah. The real historian, claims Lyotard, is there to unveil the shame. This week marks 100 years since the Balfour declaration and today I will try to touch upon your shame, my shame, our shame. We will try to figure out what the history of the so-called Balfour ‘Declaration’ is there to conceal.

Let’s first examine the document. Most noticeably the so-called ‘declaration’ is not printed on official British government letterhead. It is not signed by the British cabinet either. It is, instead, a letter from a sleazy British politician (Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour) to a very rich Jew (Lord Walter Rothschild). As such, the Balfour ‘declaration’ is actually a statement with somewhat limited significance. What it does is “declare[s] sympathy with Zionist aspirations.”

Yet, we must admit that the Jewish world has managed to squeeze quite a few drops of juice out of this watery statement. The Jewish world interprets this ‘sympathetic declaration’ as a commitment to their Zionist, racist and expansionist project namely the ‘Jewish State’. They claim to regard the vague statement as a license to ethnically cleanse the entire indigenous people of the land, i.e., the Palestinians. And, as if this is not enough, the British PM Theresa May has evidently bought into the most radical Zionist interpretation of the declaration.

May announced last week that she was “proud of our pioneering role in the creation of the state of Israel.”

Let me share some of the awkward history of the Balfour Declaration with you. The ‘declaration,’ as we now understand, was actually drafted and approved by British Jews before it was sent to Lord Rothschild.

The National Library of Israel reveals the flowing:

“Before the declaration was officially presented to Lord Rothschild by Lord Balfour, the draft was presented to Jewish leaders of every political stripe, both Zionist and non-Zionist. One of these leaders was Sir Philip Magnus, a Reform rabbi and British politician whose opinion on the declaration was sought.” (http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/library/reading_corner/Pages/balfour.aspx)

Herbert Samuel, the British first High Commissioner of Palestine who served between 1920 and 1925 was an avid Zionist Jew and a close acquaintance of Chaim Weizmann, the leading pragmatic Zionist, the spirit behind the ‘declaration’ and later the first Israeli president. How did the Zionists managed to plant a Zionist Jew in such a crucial and sensitive position? The answer is devastatingly simple. They were running the show. We are talking here about Jewish domination of the relevant British foreign affairs as early as the beginning of the 20th century.

But was it really ‘The Jews,’ Moshe, Yaakov, Sarah who dominated British Middle East affairs? Unlikely. It is more reasonable to assume that the fate of the empire and its decisions were in the hands of just a very few powerful Jews, people like Lord Rothschild to whom Balfour actually addressed the declaration.

This tale of Jewish political domination extends well beyond the borders of Britain. In his invaluable book, The Pity of it All, Israeli historian Amos Elon suggests that the 1917 Balfour Declaration was at least partially motivated by the British government’s desire to win the support of pro-German Jewish- American bankers so that they would help push the USA into the war.

Elon argues that at the beginning of the war, German- American Jewish financiers sided with the Germans and rejected possible alliances between the USA and England. “Jacob H. Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb—at the time the largest private bank in the United States after J. P. Morgan—declared that he could no more disavow his loyalty to Germany than he could renounce his own parents. Schiff prayed for Germany’s victory. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22, 1914, he charged the British and the French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade.” (The Pity Of It All, pg. 455)

According to Elon, the Brits had encountered a Jewish problem with American Jews. “The British government took these developments very seriously. In a fit of paranoia, the British ambassador in Washington even suspected the existence of a veritable German Jewish conspiracy in the United States directed at Britain.” (Ibid)

Thanks to the Balfour declaration German Jewish bankers in the US flipped sides. Seems that they betrayed their fatherland, no more were they German patriots. Elon’s conclusion is that: “The 1917 Balfour Declaration, calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, was at least partly motivated by the British government’s desire to win support among pro-German American Jews.” (ibid)

The take home message is rather devastating. For some time our universe has been dominated by tribal interests that are foreign to most of us. And for some reason we cannot really explore the conditions that shape our reality and dictate our doomed future.

This is, in fact, the precise meaning of Jewish power. Jewish power is the power that suppresses criticism of Jewish power. Some of the less sophisticated critics of Israel accuse Zionism and Israel of various conspiratorial doings. I, on the other hand, have said repeatedly that there are no Jewish conspiracies. All is done in the open. The Balfour ‘declaration’ that was written to a Jewish financier was quickly made public. America was openly pushed into WWI for the sake of Zion. The appointment of a Zionist Jew, Herbert Samuel, as the high commissioner of Palestine wasn’t a secret either. It was actually controversial at the time.

These events were as clear at the time as are contemporary Jewish lobby groups such as AIPAC, CRIF, CFI and LFI who push, in broad daylight, for Zio-driven immoral interventionist wars against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya. A century of constant abuse has left us speechless. We do not know how to deal with this menace. And this is the core of our shame. This is what our history is there to conceal. This applies to you and me, but it also applies to Theresa May. To tell the truth about the Balfour Declaration is to publicly admit to 100 hundred years of Goyim solitude.

In the last few weeks, Palestinian solidarity enthusiasts have been creative in producing numerous proactive slogans. The one that grabbed my attention this week was “Balfour Declaration -100 years of ethnic cleansing.” This week actually marks a century of Zionist domination of the Western civilisation. But let me tell you, the real authentic Palestinians, those who live in Gaza and the West Bank may be slightly better off than the rest of us. While we are often overwhelmed by the sophistication of our masters in Tel Aviv, the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon know exactly who their enemies are; they meet them in roadblocks, they recognise the sounds of their drones. Our enemy here, in the USA, in France and in Britain, is somehow elusive: is it Zionism, is it Israel, or maybe just the Lobby? Is it really ‘the Jews,’ or even Judaism? Where exactly does Judaism end and Jewishness start? Let me try to open your eyes. It is none of the above, and yet it might as well be all of the above and beyond. Zionism is a sophisticated matrix and it shifts rapidly. Zionism like Jewish anti Zionism strives for your intellectual castration. It somehow defies your opposition even before you can utter it yourself. How is this done? It obliterates your ability to act ethically and rationally. It targets your survival skills. How? It eradicates your Athenian roots and replaces them with a rigid Jerusalemite regulatory system.

In my recent book Being in Time – a post Political Manifesto I delve into the Straussian dichotomy between Athens and Jerusalem. Athens is where we think things through, Athens is where philosophy and essentialism are celebrated. Jerusalem is the city of revelation, where Torah, Mitzvoth and commandments are accepted blindly. Athens is where ethics is explored by means of judgment. Jerusalem, on the other hand, is where ethics is replaced by laws.

Zionism, my friends, can only operate within a Jerusalemite dominated universe. A world governed by a tyranny of correctness. Was it Herzl, Ben Gurion or Netanyahu who imposed such tyrannical conditions on us? Not at all, this is the role of the New Left, the Identitarians, the cultural Marxists, the ‘progressives’ the people who adhere to ideological collectivism. The people who in the name of diversity silence the majority. Those who instead of uniting us around that which we all share, actually seek to divide us into infinitesimal particles of biological symptoms (skin colour, sex orientation, etc.).

I started this talk with a reference to Leyotard and his Heidegger and the Jews, I conclude with a reference to the teaching of the 20th century’s greatest Athenian: Martin Heidegger.

In opposition to the Jerusalemites of the world who in the name of ‘correctness’ tell us what to say and what to think, Martin Heidegger, the Athenian, taught us that to educate is to teach others to think for themselves and how to refine the questions (as opposed to recycling answers).

Time is overdue for us to liberate ourselves from our shame. Time is ripe to call a spade a spade. Now is the time for Alethea ( truth – Ancient Greek) and Logos to prevail. We must emancipate ourselves and find our true voice once again. Emancipation is opposition to the Jerusalemite oppressive condition. It is the fight for the disclosure of human unity once again.

Yo view the original article CLICK HERE.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

.

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS By: Miss J.E. Clarke 28-Aug-1889

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS

DO SEE OUR NEW WEB SITE
@ CLICK HERE

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS
By: Miss J.E. Clarke 28-Aug-1889

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS Miss J.E. Clarke 28-Aug-1889

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS

One great thing about having been an antiquarian book dealer and owning a book shop is all of human knowledge, and most thought of consequence, is printed somewhere and when you miss reading it yourself someone points it out to you!

I am not normally an avid reader of ‘Judy’ Magazine for girls of the 1880s but I could be converted – here is a poem from the 28th. August 1889 which shows that little is new.

Please print this out and give out as many copies as you can afford to.

TEN LITTLE KINGDOMS

by: Miss J.E. Clarke of Eynsham

Plans for seperation grew worse than those before,

Then they asked for two Parliaments, now ’tis three or four.

Only just imagine if Home Rulers had their way,

And this is something like the tale the world might hear one day.

 ~~~~~

“One United Kingdom they fancied wouldn’t do.

To please some grumbling Irish they split it into two.

Two little kingdoms, but then the Scots, you see,

Claimed their ancient throne andrights, and then there were three.

 ~~~~~

Three little Kingdoms, and after that one more,

For Welshmen claimed a parliament, and then there were four.

Four little Kingdoms wouldn’t do at all!

One of them was far too big; the others far too small.

 ~~~~~

All throughout Great Britain ancient hates revived.

Cornwall wants to rule herself, and then there were five.

Five little Kingdoms, but London in a fix,

Raised the ‘Southern English’ flag,and then there were six.

 ~~~~~

Six little Kingdoms, alas! the ‘Home Rule’ heaven,

Caused a rising in the West, and then there were seven.

Seven little Kingdoms; Northmen wouldn’t wait,

But started the Northumbrian state, and then there were eight.

 ~~~~~~

And the towns that one may visit by the Eastern Counties line,

Held their own East Anglian Parliament and then there were nine.

Nine little Kingdoms; the Midlands people then

Called a parliament themselves,and then there were ten.

 ~~~~~~

Ten little Kingdoms never could agree

How to work together, and so they went free.

Ten little Kingdoms with constitutions new,

Ten little Kingdoms always in a stew,

 ~~~~~~

Ten little Kingdoms too weak to stand alone,

A foreign nation conquered them, and now there were none.

~~~~~~

The ‘Regional Policy’ was again published as a method of breaking up Britain into ‘squabbling’ little Assembly Regions of insufficient stature, to ensure dependence on the centre.

Each little Region being in conflict and competition with its neighbour, ever seeking more pretend power whilst losing control in reality to the central authority – leading to a loss of National identity and a need for subsidy from the centre.

This was published in 1937 in the book ‘The House That Hitler Built’.

‘Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft’ was published, as some thing of a blue print for ‘The European Economic Community’ in Nazi Berlin in 1942. CLICK HERE

Heidrichts 1942 ‘Reichs Plan for the Domination of Europe’ was subsequently published late in 1942, also in Nazi Germany.

The conference called in Berlin in 1944 was titled ‘How Will Germany Dominate The Peace When It Loses The War’ and it was decided to move a massive block of capital out of Germany through Madrid to hold it in the American economy until needed after the war.

After the Neurenberg Trials this money started to come back into Europe to fund the plan.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a senior Nazi Party Official and Waffen SS Officer, was funded to hold a series of conferences in The Hague at The Bilderberg Hotel – the origin of ‘The Bilderberg Group’.

Shortly after this Heidricht’s 1942 ‘Reichs Plan for the Domination of

Europe’ was reworked and re published, now called ‘The Treaty of Rome’.

In return for a cash bribe, believed to have been £35,000 and thinly disguised as ‘The Charlamaigne Prize’, Edward Heath LIED to the peoples of Britain – both on the floor of the House of Commons and in the White Paper stating ‘Signing The Treaty of Rome will lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty’. Do bear in mind the date this happened and the purchasing power of £35K at that time!

Edward Heath has subsequently confirmed both in the Palace of Westminster and on TV that he LIED and he did so intentionally as he did not believe that the electorate of Britain would vote YES in the Referendum, at the time, if they knew the truth!

This he was forced to admit on a David Frost interview, where he stated that he had lied, as he knew if the British peoples knew the truth they would not have voted to ratify the Treatuy of Rome which he had already signed!

Having admitted his dishonesty (effective Treason) Edward Heath was subsequently forced to repeat his admission to Parliament.

By a very small margin the electorate had voted in favour of Ratifying The Treaty of Rome in The Referendum – thereby joining The European Economic Community, better known as The Common Market.

This act of Treason committed by Edward Heath renders Britain’s signature of The Treaty of Rome by Britain as NULL AND VOID under English Law.

Whereby:

All agreements, contracts and treaties are bound by English Law as it pertained at the time of the inception.

English Law states, unequivocally:

‘Should one party to an agreement, treaty or contract misslead another party thereto, in order to obtain their participation therein, said agreement, treaty or contract shall thus be NULL AND VOID’.

Britain’s signature on The Treaty of Rome is thus NOT valid as it was obtained by an act of Treason – and based upon lies, thus there is no need to even consider the silly concepts of subsequent Labour, Tory or Coallition Governments, as all other subsequent so called treaties are merely ammendments of the original invalidly signed Treaty of Rome.

This reality is upheld by The Treaty of Vienna on International Treaties.

Blair’s concept of ‘In Europe at the centre and fighting our corner’ is not only tortological rubbish but as sound bites go really silly. Even were our signature valid.

It is as stupid as the slogan from The Tories ‘In EUrope but not ruled by EUrope’ (sort of: ‘In the gas chamber but not inhailling’).

In Europe, as a result of his Government signing the ammendment to The Treaty of Rome, The Amsterdam Ammendment, Britain can not fight ANY corner as he has signed away Britain’s right to a veto and accepted QMV [Qualified Majority Voting].

To return to Hague’s concept of ‘In Europe but not ruled by Europe’ is totally dishonest. It has all the logic of joining a cricket club and then insisting on building bunkers on the pitch so that you can play golf. Renegotiation of the European Treaties is expressly forbidden as signed in these unlawfully signed treaties.

The Lib. Dims. on the other hand since they will never hold real power in Britain have totally prostituted themselves to the European Union in the hope of gaining some power that way!

Business for Sterling is completely ‘off its chump’ – they have failed to understand the EU, they think you can be in the EU but not join the EUro farce. How do they get around QMV and the various articles that can be used to impose the EUro whatever the people of Britain want? A currency used for all inter regional accounting in the vassal regions of the EU!

BRITAIN IS NOT LEGALLY, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, A MEMBER OF THE EEC or the ‘arbitrarily’ created EUropean Union, which was undemocratically imposed on the peoples of Europe, without vote or consideration, in 1994, when the Commissioners [the corrupt, un elected, dictator committee] decided to scrap the EEC and impose the single Supra National Nation State of EUrope on the vassal regions and peoples so far duped.

They hubristically swept aside the rights and freedoms of the nation states and their peoples to fulfill the obscene dream of a European Empire. Granting themselves ‘Potentate’ Emperor status, immune from law, un accountable and pampered in their dictatorial powers. Dispensing favour and reward through their salesmen who sit as MEPs in sybaritic luxury in their palace.

We then had the spectacle of Cameron promising that there will be a referendum before more power is handed over to The EU – he promised a referendum on The New Constitution, disingenuously renamed The Lisbon Treaty – He lied then and he went on telling lies, fortunately a majority of the electorate in the largest vote ever cast in these United Kingdoms saw through some of the lies put forward in Cameron’s Referendum, which had been forced on him by the revolt in Parliament brought about by the Petition gatherred and presented by Nikki Sinclaire (an Independent MEP).

The Referendum was a very clear rejection of the continuance of membership of the EUropean Union by the entire electorate who chose to vote in these United Kingdoms.

The Lisbon Treaty had been passed with barely a murmur from The Tories and an Evil complicity by UKIP, who raised not a finger in defence. The terms of The Lisbon Treaty as signed and sealed, invalid as it is, clearly show there are no powers that are not already in the hands of The EU.

The EU now costs Britain over £50 Million a day and do not be duped into believing that we get much of the money back as EU subsidies because we do NOT – for every £1 we receive from The EU we have paid them £2.60 – also be minded that we also have to comply with matched funding thus for every £1 we may get back for a project we have to cough up another £1 to match it thus £1 of EU cash back costs us £3.60 in most cases and all too often for lame brained ‘degeneration scams’ in town centers or road widening to be compliant with EU standardisation so that massive EU lorries can roll across Britain with enlarged fuel tanks so as not to contribute one cent to The British economy whilst stealing British jobs and supplying foreign goods!

It can only be hoped that a greater number of the British peoples WAKE UP and realise what their duplicitous politicians are doing to them for their own personal gain in their own personal pursuit of perceived power and reward.

Are YOU doing your bit to spread the truth?

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),

Regards,
Greg L-W.

for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

 

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE

Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE

The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE

Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: CLICK HERE

Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE

Christopher Story: CLICK HERE

Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/

Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE

Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE

The McCann Case: CLICK HERE

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I am NOT a WARMIST
13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America …

DO SEE OUR NEW WEB SITE
@ CLICK HERE

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

although there were 26 copies of The Declaration of made at the time, it would seem that there is only the one signed original document, which is held by the Anerican National Archive in Washington DC .

There were however a further 26 official copies made, until recently it was thought that only one copy had survived which , according to the National Archives, the Massachusetts Historical Commission held one of those 26 copies but a second original has been recently discovered in Britain.

FOR MORE DETAILS regarding The Declaration of Independence CLICK HERE

Second parchment manuscript copy of Declaration of Independence found — in England

West Sussex Record Office Add Mss 8981

The Sussex Declaration.

By John R. Ellement  April 21, 2017

Two Harvard University researchers announced Friday that they have found a second parchment manuscript copy of the Declaration of Independence in a tiny records office in southern England.

The only other parchment copy is maintained by the National Archives in Washington, D.C., researchers Emily Sneff and Danielle Allen said in a statement.

The newly discovered document — which the two have dated to the 1780s — was found in the town of Chichester archives, and is believed to have originally belonged to Duke of Richmond who was known as the “Radical Duke,’’ for the support he gave to Americans during the Revolutionary War, the researchers said.

The parchment was likely made in New York or Philadelphia. The researchers are still trying to determine the person who wrote the document and who paid for the foundational document of the United States to be copied.The signatories on the Sussex version of the document are not broken down by state, something that distinguished it from the Declaration in the National Archives, the researchers said.

In an academic paper, the researchers say the document probably was commissioned by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who later helped draft the Constitution and was among the original justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

“The team hypothesizes that this detail supported efforts, made by Wilson and his allies during the Constitutional Convention and ratification process, to argue that the authority of the Declaration rested on a unitary national people, and not on a federation of states,’’ the researchers wrote in the statement.

The team, working with British officials, is working to carefully test the document in a way that will not damage the parchment.

According to the National Archives, the Massachusetts Historical Commission holds one of 26 copies of the Declaration of Independence prepared by John Dunlap, the printer for the Congressional Congress, after its signing on July 4, 1776.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

FOR MORE DETAILS regarding The Declaration of Independence CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE

Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE

The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE

Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: CLICK HERE

Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE

Christopher Story: CLICK HERE

Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/

Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE

Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE

The McCann Case: CLICK HERE

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I am NOT a WARMIST
13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Full Text Of Edmund Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Full Text Of Edmund Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

Full Text Of Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies…

22 Mar. 1775Works 1:464–71

In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies probably than in any other people of the earth; and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely.

First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation, which still I hope respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles. Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favourite point, which by way of eminence becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened, you know, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of the contests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of election of magistrates; or on the balance among the several orders of the state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens, and most eloquent tongues, have been exercised; the greatest spirits have acted and suffered. In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who in argument defended the excellence of the English constitution, to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove, that the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments, and blind usages, to reside in a certain body called a House of Commons. They went much farther; they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of Commons, as an immediate representative of the people; whether the old records had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe, or might be endangered, in twenty other particulars, without their being much pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they thought themselves sick or sound. I do not say whether they were right or wrong in applying your general arguments to their own case. It is not easy indeed to make a monopoly of theorems and corollaries. The fact is, that they did thus apply those general arguments; and your mode of governing them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or mistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well as you, had an interest in these common principles.

They were further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are popular in a high degree; some are merely popular; in all, the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share of the people in their ordinary government never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance.

If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it. I do not think, Sir, that the reason of this averseness in the dissenting churches, from all that looks like absolute government, is so much to be sought in their religious tenets, as in their history. Every one knows that the Roman Catholic religion is at least coeval with most of the governments where it prevails; that it has generally gone hand in hand with them, and received great favour and every kind of support from authority. The Church of England too was formed from her cradle under the nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interests have sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world; and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful and unremitted assertion of that claim. All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the northern provinces; where the Church of England, notwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort of private sect, not composing most probably the tenth of the people. The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants was the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners, which has been constantly flowing into these colonies, has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the establishments of their several countries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed.

Sir, I can perceive by their manner, that some gentlemen object to the latitude of this description; because in the southern colonies the Church of England forms a large body, and has a regular establishment. It is certainly true. There is, however, a circumstance attending these colonies, which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the northward. It is, that in Virginia and the Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any part of the world, those who are free, are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege. Not seeing there, that freedom, as in countries where it is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may be united with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty looks, amongst them, like something that is more noble and liberal. I do not mean, Sir, to commend the superior morality of this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtue in it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is so; and these people of the southern colonies are much more strongly, and with a higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the northward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothic ancestors; such in our days were the Poles; and such will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves. In such a people, the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible.

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honourable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honours and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.

The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll, and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat a whole system. You have, indeed, winged ministers of vengeance, who carry your bolts in their pounces to the remotest verge of the sea. But there a power steps in, that limits the arrogance of raging passions and furious elements, and says, “So far shalt thou go, and no farther.” Who are you, that should fret and rage, and bite the chains of nature?–Nothing worse happens to you than does to all nations who have extensive empire; and it happens in all the forms into which empire can be thrown. In large bodies, the circulation of power must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. The Turk cannot govern Egypt, and Arabia, and Curdistan, as he governs Thrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and Algiers, which he has at Brusa and Smyrna. Despotism itself is obliged to truck and huckster. The Sultan gets such obedience as he can. He governs with a loose rein, that he may govern at all; and the whole of the force and vigour of his authority in his centre is derived from a prudent relaxation in all his borders. Spain, in her provinces, is, perhaps, not so well obeyed as you are in yours. She complies too; she submits; she watches times. This is the immutable condition, the eternal law, of extensive and detached empire.

Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your colonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth; a spirit, that unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us.

I do not mean to commend either the spirit in this excess, or the moral causes which produce it. Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spirit of freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas of liberty might be desired, more reconcilable with an arbitrary and boundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuaded, that their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us (as their guardians during a perpetual minority) than with any part of it in their own hands. The question is, not whether their spirit deserves praise or blame, but–what, in the name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the object, such as it is, with all its glories, with all its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude; the importance; the temper; the habits; the disorders. By all these considerations we are strongly urged to determine something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct, which may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such unhappy deliberations as the present. Every such return will bring the matter before us in a still more untractable form. For, what astonishing and incredible things have we not seen already! What monsters have not been generated from this unnatural contention! Whilst every principle of authority and resistance has been pushed, upon both sides, as far as it would go, there is nothing so solid and certain, either in reasoning or in practice, that has not been shaken. Until very lately, all authority in America seemed to be nothing but an emanation from yours. Even the popular part of the colony constitution derived all its activity, and its first vital movement, from the pleasure of the crown. We thought, Sir, that the utmost which the discontented colonists could do, was to disturb authority; we never dreamt they could of themselves supply it; knowing in general what an operose business it is to establish a government absolutely new. But having, for our purposes in this contention, resolved, that none but an obedient assembly should sit; the humours of the people there, finding all passage through the legal channel stopped, with great violence broke out another way. Some provinces have tried their experiment, as we have tried ours; and theirs has succeeded. They have formed a government sufficient for its purposes, without the bustle of a revolution, or the troublesome formality of an election. Evident necessity, and tacit consent, have done the business in an instant. So well they have done it, that Lord Dunmore (the account is among the fragments on your table) tells you, that the new institution is infinitely better obeyed than the ancient government ever was in its most fortunate periods. Obedience is what makes government, and not the names by which it is called; not the name of governor, as formerly, or committee, as at present. This new government has originated directly from the people; and was not transmitted through any of the ordinary artificial media of a positive constitution. It was not a manufacture ready formed, and transmitted to them in that condition from England. The evil arising from hence is this; that the colonists having once found the possibility of enjoying the advantages of order in the midst of a struggle for liberty, such struggles will not henceforward seem so terrible to the settled and sober part of mankind as they had appeared before the trial.

Pursuing the same plan of punishing by the denial of the exercise of government to still greater lengths, we wholly abrogated the ancient government of Massachusetts. We were confident that the first feeling, if not the very prospect of anarchy, would instantly enforce a complete submission. The experiment was tried. A new, strange, unexpected face of things appeared. Anarchy is found tolerable. A vast province has now subsisted, and subsisted in a considerable degree of health and vigour, for near a twelvemonth, without governor, without public council, without judges, without executive magistrates. How long it will continue in this state, or what may arise out of this unheard-of situation, how can the wisest of us conjecture? Our late experience has taught us that many of those fundamental principles, formerly believed infallible, are either not of the importance they were imagined to be; or that we have not at all adverted to some other far more important and far more powerful principles, which entirely overrule those we had considered as omnipotent. I am much against any further experiments, which tend to put to the proof any more of these allowed opinions, which contribute so much to the public tranquillity. In effect, we suffer as much at home by this loosening of all ties, and this concussion of all established opinions, as we do abroad. For, in order to prove that the Americans have no right to their liberties, we are every day endeavouring to subvert the maxims which preserve the whole spirit of our own. To prove that the Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciate the value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain a paltry advantage over them in debate, without attacking some of those principles, or deriding some of those feelings, for which our ancestors have shed their blood.

The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 1, Document 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. 6 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854–56.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE

Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE

The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE

Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: CLICK HERE

Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE

Christopher Story: CLICK HERE

Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/

Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE

Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE

The McCann Case: CLICK HERE

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I am NOT a WARMIST
13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Full Text Of Sir Ivan Rogers’ Departure As UK Ambassador To The EU & His Rapid Replacement …

First Puiblished At CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Full Text Of Sir Ivan Rogers’ Departure As UK Ambassador To The EU & His Rapid Replacement …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK’s ambassador to the European Union, has resigned.

This is the full text of the letter he sent to what were his staff, seemingly distributed with the aim of ensuring it leaked.

Clearly this letter and the manner in which it was leaked shows his ill concieved behaviour and muddled thinking, as to his duties as a public servant – muddled thinking that ensured he had absolutely no option and was forced to leave the Civil Service.

I would contend that Ivan Rogers’ utterly irresponsible and disgraceful behaviour, in betrayal of his duties an responsibilities as a senior Civil Servant & public servant, call into question his right to retain his Knighthood.

IF as he seeks to imply, Government policy is not yet crystalised let us not forget he failed, as David Cameron’s appointed Ambassador not only to obtain anything of significance in terms of renegotiating a better future ‘deal’, but also failed to advise any contingency plan for the failure!

IF the policy is muddled it was his duty & responsibility to steer through that muddle to aid the Government in delivering BreXit in accord with their democratic responsibilities – IF it is not muddled it was his duty to quietly and professionally work for the best outcome for these United Kingdoms.

Whatever the situation his duty and responsibility to act with discression & competence and if he believed he was incompetent to deliver it was his duty to discreetly and confidentially work with his employers to effect an orderly hand over to suuit THEM, not to act like a spolt child in the disgracefull manner in which he did, in betrayal of his office, his department and his Country.

Seemingly Ivan Rogers was minded of the probability that he can find a highly paid job, with an organisasation that values duty and responsibility in a manner rather less than we as a country have the right to expect of our functionaries, even our leading functionaries!

 

Dear All,

Happy New Year! I hope that you have all had/are still having, a great break, and that you will come back refreshed and ready for an exciting year ahead.

I am writing to you all on the first day back to tell you that I am today resigning as Permanent Representative.

As most of you will know, I started here in November 2013. My four-year tour is therefore due to end in October – although in practice if we had been doing the Presidency my time here would have been extended by a few months.

As we look ahead to the likely timetable for the next few years, and with the invocation of Article 50 coming up shortly, it is obvious that it will be best if the top team in situ at the time that Article 50 is invoked remains there till the end of the process and can also see through the negotiations for any new deal between the UK and the EU27.

It would obviously make no sense for my role to change hands later this year.

I have therefore decided to step down now, having done everything that I could in the last six months to contribute my experience, expertise and address book to get the new team at political and official level under way.

This will permit a new appointee to be in place by the time Article 50 is invoked.

Importantly, it will also enable that person to play a role in the appointment of Shan’s replacement as DPR. (Shan Morgan was Deputy Permanent Representative)

I know from experience – both my own hugely positive experience of working in partnership with Shan, and from seeing past, less happy, examples – how imperative it is that the PR and DPR operate as a team, if UKREP is to function as well as I believe it has done over the last few years.

I want to put on record how grateful I am to Shan for the great working relationship we have had.

She will be hugely missed in UKREP, and by many others here in Brussels, but she will be a tremendous asset to the Welsh government.

From my soundings before Christmas, I am optimistic that there will be a very good field of candidates for the DPR role.

But it is right that these two roles now get considered and filled alongside each other, and for my successor to play the leading role in making the DPR appointment.

I shall therefore stand aside from the process at this point.

I know that this news will add, temporarily, to the uncertainty that I know, from our many discussions in the autumn, you are all feeling about the role of UKREP in the coming months and years of negotiations over “Brexit”.

I am sorry about that, but I hope that it will help produce earlier and greater clarity on the role that UKREP should play.

My own view remains as it has always been. We do not yet know what the government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK’s relationship with the EU after exit.

There is much we will not know until later this year about the political shape of the EU itself, and who the political protagonists in any negotiation with the UK will be.

But in any negotiation which addresses the new relationship, the technical expertise, the detailed knowledge of positions on the other side of the table – and the reasons for them, and the divisions amongst them – and the negotiating experience and savvy that the people in this building bring, make it essential for all parts of UKREP to be centrally involved in the negotiations if the UK is to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Serious multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall, and that is not the case in the Commission or in the Council.

The government will only achieve the best for the country if it harnesses the best experience we have – a large proportion of which is concentrated in UKREP – and negotiates resolutely.

Senior ministers, who will decide on our positions, issue by issue, also need from you detailed, unvarnished – even where this is uncomfortable – and nuanced understanding of the views, interests and incentives of the other 27.

The structure of the UK’s negotiating team and the allocation of roles and responsibilities to support that team, needs rapid resolution.

The working methods which enable the team in London and Brussels to function seamlessly need also to be strengthened.

The great strength of the UK system – at least as it has been perceived by all others in the EU – has always been its unique combination of policy depth, expertise and coherence, message co-ordination and discipline, and the ability to negotiate with skill and determination.

UKREP has always been key to all of that. We shall need it more than ever in the years ahead.

As I have argued consistently at every level since June, many opportunities for the UK in the future will derive from the mere fact of having left and being free to take a different path.

But others will depend entirely on the precise shape of deals we can negotiate in the years ahead.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, free trade does not just happen when it is not thwarted by authorities: increasing market access to other markets and consumer choice in our own, depends on the deals, multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral that we strike, and the terms that we agree.

I shall advise my successor to continue to make these points.

Meanwhile, I would urge you all to stick with it, to keep on working at intensifying your links with opposite numbers in DEXEU [Department for Exiting the EU] and line ministries and to keep on contributing your expertise to the policy-making process as negotiating objectives get drawn up.

The famed UKREP combination of immense creativity with realism ground in negotiating experience, is needed more than ever right now.

On a personal level, leaving UKREP will be a tremendous wrench. I have had the great good fortune, and the immense privilege, in my civil service career, to have held some really interesting and challenging roles: to have served four successive UK prime ministers very closely; to have been EU, G20 and G8 Sherpa; to have chaired a G8 Presidency and to have taken part in some of the most fraught, and fascinating, EU negotiations of the last 25 years – in areas from tax, to the MFF to the renegotiation.

Of all of these posts, I have enjoyed being the Permanent Representative more than any other I have ever held.

That is, overwhelmingly, because of all of you and what you all make UKREP: a supremely professional place, with a fantastic co-operative culture, which brings together talented people whether locally employed or UK-based and uniquely brings together people from the home civil service with those from the Foreign Office.

UKREP sets itself demanding standards, but people also take the time to support each other which also helps make it an amazingly fun and stimulating place to work.

I am grateful for everything you have all done over the last few years to make this such a fantastic operation.

For my part, I hope that in my day-to-day dealings with you I have demonstrated the values which I have always espoused as a public servant.

I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power.

I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them.

I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

I hope that you will always provide the best advice and counsel you can to the politicians that our people have elected, and be proud of the essential role we play in the service of a great democracy.

Ivan

It will be noted that the Ambassador to the EU was rapidly removed and replaced in a far from muddled manner, and replaced rapidly and efficiently by the Government, with the rapid appointment of Sir Tim Barrow

Sir Timothy Earle Barrow KCMG, LVO, MBE (born 15-Feb-1964) educated at at Arnold Lodge School in Leamington Spa, followed by Warwick School in Warwick. He went to Warwick University, followed by postgraduate study at Oxford University.

Tim Barrow has a wife Alison and they have 4 children, two sons & two daughters.

Tim Barrow started his career in the FCO in 1986, with increasingly responsible duties as a British diplomat, he served previously as Ambassador of the UK to Russia from 2011 to 2015.

Before that Tim Barrow served in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as a representative to various bodies of the EU, and as British Ambassador to Ukraine 2006–2008. He was named as the Ambassador (British Permanent Representative to the EU), on 04-Jan-2017 as a result of the ill considered manner of Sir Ivan Rogers’ depature as UK Ambassador to the EU on 03-Jan-2017 & his rapid subsequent depature from the British Civil Service.

Here is the Government’s Biography of Sir Tim Barrow:

Biography

In January 2017 Tim was appointed the UK’s Permanent Representative to the European Union.

Tim joined the FCO in 1986 working in the Western European Department with his first overseas postings in 1989 as part of the British Days Exhibition, followed by Second Secretary in Moscow.

Subsequent positions are as follows:

• Head of Russia Section
• Private Secretary to Minister of State
• First Secretary, UKREP Brussels
• Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary
• Head of Common Foreign and Security Department
• Assistant Director EU External
• Deputy Political Director
• Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Kyiv
• Representative to the Political and Security Committee of the European Union and Ambassador to the Western European Union, UKREP Brussels
• Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Moscow
• Political Director

Director General, Political

Board members give corporate leadership to the FCO by ensuring that the department meets the foreign policy priorities, Public Service Agreements targets and service delivery targets set by ministers. The Director General, Political takes a particular interest in the foreign policy objectives and has the following areas of responsibility and regions:

• multilateral policy
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Middle East and North Africa
• Africa
• South Asia and Afghanistan

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Previous roles in government

1. British Ambassador to Russia

   • 2011 to 2016

See: CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE

Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE

The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE

Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: CLICK HERE

Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE

Christopher Story: CLICK HERE

Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/

Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE

Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE

The McCann Case: CLICK HERE

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!

The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.

One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.

The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.

How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I am NOT a WARMIST
13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses That Brought The Renaissence

 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses That Brought The Renaissence …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

.

Hi,

It is believed that on 31-Oct-1517 Martin Luther naile his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church thus firing the first shots of the Renaissence and the frtacture in the Catholic Church liberating the Protestant Church from the cloying control of Rome.

It was not until the latter part of the 2oth. Century that serious efforts were made to break down the divide between the two branches of the christian beliefs and superstitions.

Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, “Repent ye, etc.,” intended that the whole life of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.

2. And the word “penance” neither can, nor may, be understood as referring to the Sacrament of Penance, that is, to confession and atonement as exercised under the priest’s ministry.

3. Nevertheless He does not think of inward penance only: rather is inward penance worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.

4. Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

5. The Pope will not, and cannot, remit other punishments than those which he has imposed by his own decree or according to the canons.

6. The Pope can forgive sins only in the sense, that he declares and confirms what may be forgiven of God; or that he doth it in those cases which he hath reserved to himself; be this contemned, the sin remains unremitted.

7. God forgives none his sin without at the same time casting him penitent and humbled before the priest His vicar.

8. The canons concerning penance are imposed only on the living; they ought not by any means, following the same canons, to be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, acting in the Pope, does well for us, when the latter in his decrees entirely removes the article of death and extreme necessity.

10. Those priests act unreasonably and ill who reserve for Purgatory the penance imposed on the dying.

11. This abuse of changing canonical penalty into the penalty of Purgatory seems to have arisen when the bishops were asleep.

12. In times of yore, canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before, absolution, as tests of true repentance and affliction.

13. The dying pay all penalties by their death, are already dead to the canons, and rightly have exemption from them.

14. Imperfect spiritual health or love in the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the less this love is, the greater the fear it brings.

15. This fear and horror – to say nothing of other things – are sufficient in themselves to produce the punishment of Purgatory, because they approximate to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven seem to differ as perfect despair, imperfect despair, and security of salvation differ.

17. It seems as must in Purgatory love in the souls increase, as fear diminishes in them.

18. It does not seem to be proved either by arguments or by the Holy Writ that they are outside the state of merit and demerit, or increase of love.

19. This, too, seems not to be proved, that they are all sure and confident of their salvation, though we may be quite sure of it.

20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore, those preachers of indulgences err who say that, by the Pope’s indulgence, a man may be exempt from all punishments, and be saved.

22. Yea, the Pope remits the souls in Purgatory no penalty which they, according to the canons, would have had to pay in this life.

23. If to anybody complete remission of all penalties may be granted, it is certain that it is granted only to those most approaching perfection, that is, to very few.

24. Therefore the multitude is misled by the boastful promise of the paid penalty, whereby no manner of distinction is made.

25. The same power that the Pope has over Purgatory, such has also every bishop in his diocese, and every curate in his parish.

26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys – which in Purgatory he does not possess – but by way of intercession.

27. They preach vanity who say that the soul flies out of Purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

28. What is sure, is, that as soon as the penny rattles in the chest, gain and avarice are on the way of increase; but the intercession of the church depends only on the will of God Himself.

29. And who knows, too, whether all those souls in Purgatory wish to be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severinus and St. Paschalis.

30. Nobody is sure of having repented sincerely enough; much less can he be sure of having received perfect remission of sins.

31. Seldom even as he who has sincere repentance, is he who really gains indulgence; that is to say, most seldom to be found.

32. On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe that they are sure of their salvation through indulgences.

33. Beware well of those who say, the Pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God.

34. For the forgiveness contained in these pardons has reference only to the penalties of sacramental atonement which were appointed by men.

35. He preaches like a heathen who teaches that those who will deliver souls out of Purgatory or buy indulgences do not need repentance and contrition.

36. Every Christian who feels sincere repentance and woe on account of his sins, has perfect remission of pain and guilt even without letters of indulgence.

37. Every true Christian, be he still alive or already dead, partaketh in all benefits of Christ and of the Church given him by God, even without letters of indulgence.

38. Yet is the Pope’s absolution and dispensation by no means to be contemned, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine Absolution.

39. It is exceedingly difficult, even for the most subtle theologists, to praise at the same time before the people the great wealth of indulgence and the truth of utter contrition.

40. True repentance and contrition seek and love punishment; while rich indulgence absolves from it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives them occasion to do so.

41. The Pope’s indulgence ought to be proclaimed with all precaution, lest the people should mistakenly believe it of more value than all other works of charity.

42. Christians should be taught, it is not the Pope’s opinion that the buying of indulgence is in any way comparable to works of charity.

43. Christians should be taught, he who gives to the poor, or lends to a needy man, does better than buying indulgence.

44. For, by the exercise of charity, charity increases and man grows better, while by means of indulgence, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.

45. Christians should be taught, he who sees his neighbor in distress, and, nevertheless, buys indulgence, is not partaking in the Pope’s pardons, but in the anger of God.

46. Christians should be taught, unless they are rich enough, it is their duty to keep what is necessary for the use of their households, and by no means to throw it away on indulgences.

47. Christians should be taught, the buying of indulgences is optional and not commanded.

48. Christians should be taught, the Pope, in selling pardons, has more want and more desire of a devout prayer for himself than of the money.

49. Christians should be taught, the Pope’s pardons are useful as far as one does not put confidence in them, but on the contrary most dangerous, if through them one loses the fear of God.

50. Christians should be taught, if the Pope knew the ways and doings of the preachers of indulgences, he would prefer that St. Peter’s Minster should be burnt to ashes, rather than that it should be built up of the skin, flesh, and bones of his lambs.

51. Christians should be taught, the Pope, as it is his bounden duty to do, is indeed also willing to give of his own money – and should St. Peter’s be sold thereto – to those from whom the preachers of indulgences do most extort money.

52. It is a vain and false thing to hope to be saved through indulgences, though the commissary – nay, the Pope himself – was to pledge his own soul therefore.

53. Those who, on account of a sermon concerning indulgences in one church, condemn the word of God to silence in the others, are enemies of Christ and of the Pope.

54. Wrong is done to the word of God if one in the same sermon spends as much or more time on indulgences as on the word of the Gospel.

55. The opinion of the Pope cannot be otherwise than this:- If an indulgence – which is the lowest thing – be celebrated with one bell, one procession and ceremonies, then the Gospel – which is the highest thing – must be celebrated with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.

56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants his dispensation are neither sufficiently named nor known among the community of Christ.

57. It is manifest that they are not temporal treasures, for the latter are not lightly spent, but rather gathered by many of the preachers.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, without the Pope’s aid, work always grace to the inner man, cross, death, and hell to the other man.

59. St. Lawrence called the poor of the community the treasures of the community and of the Church, but he understood the word according to the use in his time.

60. We affirm without pertness that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merit of Christ, are this treasure.

61. For it is clear that the Pope’s power is sufficient for the remission of penalties and forgiveness in the reserved cases.

62. The right and true treasure of the Church is the most Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, for it makes the first to be last.

64. While the treasure of indulgence is deservedly most agreeable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore, the treasures of the Gospel are nets, with which, in times of yore, one fished for the men of Mammon.

66. But the treasures of indulgence are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the Mammon of men.

67. Those indulgences, which the preachers proclaim to be great mercies, are indeed great mercies, forasmuch as they promote gain.

68. And yet they are of the smallest compared to the grace of God and to the devotion of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates ought to mark with eyes and ears, that the commissaries of apostolical (that is, Popish) pardons are received with all reverence.

70. But they ought still more to mark with eyes and ears, that these commissaries do not preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope has commanded.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and cursed.72. But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher’s of pardons naughty and impudent words.

73. As the Pope justly disgraces and excommunicates those who use any kind of contrivance to do damage to the traffic in indulgences.

74. Much more it is his intention to disgrace and excommunicate those who, under the pretext of indulgences, use contrivance to do damage to holy love and truth.

75. To think that the Popish pardons have power to absolve a man even if – to utter an impossibility – he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.

76. We assert on the contrary that the Popish pardon cannot take away the least of daily sins, as regards the guilt of it.

77. To say that St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could show no greater mercies, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

78. We assert on the contrary that both this and every other Pope has greater mercies to show: namely, the Gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc. (1.Cor.XII).

79. He who says that the cross with the Pope’s arms, solemnly set on high, has as much power as the Cross of Christ, blasphemes God.

80. Those bishops, curates, and theologists, who allow such speeches to be uttered among the people, will have one day to answer for it.

81. Such impudent sermons concerning indulgences make it difficult even for learned men to protect the Pope’s honor and dignity against the calumnies, or at all events against the searching questions, of the laymen.

82. As for instance: – Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls – this being the most imperative of all motives, – while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter’s Minster: – this being the very slightest of motives?

83. Or again: – Why do masses for the dead continue, and why does not the Pope return or permit to be withdrawn the funds which were established for the sake of the dead, since it is now wrong to pray for those who are already saved?

84. Again: – What is this new holiness of God and the Pope that, for money’s sake, they permit the wicked and the enemy of God to save a pious soul, faithful to God, and yet will not save that pious and beloved soul without payment, out of love, and on account of its great distress?

85. Again: – Why is it that the canons of penance, long abrogated and dead in themselves, because they are not used, are yet still paid for with money through the granting of pardons, as if they were still in force and alive?

86. Again: – Why does not the Pope build St. Peter’s Minster with his own money – since his riches are now more ample than those of Crassus, – rather than with the money of poor Christians?

87. Again: -Why does the Pope remit or give to those who, through perfect penitence, have already a right to plenary remission and pardon?

88. Again: – What greater good could the Church receive, than if the Pope presented this remission and pardon a hundred times a day to every believer, instead of but once, as he does now?

(Top of Martin Luther 95 Theses)

89. If the Pope seeks by his pardon the salvation of souls, rather than money, why does he annul letters of indulgence granted long ago, and declare them out of force, though they are still in force?

90. To repress these very telling questions of the laymen by force, and not to solve them by telling the truth, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the enemy’s ridicule and to make Christian people unhappy.

91. Therefore, if pardons were preached according to the Pope’s intention and opinion, all these objections would be easily answered, nay, they never had occurred.

92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, “Peace, peace”, and there is no peace.

93. But blessed be all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, “The cross, the cross,” and there is no cross.

94. Christians should be exhorted to endeavor to follow Christ their Head through Cross, Death, and Hell,

95. And thus hope with confidence to enter Heaven through many miseries, rather than in false security.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE

Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE

The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE

Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: CLICK HERE

Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE

Christopher Story: CLICK HERE

Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/

Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE

Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE

The McCann Case: CLICK HERE

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:

1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
12. I am NOT a WARMIST
13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

VISA ABOLITION Between UK & France – Gov’t Paper 1946!

VISA ABOLITION Between UK & France – Gov’t Paper 1946!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&

>Side Bars<
&

The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE

Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE

General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com

http://Leave-The-EU.com

Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/

The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com

The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/

Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/

Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/

Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/

Psycheocracy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/

The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/

The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/

Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/

Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:

• I NEVER post anonymously on the internet

• ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me

• I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind

• I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook

• I DO have a Voice Mail Message System

• I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails

• I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages

• I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers

• I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection

• I AM opposed to British membership of The EU

• I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK

• I am NOT a WARMIST

• I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming

• I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES

• I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies

• I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion

• I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern

• I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support

• I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.

• I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.

• I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.

• I do NOT trust or believe in armed police

• I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~