Since the literally meaningless “referendum” in 2016:
- The EU’s Military takeover of UK Armed Forces plan is still underway;
- The (non) Government have given notice to the people that all existing EU law (the ‘acquis’) will be “converted into British Law”;
- The so called Monarch, who is a treasonous impostor and citizen of the EU stated in her 2017 speech that “the same rules and laws will apply after exit”;
- Voters didn’t seem to realise that we were never legally in the “eec” or the EU, or that the Lisbon treaty reintroduces the death penalty into Europe for ‘rioting’, ‘civil upheaval’ and ‘during war’;
- We have been hit with 521 Million or we can’t ‘leave.’
The “absorption” of the UK Armed forces (“SDI: Overview of the accelerating EU absorption of the British Military to form the EU Military and a ‘nuclear defence shield’”)
“A Strategic Defence Initiative Briefing Sheet 25 January 2017 10:15 GMT email@example.com
Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle on 20 January 2017:
‘Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [EU] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent.’ The short briefing sheet has been produced to highlight some of the key areas and perceived risks of the integration of the UK into a single integrated EU defence structure. The content has been compiled by those with military experience, including submarine operations — this experience is considered important in relation to comments made not only in relation to the Royal Navy, but particularly the nuclear deterrent.
In focusing in greater detail on some significant Royal Navy issues regarding size of the fleet, specific units and the nuclear deterrent, the joint risks of EU integration to both the Army and Royal Air Force are by no means belittled. On the contrary, there is much more to be said on behalf of these two services than can be covered in this summary paper.
The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon (a strong EU advocate and former EU Movement supporter) are continuing the path to EU military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of UK military forces into the EU structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media forums, which is testimony to the usual EU policy of implementation by stealth where Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the EU commercial military procurement and supply chain, operating under an EU treasury already being declared and implemented.
Once locked together under EU procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-EU military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the EU political tactic of creating ‘interdependence’ between EU member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the ability to act as an independent nation state.
Understanding EU Military Integration Policy
The EU has consistently and publicly stated that the goal of the EU is to form a single integrated supranational state, with law, internal security, defence and foreign policy controlled from Brussels…
…The EU Organisation for External Action (Foreign Policy vehicle of the EU) recently quoted Frederica Mogherini’s policy as follows:
“Security is a priority for the EU … We have hard and soft power. We have done more on defence in the last seven months than in decades. Building on the ideas in her Global Strategy for EU Foreign and Security Policy, Mogherini has illustrated the European Union’s three-pronged set of measures to strengthen the EU’s security and defence capability … In a reshaping world the only way for the Europeans to be global players is through the EU.”
The implication is clear — EU security and defence capability is to be strengthened as a centralised Brussels-led objective. This is not simply an invitation for member states to contribute more to EU”
“It is disappointing that UK representatives agreed to so many separate EU military plans even after the country voted to leave the EU.” – Major-General Julian Thompson
The 2017 Express Report:
“Exclusive: Britain is sleepwalking into joining EU army, warns top UK military commander BRITAIN is sleepwalking into becoming part of an EU army and must take immediate measures to “extricate” itself from the bloc’s defence plans, one of the country’s most respected military commanders said today.
By NICK GUTTERIDGE, BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT 09:01, Sat, Jun 10, 2017 | UPDATED: 11:17, Sat, Jun 10, 2017
Major-General Julian Thompson told express.co.uk that ministers are quietly signing up to “vast military plans” devised by Brussels whilst the public gaze is largely on Brexit.
In a blistering intervention he said proposals put forward by eurocrats will “touch every part of the UK’s defence policy” and warned the UK could become militarily tied to Brussels for years to come.
The war hero, who led the landing mission to the Falklands, entered the debate after EU officials unveiled their most ambitious military plans yet which critics have said amount to the effective creation of a euro force.
Foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini’s plans for a massive EU defence fund and greater mission control from Brussels drew scorn from commentators who accused her of trying to turn the bloc into a “second NATO”.
They include proposals to make it obligatory for EU countries to defend a fellow member state under attack and the setting up of a European Defence Research Agency to develop weapons for the bloc.
The option favoured by eurocrats states: “The EU would be able to run high-end security and defence operations, underpinned by a greater level of integration of Member States’ defence forces.”
Speaking exclusively to express.co.uk Major-General Thompson said the fact that UK ministers have signed up to all recent EU defence agreements should set alarm bells ringing about the proposals.
He said: “The EU’s vast military plans, which have gone virtually unnoticed in the UK yet approved by our diplomats and ministers, touch every part of the UK’s defence policy from intelligence and deployment to procurement and finance.
“When even the EU Commission is expressing surprise at UK willingness to conform, it’s clear something has gone wrong with the UK’s stance. At the heart of this is a mindset problem.
“The UK believes it is approving military structures for the other 27, but the EU is completely clear that agreements unfortunately apply to the UK as full participants.”
He warned: “The agreements will last for at least two years and possibly five or more, depending on the length of a transitional deal and the difficulty of withdrawal.
Thompson told defence secretary Michael Fallon and foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who are responsible for Britain’s role in European defence policy, that they must not sign up to further demands from Brussels.
The retired military commander warned that doing so will strengthen the EU’s hand during the Brexit talks by providing eurocrats with a “bargaining chip” to dangle over British negotiators.
He said: “The UK must stop giving consent to defence proposals from the EU which come with a political underpinning.
“It has already resulted in a defeat for the UK government over the creation of a central EU military HQ.
“Ministers must think urgently about how the UK will extricate from these recent agreements, which simply provide the EU with a bargaining chip and additional leverage over the UK during the exit talks.”
The proposals were also panned by Tory MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, a former British Army Brigadier, who said they threatened NATO by creating “alternative structures that will merely increase the transatlantic divide.”
He fumed: “Whilst security and defence has become a pressing issue in the minds of all our peoples, it is nonsense to suggest that the answer to this is more EU.
“It is NATO that has preserved peace and security in Europe since the end of the Second World War.”
Major-General Thompson, who is chairman of the campaign group Veterans for Britain, made the remarks after a senior eurocrat admitted she had been stunned by the lack of British objections to the EU’s military plans. Polish official Elżbieta Bieńkowska said representatives from the UK were “mute” when the bloc’s proposals to significantly up military cooperation were drawn up, adding they had not offered “any opposition”.
The (supposed) ‘Queen’s speech 2017
The (non) Queen’s 2017 seditious speech written by the unelected quisling Theresa May contains plans to:
- “regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism”
- “maintain a deep and special relationship with European allies”
- “modernise the court system”
- “the same rules and laws apply after exit”
- “convert EU law into UK law as we leave the EU”
- “maintain the scope of devolved decision-making powers immediately after exit.”
- “The [International Sanctions] Bill will support our role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, by establishing a new sovereign UK framework to implement international sanctions on a multilateral or unilateral basis”
- “ensure that . . . data protection . . . is suitable for our new digital age . . . including a right to be forgotten”
All of the above is in contravention of British law. What will be classed as ‘extremism’ on the internet? No doubt this will be a further crackdown on freedom of speech (and possibly freedom of association). What will this “deep and special relationship with European allies” entail? Will this include the absorption of the UK Armed Forces?…
Plans to “modernise the court system” will be very interesting. As if it can be modernised any more, we already have Virtual Courts, and they aren’t even actually courts as proper courts of law were illegally repealed from public service in 1848. Administrative “Courts” which are unlawful according to Halsbury’s Laws replaced proper courts of law (Grand Juries).
Now that plans have been made to further modernise our Virtual courts, it won’t be a surprise if the next thing the regime do is judge you (literally) on your social media profile.
“The same rules and laws apply after exit” is evidence of treason. Not only does it mean that even if brexit was indeed a proper decision, that it wouldn’t make any difference as the same [EU] rules and laws apply, but how can law which has never actually had jurisdiction over the United Kingdom be kept? The fact the EU law is going to be “converted into UK law” should scream betrayal to the whole population.
This also brings us to yet another remark open for investigation. Which is to “maintain the scope of devolved decision-making powers immediately after exit.” Devolved decision-making powers being the EU strategic command? This is open to both misinterpretation and also misuse, though it would be interesting to see what it really means, and also how it transpires. Have the British people not picked up what is really going on yet?
The statement; to “ensure that . . . data protection . . . is suitable for our new digital age . . . including a right to be forgotten” is also open to much misuse. Together with the plans to “regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism” it is very possible (most likely) that the impostors within Westminster are convening yet another authoritarian agenda which this time purports to fully control political opinion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press in cyberspace, following the ‘Snoopers Charter’ and “Investigatory powers Bill” it will also effect the way we keep our personal information safe.
£521 Million or we can’t “Leave.”
The figure seems to be constantly changing however a similar story can be told when King John attempted to surrender England to the Pope in 1213.
The Roman Church wanted an annual payment of 1000 marks (£666). However, the costs were illegal and were never payed. This is what Lord Kilmuir had to say about this:
“the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because [the] Kings [and Queens] were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.”
Now we see today’s ‘executives’ acting completely the same and in ultra vires. The federalist European Union has just issued a demanded £521 MILLION bill to let Britain leave according to the Express and numerous other sources.
We were never legally in the EEC OR THE EU. This is evidently fact and is also proven by the two documents that follow:
Both of these documents were kept hidden away for THIRTY YEARS and meticulously document the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the “common market” which later flourished into the European “Union.”
We owe NOTHING!
The people’s Declaration of Rights 1688 which was incorporated into the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689 states that:
“no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.”
The Act of Settlement 1700 clarifies that:
“no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military