Log in

No account? Create an account
20 June 2019 @ 09:57 am
The IJ EU Commission Is More Than Just A Demented Bunch Of Soulless Thieves.  
It is lipstick on the face of our greatest enemy.

Christopher Story - EU Corruption
Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 by BBC5.tv.
Youtube on 14 Nov 2009

dailyalternativenews published on 1 Mar 2013

Perhaps after listening to Mr Story's (Edward Harle's) story the reason why we have been oppressed for so long will be sufficiently plain for anyone to understand.

"These populist nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries"
Junker speaking from his false jewish heart.

clothcapclothcap on June 20th, 2019 03:58 pm (UTC)
We left in March. Didn't we?
Conservative MP publicly acknowledges Tilbrook’s writ that we left EU in March.
14 Jun 2019
Posted by Tapestry
2 Court cases arguing the UK has already left the EU
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JUNE 14, 2019
Some correspondents want to know why we learn nothing about these cases. As far as I can see it is because their sponsors are not writing or talking about them, so we do not know where they have reached and what is happening. On this occasion it does not appear to be a media inspired news blackout as some fear.
TAP – Tilbrook’s barred on Facebook. No mainstream newspaper has carried the story. Come on John. Get up to speed. He’s the Chairman of the English Democrats which perhaps ought to be mentioned also!

I checked with Mr Robin Tilbrook’s website yesterday, as he brought the first case. His last blog post I could see about the court case was 14 May when he attacked Bill Cash and Nigel Farage but did not bring us up to date on how well his case is progressing. Maybe his lawyers are telling him not to tell the rest of us about it.
TAP – Tilbrook emails people if you register, but how else can he communicate as he’s blocked.

Nor have I seen any news on the Barry Legg case. I would be happy to comment here if news is released that we are allowed to talk about. Both cases I believe argue that Mrs May’s two delays were not legal in EU/UK law, though they are clearly being regarded as such by the government.

The Conservative leadership election.
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JUNE 14, 2019
As I expected there was Boris and the rest. I voted for Boris as I agreed with his clear statements that we have to leave by October 31st, and that failure to quit would be deeply damaging to our democracy and to the Conservative party. Next week will be about deciding who should go forward to challenge Boris, who commanded enough votes in the first round to secure one of the last two places, assuming all his voters stick with him which is likely.
It is difficult to see Rory Stewart, Matt Hancock or Sajid Javid staying in contention. Dom Raab’s votes are likely to drift away to Boris as the Get out candidate who can win. I expect Jeremy Hunt will extend his lead over Michael Gove and stay in second place. Michael Gove is trying to sell himself as another Leave candidate, but he was one of the most insistent advocates of the Withdrawal Treaty which was the opposite of leaving, and now says if necessary we should delay our exit beyond October 31. None of the candidates who rule out No deal Brexit have explained why the EU should negotiate a revised Withdrawal treaty, nor how they could negotiate anything without the leverage of just going if necessary.
clothcapclothcap on June 20th, 2019 04:03 pm (UTC)
Avoiding the trap of the Withdrawal Agreement -
The way ahead for a new Prime Minister
Briefings for Brexit 13/06/2019
by Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant
Avoiding the trap of the Withdrawal Agreement
Written by Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant

Last Monday, Briefings for Brexit and Politeia hosted a discussion of an analysis of the traps contained in the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration negotiated by Theresa May’s government, and laying out the way towards an equitable free trade agreement. Below is an executive summary of the analysis.

Post Segments
Executive Summary
The paper concludes:
Below is the summary, The full report can be downloaded here.
Executive Summary
1. As Mrs May departs, the Conservative Party is selecting a new leader who will become Prime Minister. That person’s principal task will be to achieve Brexit and deliver the results demanded by the 17.4m people who voted to leave the EU in 2016.
2. This task requires a new start. It should not involve an attempt to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement (“WA”) which resulted from Theresa May’s disastrous negotiations with the EU. Such an attempt would be futile, since the EU has set its face against any “reopening” of the WA. It extracted a formal commitment from Mrs May not to try to reopen it as a condition of the European Council decision to grant an extension of the Article 50 “two year negotiating period” to 31 October 2019.
3. The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
(4) The WA requires the UK to use “best endeavours in good faith” to negotiate terms for a long term future agreement in line with the principles set out in the Political Declaration (PD). The absence of an exit clause from the backstop Protocol would trap the future PM into having to negotiate against the genuine and formidable threat of the UK falling into the backstop if it did not agree to the EU’s terms. The scope for negotiation on any future long term deal is severely reduced by the concessions that have been made by the UK in the terms of the PD.
(5) The WA has no exit clause from the backstop Protocol except with the agreement of the EU, a fact unique amongst international treaties.
(6) Even in the wholly unlikely event that the EU were to agree to remove the whole backstop Protocol from the WA, the rest of the WA would still contains serious constraints on the UK and little or nothing of value. For example: (a) Its “long tail” jurisdiction would lead to UK companies being subjected to State aid or competition proceedings for many years after the UK had left the EU and after the transition period; (b) It contains an obscure clause on “geographical indications” which would severely disrupt future trade negotiations with other countries.
Cap tap Hope at https://tinyurl.com/y34lxa8r

Edited at 2019-06-21 07:30 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on June 21st, 2019 11:03 am (UTC)
Yanis Varoufakis blows the lid on Europe's hidden agenda

Youtube on 5 May 2017

What happened in Greece during the crisis? And what happens when you take on the establishment?
In this extensive interview, former finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis, talks about his new book Adults In The Room – My battle with Europe's deep establishment.

Interview by Katrine Marçal
clothcapclothcap on June 21st, 2019 12:36 pm (UTC)
David Icke discusses theories and politics with Eamonn Holmes
David Icke discusses theories and politics with Eamonn Holmes
Youtube on 26 Apr 2019
David Icke joins Eamonn in the studio to discuss his alternative theories. Under the microscope is fake news, mass surveillance, 5G, AI, climate change, US and UK politics - and, of course - Brexit.
"It was always going to go pear-shaped. It's been an alliance between the political class in Britain and the bureaucrats in Brussels to trash Brexit."


Edited at 2019-06-22 07:21 pm (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on June 21st, 2019 02:03 pm (UTC)
Nigel as a politics commentator. And a couple of pets

Full playlist

Stewart sunk, Gove grounded, Javid jettisoned, BoJo and JeHu in the seat final.

The site has some worthwhile petitions.
59,013 signatures
Goal: 100,000 signatures
Robin Tilbrook, Solicitor and chairman of the English Democrats launched a legal challenge last month to prove that in law this country had already LEFT the EU on March 29th at the end of our 2 year notice.
This top-level legal challenge to the Government has received no BBC coverage. Compare this to the Gina Miller challenge to keep us in! Clearly, we can see a totally unfair imbalance in how the BBC are treating the case to save Brexit!
This is grossly unfair and smacks of serious political bias from the BBC in favour of the REMAIN camp despite its threadbare claims of impartiality!
The reality is clear. The BBC gave Gina Miller and her anti-Brexit case wall to wall coverage but is completely ignoring and stifling discussion of Robin Tilbrook’s legal challenge which seeks to defend our BREXIT vote!
If you are disgusted by the BBC’s lack of impartiality in general and in this case particularly, then please sign the National ‘END BBC CENSORSHIP’ Petition and SHARE it to everyone you know and we shall present this in person to the BBC’s regulator to DEMAND a fair deal from the BBC !

Stop the harassment of all serving and ex-military personnel
53,417 signatures
Goal: 100,000 signatures
We the people demand an immediate cessation of the politically motivated witch hunts against our troops. In particular, we find the Government-backed persecution of very elderly former soldiers over matters that occurred in Northern Ireland almost 50 years ago to be abhorrent, disrespectful and outrageous especially when hundreds of terrorists were pardoned and released under the Good Friday agreement yet our brave soldiers are now hounded and live in fear of being jailed!
It's a disgrace that soldiers are sent to risk their lives to carry out the will of the government only to end up as a political pawn. This has not only happened in Northern Ireland but in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Soldiers fear to do their jobs which can cost them their lives with the knowledge that their government can stab them in the back for their own political gains. We say STOP THE WITCH HUNT AGAINST OUR TROOPS! PLEASE SIGN THE NATIONAL PETITION AND PASS IT ON. Thank You.

And more https://www.englishdemocrats.party
clothcapclothcap on June 21st, 2019 05:02 pm (UTC)
Apple Pie. Apple of your eye is pie in the sky
Truth exists; only lies are invented.
Penny for your thoughts June 21, 2019
Israeli tech company says it can unlock all iPhones ever made & some Androids
Times of Israel
"Cellebrite, believed to be the company hired by the FBI to hack into San Bernardino killer’s phone in 2016, has faced criticism for hiding phones’ vulnerabilities from Apple
An Israeli company that specializes in helping law enforcement agencies unlock cellphones announced it has found a way to break into any iPhone ever made, as well as many Android phones.
The Petah Tikva-based Cellebrite was reportedly the company the FBI used in 2016 to hack into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter after Apple refused the US government’s request to build a backdoor into its famously secure operating system.
The announcement from Cellebrite came in the form of an update this week to its website promoting the iPhone-hacking technology, dubbed “UFED Premium,” as “the only on-premise solution for law enforcement agencies to unlock and extract crucial mobile phone evidence from all iOS and high-end Android devices.”
[It gets worse]

Oooohhh give me a phone
Where the GCHQ don't roam
And I can talk
In private all day
With charges that are low
Where spam can not go
And the battery is charged by so
(except when it's cloudy)

Edited at 2019-06-21 05:05 pm (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on June 21st, 2019 10:51 pm (UTC)
How about a game
Let's call it a very bullingdon bash.
Cameron is obviously of a club that is humanity's enemy. And Blair. Is BoJo another one?

Sex, drugs & death - Bullingdon Club UNCUT with investigative journalist Nick Mutch
Peter Borenius
Youtube on 29 Jan 2016
Bullingdon Club boys Rhodes & DeBeers carved up Africa, now back in power with Boris, Dave & George

- Nick Mutch on BCfm -
Friday 29th January 2016
Second hour: investigative reports: Breaking the Bullingdon Club Omertà: Secret Lives of the Men Who Run Britain: Vandalism, blood, and hookers. A Daily Beast investigation exposes the best-kept secrets of Britain’s most powerful men; the hidden archive; the club’s latest outbreak of destruction; new heavyweight members named and Prime Minister David Cameron’s hushed-up past. Bullingdon Club exposed by Nick Mutch - Nick Mutch, journalist, discusses the Bullingdon Club, who Cameron, Osborne and Boris were all part of: just wealthy join club; 'Omerta, Omerta' – is the Mafia code of silence; list of influential people who have been members – almost all Tories and 75% went to Eton; encouraged to damage property – break the law – smash things up – so they have dirt on each other and will be afraid to tell tales lest their own deeds be revealed; Skull and Bones society at Yale University in the US; they are let off by the law and don't suffer the consequences. Nick also writes at www.Byline.com - Ten years after the Bristol schools privatisation plan was hatched,

Breaking the Bullingdon Club Omertà: Secret Lives of the Men Who Run Britain
Vandalism, blood, and hookers. A Daily Beast investigation exposes the best-kept secrets of Britain’s most powerful men; the hidden archive; the club’s latest outbreak of destruction; new heavyweight members named and Prime Minister David Cameron’s hushed-up past.
OXFORD — The tablecloth was drenched in red wine and blood; broken plates littered the floor and a young man in a $5,000 suit lay unconscious.
Strewn across the Tudor room at the luxury Manor hotel in north Oxfordshire was proof that Oxford University’s notorious Bullingdon Club is still raising hell in 2015, despite claims that their excesses had been checked by negative publicity and mortified former members. “They walked in here as if they were the Royal Family”, John Wood, one of the waiters that served them, told The Daily Beast. “One half were drinking themselves silly, the other half smashing up the crockery.”
The 15 students were served 24 bottles of red wine, 24 bottles of white wine, and plenty of champagne. The damage they inflicted ran into hundreds of dollars.
After three years as a student at Oxford, this was my first glimpse of the Bullingdon in action as part of an unprecedented investigation into the drinking society’s past and present, which is based on discoveries from the archives and interviews with recent and former club members.
Three of the most powerful men in Britain today—the prime minister, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and the mayor of London—were all members, joining an illustrious list of alumni that includes ambassadors, countless CEOs, titans of the financial industry, and four kings. Because the members swear a code of silence, or “omertà,” when initiated, the club has been shrouded in mystery until now.
The night at the Manor began at around half past nine on a cold night in February, a beaten up minibus arrived at the hotel in Weston on the Green, north Oxfordshire. They swaggered out, tipsy from the Dom Pérignon they’d enjoyed on the ride. They’d been picked up from a secret location on Walton Street in the Oxford suburb of Jericho wearing their outfits from Oxford tailor Ede and Ravenscroft.
Cap tap Tap
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 09:30 am (UTC)
Mossad Main Suspect behind Attacks on Oil Tankers in Sea of Oman
By VT Editors - June 18, 2019
A leading Egyptian newspaper dismissed the possibility that Iran carried out the recent attacks against two oil tankers in the Sea of Oman, describing Israel as the only side and culprit to benefit from the sabotage act.
“No one should believe and pay attention to the US allegations against Iran for the recent attacks because Trump is beating the drums of war and Israel is happy with it and the result will be a highly risky to the oil region and damage for Iran and other Persian Gulf littoral states,” the Arabic-language Mesriyoun newspaper wrote on Monday.
“Israel is the number one and only side which benefits from igniting the fire of war in the region,” it added.
The paper underlined Israel’s displeasure with any progress in Iran, and added, “Therefore, all suspicions should focuse on Israel and Mossad’s possible role given the fact that Mossad played an important role in the incidents during the Arab-Israeli wars in the past and after that.”
In relevant remarks on Saturday, senior Arab diplomats also pointed their fingers at Israel as the culprit behind the recent attacks on two oil tankers in the Sea of Oman, reminding that Tel Aviv has the possibilities and incentives to do the sabotage operations to lay more pressure on Iran.
“There is yet no strong evidence to show who has targeted the two oil tankers, and hence, the door is still open to make political allegations to pressure the opposite party,” Arab diplomats told the Lebanese Arabic-language al-Jomhouriyeh newspaper.
Al-Jomhouriyeh did not name the diplomats, but also quoted them as adding, “As the US accuses Iran for the incident, Israel can also be a suspect as it has the possibilities and capabilities to do so.”
The Arab diplomats underlined that Israel was the first regime which benefited from any war between the US and Iran.
Iran has strongly denied any involvement in the attacks.
Meantime, a prominent Russian expert also said that the US has launched the Thursday attacks on two oil tankers in the Sea of Oman to spread Iranophobia, satisfy Israel and find a pretext for prolonged presence in the region.
“Allegations that Iran is behind the two oil tankers incident in the Sea of Oman are not believable,” Head of the Russian Center for Iran Studies and senior analyst on regional issues Rajab Safarov said in an interview with Russia 24 news channel on Friday.
He described the US as the culprit behind the incident, and said in conditions that Iran along with two world powers, Russia and China, are after keeping the nuclear deal, Tehran will not resort to provocative acts against its interests.
Safarov added that the most important reason to blame the US for the incident is its interest in prolonged deployment in the Persian Gulf under the pretext of defending the Persian Gulf Arab states against what it calls as Iran’s threat.
“There is also another important scenario. The US is now producing 12mln barrels of oil on a daily basis and it has not only become self-sufficient but also has turned into one of the most important exporters of oil and therefore, it wants to cripple oil transfer in the Persian Gulf and annihilate the European states and China’s economy,” he said.
“The US introduces itself as the savior of the world and the biggest guarantor of peace and security and Iran as the biggest enemy of peace and the world’s economic lifeline by claiming to be rescuing Europe and the Arab and Asian states from an economic, political and geopolitical catastrophe and it will force them to bow to Washington and cut ties with Iran. Therefore, what you see is a scenario which fully benefits Trump and his supporters to force the world to bow to him,” Safarov warned.
The israeli regime has a history as I pointed out a few posts ago.
Others say Bolton was behind the false flag.
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 09:47 am (UTC)
Is Theresa May under the coercive control of the European Union?
Is Theresa May under the coercive control of the European Union?
by David Blake
The EU have read Theresa May far more successfully than anyone in the UK.
They have very cleverly cornered both her and the UK Parliament.

Post Segments
Theresa May’s four personas
Nothing that Theresa May says about the Withdrawal Agreement is true
Deception and self-delusion
How the EU breaks it enemies
If MPs vote for the Withdrawal Agreement, they are not fit to have any role in determining the laws that the rest of us have to obey
Countdown to Brexit betrayal
The longer term consequences

Evan Stark defined coercive control as a pattern of behaviour which seeks to take away an individual’s liberty and to strip away their sense of self. The Prime Minister’s Brexit negotiations have shown that she has been “subjected to a pattern of domination that includes tactics to isolate, degrade, exploit and control”.
In a recent report for Briefings for Brexit, I discussed four possible views about our enigmatic Prime Minister’s approach to the Brexit negotiations.
Theresa May’s four personas
The first is to take her at her word that she is “just getting on with the job” and simply wants to minimise any disruption to trade after Brexit, having listened to the reasoned views of the CBI and the Institute of Directors. One former Cabinet minister said “She operates on tramlines and she doesn’t have a huge amount of agility. Also she’s very easy to be picked off by officials, who say we are at risk of this or at risk of that, rather than think actually we can do it a different way. She’s overly deferential to the obvious, predictable civil service pitch. It cuts all the way through her career”.

The PM’s world view is simply that there cannot be “no deal”, and so she had to take charge singlehandedly, bypassing the Ministers notionally in control, while refusing to listen to any objections. She acted in exactly the same way over the divorce bill and over the negotiations leading to the Joint Report last December. She agreed to pay £39bn in the hope the EU would be nice to us when it came to trade negotiations – a key aspect of coercive control is to deprive you of financial independence. She also offered the Irish backstop – where the whole of the UK remains subject to EU laws to avoid a hard border – which has now come back to haunt her and us, possibly for ever more.

The second view is that the PM is in reality the “Manchurian Candidate”, a Remainer who is going through the motions of working towards Brexit (“Brexit means Brexit” plus the Lancaster House, Florence, Mansion House and Munich speeches), but has been secretly working to defeat Brexit. Deception is a key companion to this view. Take two examples.

First, she always refuses to answer how she would vote if there was another referendum. Second, the Chequers White Paper on the UK’s future relationship with the EU must have been months in the making in complete secret with dozens of civil servants involved – in total deception of the civil servants at the Brexit Department. Mrs Merkel was shown the White Paper before the British Cabinet.

The third view is that she is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome and has developed an empathy for her EU “captors” and wants to please them. They occasionally let her out in public to give the pretence of normality. But you can see the discomfort on her face whenever this happens. And always lurking in the background is the creepy Jean-Claude Juncker, ever ready to pounce and slobber all over her whenever it looks as though she is going to say something out of line.

The fourth view is that she is simply incompetent and out of her depth as Lord King, former governor of the Bank of England, implies.
Nothing that Theresa May says about the Withdrawal Agreement is true
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 10:38 am (UTC)
DEBATE: Atheist vs Muslim (Christopher Hitchens vs Tariq Ramadan)
Youtube on Jun 3, 2013

Debate Topic: Islam a Religion of Peace?
Opening Statements:
5:31 Christopher Hitchens
18:32 Tariq Ramadan
33:41 Christopher Hitchens
45:02 Tariq Ramadan
Questions and Answer Period (last question becomes closing statements)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGFMwtJTyE
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 02:02 pm (UTC)
Negotiating our way out of the EU?
By johnredwood
Published: June 20, 2019

In the muddle of the tv debate on Tuesday there were three positions advanced on how to get out of the EU, and effectively three positions on when to get out.
Mr Stewart argued that Parliament had to pass the Withdrawal treaty it has thrice rejected. That looks very unlikely. In default of that he invented all sorts of new processes which would entail a long delay in exit. HIs further consultation with the public might well be designed to move towards a second referendum or some other way to stop Brexit altogether.
Messrs Hunt, Javid and Gove argued there had to be a renegotiation, with efforts at least to remove the backstop from the current Withdrawal treaty. It is difficult to believe any of this. The EU has made clear they do not intend to re open the Withdrawal Treaty issues. Changing the Political declaration would not change the backstop or any of the other bad features of the draft Treaty. There is no obvious authority to negotiate with before the new Commission is formed. It seems impossible for a new PM to engage in talks, get meaningful changes to the Treaty and put it through Parliament before October 31. Two of the three countenanced a short delay to get an agreement, with Mr Gove favouring a delay until end December 2019.
Mr Johnson insisted on exit on 31 October. He has in mind offering a free trade deal to the EU. If they will agree to talks on such a proposition then the UK need not impose any new tariffs on them as we leave, nor them on us. Under GATT 24 there would be ample time to discuss the Free Trade Agreement whilst continuing to trade without tariffs whilst doing so. If the EU refuses to discuss a Free Trade Agreement then we leave without a deal and impose the same tariffs on the EU as we impose on everyone else. They do the same to us. The EU has always said they are interested in a free trade agreement but it has to be negotiated after we have left.
Source: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/06/20/negotiating-our-way-out-of-the-eu/

glen cullen
Posted June 20, 2019 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Tory MP Damian Collins
Interviewed and reported on BBC2 politics live today, quoted as being on Boris’s team and in the know
He was very clear (Andrew Neil asked him a few times) that the ‘backstop’ as the only thing he was going to change !
….and that was a ”very significant change”
Nothing else on the WA was to change ?
watch it on iplayer

Posted June 20, 2019 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
That statement was from the BBC, so be aware of potential bias. The Guardian says he is ripping it up. Bloomberg have an interesting piece stating that he is either avoiding committing himself, or telling each group what they wanted to hear. The first leaves concern about intentions, the second was May’s tactic and worked so well once everything reached Parliament…
My MP is a Remainer, so who wins the leadership contest doesn’t actually affect my vote.

BoJo reportedly supports a european army for the PROVEN CRIMINAL IJ EU armed with our nukes.
The false jews' plans for global war must be thwarted. If BoJo hands control of our armed forces to the criminals he should be arrested.

clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 02:48 pm (UTC)
Brexit: The Constitutional Position
by John Bingley
UKC 27th Feb 2019
The EU has been insensitive bordering on contemptuous in seeking to impose what amounts to unconstitutional conditions upon us. This cannot be and the result has been made clear by the wholesale rejection of the base proposal.
Whilst widespread rejection by many Lords and MPs has occurred, many are perhaps ignorant of the vital constitutional issues at stake. They are critically important and exposed in this document and must be fully understood by all and taken into account.
The Rules of our laws which lay down the conditions for the Crown's constitutional limitation and thus its duty in governance and in Parliament may not be broken and are in fact bound to be fulfilled. The Crown can do no wrong because it is compelled to do right. Breach of sovereignty can only occur by error. It may not normally be sanctioned under the terms of our laws, yet it has occurred. We all acknowledge this.
Parliament is a tripartite body and the rule of law binds its individual parts, most particularly the Crown. The two Houses hold the key to the context and content of the law making but the power of Governance is always in the Crown and through the constitutional use of the law. At times of dissolution it becomes starkly apparent where the Sovereign constitutional power resides. The Commons are non-existent and set for re-election and the House of Lords are on hold. Yet there is no transfer of power. The armed services report to the Crown. A dissolution may democratically adjust the membership of the those who sit to advise in the Commons but does not alter the placement of sovereign power. Bills are of no force or effect without Royal Assent; and Ministers are Crown Servants. So it is clear the sovereign power of governance is held by the Crown under a constitutional contract:-

Constitutionally it is the imperative and paramount duty of the government to repair, recover and correct any and all breaches of sovereignty at the earliest moment. This is compulsory according to our law. The treaties that have enabled this unconstitutional intrusion can only have been agreed in error. They are in conflict with our constitution so far as any breach of Sovereignty is created or enabled. Effectively the Crown has been deceived in its grant.
There comes a point in our constitutional arrangements where the Crown is compelled to act by the common law, the statute law and the custom in order to defend and maintain the constitution. If a situation arises where the failure of government to re-establish and secure sovereignty continues, the people may require the Crown by right of petition to deliver correction forthwith.
The Crown may not suspend and dispense with the law save when authorised by Parliament. Well, the Bill of Rights and related enactments as per the Coronation Oath and the Accession Declaration Oath impart the consent and duty to void contrary measure.
It commands that the 'sole and full exercise' of sovereignty will remain in the Crown and that the laws are the 'birthright' (Act of Settlement) of the people and that there will be 'no doing or proceeding to the prejudice of the people to be taken in consequence or example'. It goes further and lays down the duty to be obeyed for its maintenance and enforcement. Here is just one of those commands for those in governance to uphold accordingly :-
The Bill of Rights
"…… and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same…."
It is to be upheld as widely as possible because it secures the fundamental liberties of the people. The aforementioned quote's use of language is superb, leaving no room for doubt as to the true intention.
Can all 'all officers and ministers whatsoever' say that they have observed this duty? Can the Privy councillors say that they have observed the intent of their Oath of Office? ...
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 02:57 pm (UTC)
Perhaps if Mr Tilbrook is unsuccessful ...
I left a comment at Sir John's site pointing out that the EU is a criminal organisation and as such, apart from the deep deception involved in the abolition of our sovereignty, all treaties with the EU were acts of treason (and or otherwise criminal).
Awaiting moderation 2 days now.

Perhaps if Mr Tilbrook is unsuccessful with his case against the occupation regime, he might consider using tasmanian devil tactics by suing the regime for committing treason and demanding compensation for the illegal payments paid all these years.

Imagine every PM and MP back to Heath's occupation having to publicly account for their treason.

Loose cannons are such fun.
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 04:53 pm (UTC)
European Defence Union - Parliamentary Written Questions
European Defence Union - Parliamentary Written Questions
by David Scott
UKC 18th May 2019
Without any fanfare, or public statements, parliamentarians are starting to ask questions about European Defence Union and what it means for British self-determination and national sovereignty. In this article we decode the answers.
The background to the recent questions has been a long period of silence. When President Jean-Claude Junker said, in his 13 September 2017 'State of the Union' address:
And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.
The response in the UK was for politicians and the press to ignore it completely and carry on as if nothing had changed. But this is vital information. It provides a timescale (complete by 2025), a scale (fully fledged Union - that is complete integration and full operational control) and a partner in this venture (NATO).
There was further silence in the UK when the German Minister of Defence, Ursula von der Leyen, revealed more when interviewed by Kathimerini, an English-language daily newspaper published in Athens.
France wants this force outside the framework of the EU, to allow Britain to join in even after it leaves the bloc. Germany prefers it to remain within the EU. What is your opinion?
Ursula von der Leyen:
Our common goal is a strong European voice. We have started to build the European Defence Union. With PESCO at its core, this framework will lead to the harmonization of planning, procurement, and use of European military capabilities. And Britain is welcome to join in specific projects or missions. We have come a long way in a short period of time – but we still have a long way to go. The so called “European Intervention Initiative” fits well with this PESCO framework and the project of building a European Defence Union. It is not about a standing military force. It is a strategic topping helping to build what we call a European “Strategic Culture”; we just have to put the pieces together as we go along. I envision kind of a “roofing ceremony” for the European Defence Union during the upcoming Council Presidency of Germany during the second half of 2020.
This revealed much more, that the structure is virtually complete and will be topped-out in 2020, that progress is now rapid, and that the mechanism is a harmonisation of existing national forces under a European strategic topping, not a separate standing force.
So let us examine the recent parliamentary questions and answers, keeping in mind the key points detailed above:
*European Defence Union is to be complete by 2025
*It is to be a fully-fledged union
*NATO wants it
*It is to be structurally complete by late 2020
*It is to be a Strategic topping over (that means controlling) national forces, not a separate standing army.

Question asked by Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) on 18 April 2019
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces: EU Defence Policy
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect of leaving the EU (a) with a deal and (b) under a no-deal scenario on the legal status and chain of command for UK armed forces personnel serving on EU-led missions.
Answered by: Mark Lancaster on 30 April 2019
The Political Declaration on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom sets out the basis for our future cooperation as a third country. This includes providing the legal framework, in the form of a Framework Participation Agreement, for the UK to contribute to EU crisis management operations and missions, on a case-by-case basis and when in the mutual interests. Such a partnership must respect the sovereignty of the UK, the UK will maintain control over its defence policy and decision making.
In a No Deal scenario, the UK would withdraw from Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations - both military and civilian, and associated personnel seconded to the EU institutions. The UK would continue to act through other multilateral fora, including through the UN and NATO.
clothcapclothcap on June 22nd, 2019 05:13 pm (UTC)
The EU Will Reopen the Withdrawal Agreement
by Paul Sheard
Written by Paul Sheard
The EU and its apologists insist that it will not ‘reopen’ the WA. There are weak legal and political grounds for such a stance, whereas three strong political incentives exist within the EU to reach an agreement – and soon. But Britain’s new prime minister must convince the EU that he is determined to leave on October 31 if it continues to refuse satisfactory renegotiation.
Post Segments
1 The EUs position is increasingly untenable
2 A political game-changer
3 The EU’s political timetable

A commonly heard view recently is that, no matter who emerges as the next prime minister of the United Kingdom — on current form almost certainly Boris Johnson — the European Union will continue to refuse to “reopen” and renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. That would seem to leave one of three outcomes possible: the UK leaves the EU on October 31 without an agreement; the UK government blinks, and seeks and obtains a further Article 50 extension; or the new prime minister gets the Withdrawal Agreement over the parliamentary line by securing some concessions, which are reflected in the Political Declaration. It seems far more likely, however, that the EU will agree to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, assuming that the new prime minister can convince EU leaders that he would prefer the UK to leave without an agreement on October 31 rather than face either of the other two options and, importantly, is able to do so (that is, is not thwarted by parliamentary maneuvers).

Three things suggest that the EU will reopen and renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.
1 The EUs position is increasingly untenable

First, once a new UK government is in place, the EU’s position of refusing to negotiate with the UK will become increasingly untenable.
The EU has no grounds to refuse to negotiate with the UK and negotiating means reopening the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU may try to cling to the argument that the European Council and the UK Government endorsed a Withdrawal Agreement on November 25, 2018 and, as far as that is concerned, it is the end of the matter.

But the endorsement of the Withdrawal Agreement at the November European Council meeting was not the end of the matter; it was one important staging point on the way to reaching a final agreement. Subsequent developments in the UK have demonstrated, all too dramatically and painfully, that the UK was not able to reach agreement with the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”, as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

If the EU were to continue to refuse to renegotiate by allowing for the possibility of amending the Withdrawal Agreement, by October 31 the absurd situation will have been reached of the EU refusing for the best part of a year to negotiate with the UK. This makes a mockery of the European Council’s own “core [negotiating] principle”, as stated in its April 2017 guidelines for Brexit negotiations, that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Manifestly “everything is not agreed”, so on that basis “nothing is agreed”. If nothing is agreed, what is the EU’s basis for refusing to negotiate? The moral and constitutional ice upon which the EU is skating is looking decidedly thin.

Lest it be thought that the EU has been refusing to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement because of the logistical difficulty of the EU27 reaching agreement on its side, consider this: All that is required on the EU side for it to agree on a renegotiated Withdrawal Agreement is for the European Parliament to pass it (by simple majority) and the European Council to follow suit (by qualified majority of the EU27, meaning at least 20 member states comprising at least 65% of the population of EU27 member states). No protracted process of seeking approval from national parliaments is involved.
2 A political game-changer