The Commission stole tax funds and used them to bribe complicit politicians to betray their respective country. Christopher Story published his research and shared it with people in high office. He may have been murdered for his efforts. The EU is built on fraud and payola and very likely the fraud and payola continues to this day. Cameron seems to have been the latest British traitor to have benefitted from this payola, his reward for signing away Britain's sovereignty was reported to be £10 million. Gods know how much DVD asset Blair has raked in from the khazars for his treason and for Iraq.
I'm wary of giving former bank employees praise but it seems MP John Redwood is either a rare exception that has a gift for seeing unconsidered aspects of the brexit chaos or he is working for people whose views are temporarily in line with the public's wishes. Either way his views outshine those of most if not all the traitors that wish us to be under the heel of a criminal cabal with no possiblity to change the regime. And that is the whole point. National government that is in range of bad eggs and tomatoes, (and national law /sarc) where national needs are catered for or an incrementally oppressive dictatorship of people whose agenda meshes with the criminal global government whose participation in crimes against their own nations and humanity have been documented and Common Law arrest warrants produced. Pope Benedict was obliged to resign after Common Law warrants issued against the pervert were recognised by several European countries, not Britain, assumedly due to the nation's seat of power being extensively infested with perverts itself. Attempts were made to arrest the present pope when he flew to America to attend satanic festivals and repeat AGW lies.
An outstanding example, but unexceptional for the man is his latest correspondence with his followers:
What kind of Remain did Remain voters vote for?
Published: September 9, 2019
Throughout the referendum campaign Remain advocates refused to discuss the current state and the future path of the EU. Many of those I debated with declined even to defend the current EU, saying it had its faults and they wished it to be reformed. I found few willing to defend the Common Fisheries Policy, the drift to common taxation through EU VAT, company tax rules and special taxes, the policy on animal husbandry, the Maastricht budget rules and austerity and much else of the current EU. Had we enjoyed a proper debate on the current and future EU I suspect more would have voted Leave. For those passionate Remainers who write in here I am offering them a chance today to write about their favourite subject, why we should stay in the EU. Here are some possible futures of the EU. Which did they have in mind when they voted to keep the UK in membership?
1. ″Ever closer union”. Do they accept the main aims of the EU, to create a full monetary, social, economic and political union? When do they think the UK should join in properly, by joining the Euro, the core of the current Union? Do they accept that the Euro with or without UK membership will need a bigger and better transfer union to help the poorer countries in the Euro? Do they support a bigger EU budget to bring that about? Do they welcome more EU based taxes to pay for Union policies? Do they welcome a common defence and security policy? Should UK armed forces be part of European forces and accept command from the EU?
2. If they wish to avoid some features of ever closer union, how would they secure the necessary opt outs as the Union proceeds with a fuller budgetary and political union? How realistic is it for the UK to be round the budget table for the general EU budget but not round the table for the Euro area budget? At what point does the opt out from the currency cease to be an opt out from the budgetary consequences of the Euro? What would the UK have to do if there were another financial or banking crisis in the Euro area? How far can the UK allow defence industrial integration go before it is no longer an independent nation for defence purposes?
3. Are there any limits to government expansion and legal creep which characterise the advance of the EU? Do advocates accept that the more ECJ decisions there are, the more regulations and directives there are, the more we are governed by the EU institutions and the less scope our Parliament has for independent action and lawmaking. The EU has a doctrine of the occupied field. Once it passes a directive or regulation, it then has power in that area and can override national parliaments. Recently the EU has for example taken over much of the regulation of the new social media and digital industries which are crucial for our future. Surely at some point there has to be greater recognition in the democratic system of the big transfer of power which is occurring, with strengthened democratic control over the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice, which is an activist court with a political mission.
Remainer responses are notable by their absence. I suspect it comes down to personal profit, few with even a little power don't benefit from EU fraud.
Here's some more from the late Christopher Edward Harle Story:
Christopher Story - EU Corruption Part 1/3
Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 by BBC5.tv.
Youtube on 14 Nov 2009
Christopher Story - EU Corruption Part 2/3
Youtube on 15 Nov 2009
Christopher Story - EU Corruption Part 3/3
Youtube on 15 Nov 2009
If there's a heaven, I hope there was a special place reserved for him.