Brexit to Brino First as Farage and then as Tonypandy . Brexit Smexit #FirstasFarageThenasTonypandy #FirstFarceThenTragedy #Maastricht #PaedoBrino #IABATO #GrubStreetJournal #ConquestofDough #JeSuisBiourgoiseBlancHomme #VinBlancman #IamWhiteVanMan #SurrenderActii

league-of-nations-cartoon-ncartoon-by-john-t-mccutcheon-for-the-chicago-ffaad4

§Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is no doubt that the result of the referendum in Denmark has come as a surprise and shock to most people in the Community. It inevitably raises some fundamental questions about the Maastricht treaty, and possibly the whole direction of the European Community.

We noted that the Government decided not to proceed with the Committee stage of the treaty in another place. In the light of the referendum result that was sensible because all the 12 governments will have to consider the new situation which has been created. As the Statement makes clear, the treaty amends the Treaty of Rome, which can only be changed by unanimity. In other words, all the 12 members must agree.

The Statement says that the treaty, established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism”. Does not the result in Denmark show that many people have not grasped that, or indeed do not understand what subsidiarity means?

Commision Competentcies Competentcies.

Stalin´s Idea of Subsidiarity and Proportionality according to krushev.

When Stalin Died Krushev denounced him, Brexit is an analogue for the denunciation of the EU (Stalin) yet the EU is still alive or though diminished. I quote the passage in Krushevs´ Speech as it deals with Stalins´ treatment of the Yugoslav crisis.

Enlargement, The Euro, ERM Maastricht and all that.

In a piece called It’s the Money Stupid. Dr North has this to say.
´´A knowledge of EU history and of our troubled relations with the Community, however, will quickly draw attention to the early days and the “Bloody British Question”. And that will give some clues as to how the battle lines might be drawn up. The early disputes were, of course, about money, culminating with Thatcher’s great victory in 1984 at Fontainebleau on the rebate – more than a decade after we had joined the EEC. ´´
´´And, according to The Times, it has not been long in coming. Yesterday, Joseph Muscat, the Maltese prime minister, currently holding the EU’s rotating presidency, made it clear that the UK will have to sign up to EU divorce terms for Brexit. This included a bill of up to £60 billion, which will have to be settled before talks on a trade agreement can begin.
This is exactly what we were saying on Wednesday and hinting at in December. But it also something the UK cannot pretend is a surprise. We were given notice by Wolfgang Schäuble last November. Mrs May was extremely unwise to ignore this issue. ´´
Recently it was the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty, one wonders if The Then Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were really all in for fully integrated state monopoly financialised Capitalism.The Now Lord Lamont, an investment Banker it seems was not and had the rare economic knowledge of monetary history to save, Mr Major (a financial journalist) and the Nation,  from himself.and the would be  ECB and the then ERM Jekyll’s.
Norman Lamont was interviewed on the ERM Soros and All that recently on Sky News.

But Norman Lamont refused to sign it!
It was signed‎: ‎7 February 1992.
Became effective‎: ‎1 November 1993

“I hated the (Maastricht) Treaty.”
“When I looked at the Trade Statistics for Switzerland, I realised there was no unambiguous advantage for us being in the EU (in 1994).”
“The EURO has inflicted massive suffering & very low growth on Southern Europe. The EURO is a historic mistake.”

Norman Lamont on All out Politics, Sky News, 7th February 2017.

Britain’s enslavement
Tacitus explains the policy of his father-in-law, Agricola, in bringing the comforts of Roman civilization to the barbarous British:

‘His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He, therefore, gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.’

Tacitus Agricola chapter 21, translated by H. Mattingly, Penguin 1948, 1973
Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=288#ixzz42Ur1m0hA

§Lord Jenkins of Hillhead My Lords, we thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Through him I congratulate the Prime Minister on the steadiness of the note he struck in the Statement.

940There is not much other basis for congratulation today, although the setback—which it undoubtedly is —needs to be put into perspective. I have been amazed that there has been no earlier severe check to the remarkable momentum of the past six years, particularly as the post-war history of the European idea has been one of frequent severe setbacks overcome with a mixture of resolution and ingenuity. There was the European Defence Community setback in 1954; there was the De Gaulle-Hallstein quarrel of 1965–66; and there was the rupture of the negotiations for British, Danish and Irish entry in 1963 and in 1967.

The Danes have a history of being somewhat lukewarm towards the Community, at the same time intermingled with a good deal of constructive European statesmanship. They have always been loath to go beyond the concept of a purely economic community. The rather cruel early joke at the time when Jens Otto Krag was Danish Prime Minister at the time of their first negotiations for entry was: “Mr. Krag does not want to join Europe but he does want to sell cheese”.

The referendum result also gives pause for thought about the admission of Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, the other neutral ex-EFTA countries, let alone Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. I have always been a considerable advocate of early and substantial enlargement, but if approximately 30,000 votes in one of 12 countries can produce stultification, how much more vulnerable would be a Community of 20 or 25 countries?

§Lord Wakeham My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the points he made and also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

941The essence of the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place was that there would be a pause for reflection…….

The noble Lord referred to the position of Denmark. We understand some of the Danish concerns. Some of Denmark’s concerns are also those of other countries. We ourselves fought hard at Maastricht against a centralised Europe. We believe that the Maastricht treaty was an important watershed in making sure that Europe did not develop into too centralised an institution. I should also make just one comment on the noble Lord’s remarks about enlargement. It is too soon to say what the effect will be on enlargement. Obviously we are consulting our partners on the way forward. The case for enlargement stands on its own merit. The Community must remain open. The Government are committed to making progress under the UK presidency in preparing early accession negotiations with the EFTA applicants.

Viscount Tonypandy My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware—as I believe he must be—that the issue of the sovereignty of Britain was not debated at the general election, since the three parties had a common policy? There was never a proper opportunity to discuss the matter.

943I should like to say to him that a small majority—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to this point —is not to my mind important when there is a referendum. If there had been a small majority the other way, people would have said that the argument was carried and the issue would have been resolved. Nobody would complain if they had won by a small majority.

Secondly, will the Government bear in mind that when the Danish people say no it is just as important as when the French or German people say no? Otherwise, we may fall into the trap of suggesting that a small country is less important than the bigger countries of Europe. That would be a grievous blunder.

Selection_510.jpg

(Linking to this in Hansard from Viscount Tonypandy is not implemented? a coincidence?) The Link is to Lord Wakehams prior statement. This is the link to Para 943 where Viscount Tonypandy a previous HoC speaker .

09:49:32

Witnesses: Dr Paul Seaward, Director of The History of Parliament Trust, and Lord Lisvane, former Clerk of the House

Chairman.(ChairThey?)
” very briefly at the end of
53:27
this to just take this opportunity while
53:29
you’re giving us evidence on this matter
53:32
to ask about your reaction to the
53:35
Supreme Court’s intervention in the
53:37
prorogation affair do you have any
53:39
particular thoughts about that”

Lord Lisvane, former Clerk of the House

yes I do
III wasn’t as alarmed about it as I
53:48
think in advance I expected to be it
53:51
seemed to me that the distinction which
53:53
the Supreme Court drew between
53:56
establishing the limits of prerogative
53:59
and deciding whether prerogative was
54:02
lawfully exercised or the advice to
54:04
exercise the prerogative was lawfully
54:07
given within those parameters was
court I think in paragraph 52 of the
54:51
judgment which is the sort of nutshell
54:54
about justice the ability and I found
54:56
that convincing I found paragraphs 63 to
55:01
69 on article 9 I found those convincing
55:08
but it was a close call the argument …
something which
having done to itself and so it fell
55:20
outside article 9 and so the courts were
55:24
able to have a loss I thought I was
55:31
tempted to ask and not sure whether I
55:37
will do this next time I see her to a
55:39
hustla detail whether they would have
55:42
come to the same decision if the pointed
55:45
issue had been Royal Assent which seems
55:47
to me to contain a lot of considerations
55:50
about whether it is a proceeding or not


Parliament the the Duncan Sands case is
58:30
and it was it was decided I think at a
58:33
time when there was a tendency to define
58:39
these things more rigorously and more
58:41
closely I think

The Duncan Sandys case[edit]

In 1937, Sandys was commissioned into the 51st (London) Anti-Aircraft Brigade, Royal Artillery, of the Territorial Army (TA).[7] In 1938, he asked questions in the House of Commons on matters of national security that reflected his TA experience. He was subsequently approached by two unidentified men, presumably representing the secret services, and threatened with prosecution under section 6 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Sandys reported the matter to the Committee of Privileges which held that the disclosures of Parliament were not subject to the legislation, though an MP could be disciplined by the House.[8][9] The Official Secrets Act 1939 was enacted in reaction to this incident.[10]

 

small but significant step towards the
59:26
Americanization of the British
59:28
constitution following this
59:30
judgement which perceived by some to be
59:33
political might it not me now the case
59:37
where future governments or future the
59:39
political realm in general might take an
59:41
interest in the membership of discipline
59:43
courses that we do in the in the United
59:45
States and this will change the nature
59:48
of our Constitution the independence of
59:49
judiciary

 

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007

 

Hierarchy and Fascism – How the Ruling Few are Destroying Democracy

By Michele Goddard       (Page 1 of 4 pages)     (# of views)   4 comments

34262330791_ef6bcb701f
IMG_1415
(Image by GGAADD)   Details   DMCA

Most people of course will recite the “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” when asked what they recall of the document but mine would be the lines that follow:

“That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

This says everything. Our rights are unalienable. And the only purpose of government is to secure these rights.

So why is it, how is it, that government is the very thing which we find ourselves defending against its tyranny?

 

Hi Kay, A long discussion about Tommy robinson was deleted this morning. I think that it was a shame as I believe that a wedge is being driven between groups whio could engage in dialogue but would not serve the interests of provoking mob violence, The tories clearly are trying to provoke mob violence at the moment I have been posting this to try and help people to Understand that non violent peaceful action is our best approach.
There is a lot of baiting going on Share this it nails how peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience is the most effective driver for change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w&t=355s

Also beware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

There is a lot of baiting going on Share this it nails how peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience is the most effective driver for change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w&t=355s

Also beware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Share this widely it contains info on being safe online and being safe during public unrest https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_sThwX_Vd3pbzN3SlNha3ZXdllkeXFEalgwUVFyUWpyaXg0/view?usp=sharing

Conditioning (a poem)
Pleasantries exchanged with the peasantry,

what is intact of the real me?

all is not as it seems in the wide world,

not all sincerity is sincere you see.

of caves and reflections, insults and deflections

no application no rejection,

in actions and deeds

examples and needs

those conditioned minds

baron of seeds.

league-of-nations-cartoon-ncartoon-by-john-t-mccutcheon-for-the-chicago-ffaad4.jpg

Could you message me with the reasons the discussion was deleted?

What’s your medicine Gentleman,

Farage Looks at Bojo and Says it’s your Round,

Trump Looks at Alex Jones and Says Are you gonna get a Warm Limey Beer I don’t drink..

The barman Looks at Ron Paul and says,

” the last thing
you want to hear when you go to the
doctor, ” it’s progressive”
mentions unroll this please 

Leave a Reply