Europe - The theft of democracy - YouTube

Europe - The theft of democracy - YouTube:



'via Blog this'

Undemocratic Nazi's

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/07/labour-liberal-democrats-opposing-eu-referendum?

Hypocrisy?

Nicked from facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Notoeu)

Danny Alexander of "Brit Influence", the corporate pro-EU quango.

The Europeans Citizens Initiative SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY!

Refused request for registration

Title: To hold an immediate EU Referendum on public confidence in European Government’s (EG) competence. Date of refusal: 29/10/2013
Language of the request: English
Subject-matter:
The EU referendum question: “Should the current failing form of EG be replaced by one without democratic deficit?” If there is no public confidence in current EG model then 2014 elections are pointless.

Main objectives:
Declining living standards, increased unemployment, economic recession, an extra €59 B p.a. being printed, drug addict numbers rising on avg. 4.2M p.a. since 2006 (more than population of Berlin), all highlight the current EG structure´s failings. If the EG cannot solve these problems, it is unfit for purpose and should be summarily dismissed, as it does not enjoy the confidence of the people. A new democratic EU structure must then be created according to the will of the people not faceless bureaucrats.

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/non-registered/details/1634

The Niqab/burka

Here is a scan of a letter that was in The Times.

It reads :

"Sir, Nowhere in Islam's transcendent text is there any compulsion for women to conceal their faces. Indeed, this pre-Islamic practice is non-Qur'anic and un-Muslim. It is an archaic aristocratic custom originating in ancient Persia that spread to Byzantium and was adopted by misogynistic Muslim society. For Muslims to claim that the niqab/burka is Islamic is not only deceitful, but disingenuous. At best it is an outmoded cultural convention and a primitive tribal habit. Many ill-informed Muslims have, however, been conditioned to conflate culture with religion and befuddle liberal Britain that this is a principle of religious freedom and human rights when it is neither. In fact, it is illegal for masked women to undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca or to perform their daily prayers. If women are prevented from hiding their identity at Islam's holiest shrine, why do they need to do so in the UK?
For theological, political, security, social and health reasons, the UK must join France and Belgium in outlawing all public anonymity. Anything less would be tantamount to sex discrimination against British men, who are not permitted to conceal their identity in public".

IMAM DR T HARGEY, Director, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford.

Just look at the way this fucktard treats this woman! I think she's won this one.

The curse of "progressive" feminism

We need an outspoken media!

This woman is just wonderful! We want one!

Nuff said about Dhimmi's

The Real Face of the European Union

Transcript

There are too many things that mainstream media will not tell you. Google for New World Order.  The whole enterprise is crazy. And it's an absolute scam, which is going to cost you a great deal. It's rather like paying monkeys, because what happens is that civil servants draw up a list and if it's vote number 58 and the piece of paper says vote yes, you vote yes, and if it's number 59 and it says vote no, you vote no. It is an absolute farce, it's complete sham, masquerading as democracy. You should not be mistaken it is very... very, very strong forces are working towards this civil state.

This is the village of Goudhurst. It has been said that if the Kent is the garden of England then Goudhurst is the garden of Kent. The english way of life has gone on here for centuries But is all that about to become a thing of a past? In 1996 chairman of the British Referendum Party Sir James Goldsmith circulated copies of a short film documentary to milions of households across the country, frustrated by the lack of mainstream press coverage over what he saw as dismantling of British sovereignty and independance by coluding politicians. Sir James's wake-up call to people of Great Britain was stark and shocked many.

What's you are about to hear will both surprise and outrage you. It's the true story of Europe. It's the story the politians don't want you to hear, because it shows how they decieved us and betrayed our nation.

Only in 1994, the chancellor Kohl's foreign policy spokesmen speaking on behalf of the ruling party of Europe's dominant nation, Germany, clearly revealed the true plan. The plan is to create a federal european superstate. Into it will be merged up to 25 ancient european nations, including our own. This new country called Europe will have one parliament, one government, one court of justice, one currency, one flag and one anthem.

That has been the plan all along. But those who favoured it knew that people of Europe would never accept it. They would never be willing to surrender their freedoms to become just a province in a vast european superstate. So what did the politicians do? They conspired to keep the truth from the people. So what is the truth behind the European Union? Is it as our politicians are keep telling us: Britains best hope for the future, the chance to regain some of that lost prestige on the world stage by being in the center of Europe?

Today in Britain all three major political parties miraculously appear to agree at least on one thing. They believe in the destruction of Great Britain as an independent nation. They believe an integrated Europe makes sense. That it is the modern forward thinking way to go. That it would prevent any chance of the third european war. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Campaign for Truth in Europe Presents The Real Face of the European Union

The need to unite Europe could understandably devastation left behind after two catastrophic world wars. Of all the empires, it was perhaps the Nazis who came closest to pulling off the military conquest and occupation of Europe in recent times. In June 1940, Hermann Goering, reichs marshal of the german Luftwaffe, reveals final plans for Operation Sea Lion (Seelöwe), the german invasion of Great Britain. He also discusses with Hitler a new plan to unite Europe not just out on the conquering hammer of Blitzkrieg, but through a lasting political and economic union, which the Nazis named Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft - or the European Economic Community. In 1942, a conference was held in Berlin to discuss this political and economic integration of Europe. Of all the nations targeted, Britain has proved the wild card, because she alone has succesfully resisted invasion. Rising to his feet of the conference, Nazi economist professor Horst Jagd of Berlin University, firmly declares that Britain is the greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe.


Winston Churchill also believed Britain had an incompatible destiny with out of the continent. Refering to the United Kingdom's reliance on her overseas trade, Churchill stated: "If Britain must choose between Europe and open sea, we will choose the sea." Both Churchill and Jagd were independently remarking on the same phenomenon, Napoleon had noticed 150 years before. That Great Britain was a global trading power and the nations of Europe weren't.

According to the Nazis, Great Britain's awesome maritime capability was beggaring Europe, because it was drawing trade away from the continent. If Britain could be conquered militarily or economically, broken up once and for all as a significant economic and political entity, the spoils of all her trade and wealth would go to whoever ran the new european empire. Few in Berlin were in any doubt about who would do the running. But the tide of war turned against Germany. In 1944, a meeting was held in the Hotel Rotes Haus in Strasbourg between officials of the Nazi government and german industrialists. The theme of the meeting was: How will Germany dominate the peace, when she loses the war.

Following the end of WWII, the rebuilding of Europe and Germany in particular became a pressing necessity, and was largely funded under the Marshall plan by the United States. Both Washington and London saw the rapid stabilization of the continent after the war, as essential in order to prevent any incursion into Western Europe by the new enemy to be feared - the Soviet Union.

Winston Churchill agreed that some form of commonwealth of nations in Europe was desirable for establishing stability and the lasting peace. But he never envisioned Britain as being part of a new future: United States of Europe. Winston Churchill's view of Great Britain's relationship with Europe after the second world war is summarised by these words of his: "But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed". The allied answer to military stability in Europe was to be the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO, which came into existance in 1949 as a permanent defense alliance for Europe. The European Union officially began life as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. A modest industrial corporation between France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. Six years later in 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by the six participating Coal and Steel Community nations, declaring its goal as "The ever closer union of the peoples of Europe". The Treaty of Rome went far beyond launching just a common market. It established a fledgling apparatus for an idealistic new superpower. This new entity was given an existing and unsettlingly familiar name: The European Economic Community.

In 1963 Charles de Gaulle and Conrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, signifing the symbolic burying of the hatchet between France and Germany. This was the start of a dynamic new dual leadership role in Europe for the two countries. De Gaulle later resigned and within a year was dead. Britain was invited to submit yet another application to join in the EEC. This time, Edward Heath, now as Britain's conservative prime minister, signed the Treaty of Rome and took Britain into the Common Market on New Year's Day 1973. Responding to the deep concerns within his own country, that joining the EEC would compromise Britain's national sovereignty and independance, Heath sought to reassure the British people and the government white paper. He wrote: "There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty".

The master plan of course was well-known to Edward Heath, Lord Hailsham and their colleagues in Brussels. It was the eventual creation of a new european superstate out of 25 existing nations in Europe and Scandinavia, and Britain was going to be part of it.

From 1973 onwards, the slow but consistent transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels through successive treaties our own politicians signed, became known as the acquis communautaire. It was nick-named "The Ratchet" For once powers had been given to Brussels by the member state. They could never be returned.

Initially, I thought like everybody else, that we had joined the common market, and what could be nicer and more friendly and sensible and economically wise to do. But since the then, in 1975, when we had the vote to remain in that, so we were told, it's become one or two things further than just a common market. It then became, few years later, a European Economic Community, then European Community, It's now the European Union with all sorts of controls and restrictions, regulations. and we are fast approaching via this new constitution, something the French have already named potentially United States of Europe. And I'm not at all sure, that's what I and many others voted to join back in 1975.

In 75 we signed that for sort of trade agreement. And we've let - it's the people, who have let the government, successive governments, vote away our democratic rights. This government has no right to sign us up to the constitution without the will of the people. But we need the will of the people to stop it. It's no use coming down in 5 years time, we signed up to it. We can't get out of it and the people say we don't want it. It's up to the people today to say NO.

This is the Strasbourg Parliament. It was built in 1999 at a cost of 300 million pounds. It is open for only 4 days every month. What happens at the end of that four days is we load our offices into tin boxes and then lorries arrive downstairs and drive the whole lot nearly 300 miles up to Brussels where the boxes are unpacked for the next 3 weeks when we suppose to be there and it all brought back again. This whole process of shifting, the administration of the stuff from one home to another is costing european taxpayer over 100 million Euros a year.

It is the biggest scam in human history. We are not talking about billions of pounds, we are talking about trillions of pounds. Why our country, which has been independent for nine hundred or more years, would ever wish to involve itself in such political chicanery and nonsense as something which defies anyone who is sane. And only now we got just about fourteen or fifteen months before they rivet on us a pan-european constitution, which would be superior to our own splendid constitution, one, which is the pride of the world and pioneered the way for sensible living. And here we are giving it all away.


The political aim is to develop a framework for a real European Union constitution and in my opinion this means building up European federal state.

In black and white, the draft constitution would and confirms Brussels will exercise competence and primacy of member states' own laws. For the British, this will mean being stripped of any remaining independence. Losing control over our foreign policy and armed forces. The handing over of our legal system and law enforcement in the European Union. The scrapping of the Pound Sterling to be replaced by the Euro. The handing over of our remaining currency and gold reserves to the European Central Bank. And the total regulation of British domestic and international trade by the European Union.

Coincidentally, or otherwise, the European goal of dominating Britain, unfinished business going back centuries will have been accomplished.

Most already noticed, that the job of running Britain is increasingly been carried out in Brussels not by British politicians, but by unaccountable foreign committees most in this country have never even heard of, let alone voted into power. These unelected inscrutable forums dictate what citizens across the Eurozone can and can't do down to the last detail. Henceforth, Britain is to be ruled from the New Europe by the New Europe and for the benefit of the New Europe. The powers driving this new superstate have always been, indeed as they are today - France and Germany.

Lindsay Jenkins worked as a senior civil servant at the British Ministry of Defense for almost 10 years. And spent a further 10 working for British and American investment banks in the City of London. She is the author of 2 books exposing the origins of European federalism and the emergence of the European Union.

"Today, over 80%, that is, eight-zero percent of everything that goes through the House of Commons and the House of Lords merely rubber stamps Brussels. And there is an awful lot of it. We have recently celebrated, if that is the right word, our 40000th directive from Brussels. And having attacked central government, now Brussels is attacking our local government structure. So, we have lost just to recap, in the following areas, we have lost 100% of our control over the Environment, the British scenery and countryside, everything that comprises environment, including health and safety regulations, absolutely everything. We have lost nearly 100% control over our Fishing. We have lost 100% control over our Farming. And we have lost 100% control over our Trade Policy. And that loss is of particular significance, when you consider, that Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world. And we do more trade per head of population than any other country in the world by far". 

For many in this country, the first experience they have had with the European Union, apart from VAT, came when they tried to protest new legislation introduced to limit the amount and availability of vitamins, herbs and alternative remedies people will be able to purchase and use in the future.

"The UK has always enjoyed a very open market. Products have been allowed on the market in the safe - period. There has not been any restrictions on the dosage or the type of products as long its safe and poses no risk to public health. The European directive on Food supplement changes that completely and we are going to lose over 300 different nutrient forms. On top of that, there's gonna be dosage restrictions, so the 1000 milligram vitamin C tablet that would be selling for 40 - 50 years that will also become illegal. So the safe and effective products that have been used in this country for decades are gonna be illegal for no other reason, that Europe wants to harmonise legislation. We are one of the 3 countries with open market and food supplements, we gonna lose our products by 1st of August 2005".

"I'm Dr. Paul Layman, I work in a clinic using natural therapies to treat people and I regard any restriction of vitamins and mineral production and availability as being very serious and can damage people. We use huge numbers of supplements for our patients that we feel they definitely needed and they respond very well on them". 

Most people in Britain today believe that the European Parliament works in a similar way to Westminster. So many thousands of British citizens have written to the MPs and MEPs protesting these and other directives. But do have MEPs actually have the power to change the food supplements and herbal directives or indeed, anything?

So what are MEPs for, well I tell you: MEPs are here to vote. And to vote often and to vote regularly. Sometimes we vote up to 450 times in the space of 80 minutes. Now I have to confess, hands up, I don't know what's going on half the time. I haven't even read all the documents, so massive are they. Now it could be, that my fellow-MEPs down there are all Albert Einsteins and all absolutely understand what's going on. But I suspect that's not the case. In fact, it's rather like paying monkeys, because what happens is, that civil servants draw up the list and if it's vote number 58 and the piece of paper says vote yes, you vote yes, and if it's number 59 and it says vote no, you vote no. It is an absolute farce, it is a complete sham, masquerading as democracy.

In 15 minutes time we have to go down to the European Parliament and fulfil our function as Members of the European Parliament, which means we have to vote. So what we're about to do now, is with our assistants we've got a massive amount of reading and work behind the scenes, they are effectively going to tell us, what to do. Look at that, this is a classic example of EU voting. There we have 40 individual, different amendments, that we're expected to vote for on block. Now I defy any man or woman down in that chamber to understand all those policy amendments and make a balanced decision? It's just impossible.

Laws of the European Union are drafted not by the Euro Parliament, but by the EU-Commision. One of three powerful forums in which the true might of the Union resides. Members of these forums are not elected to their positions. Nor we are told will they ever be.

When cornered, politicians and public servants routinely tell the British that the EU is just a trading partnership. Yet underneath the surface, a different picture has emerged. In 2001, a market trader was convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed using British imperial measures, instead of grams and kilos. British district judge Morgan, in passing judgement upon the hapless metric martyr, stated:

"We are now living under a new legal order. The 1972 European Communities Act was a one-off, not an ordinary treaty, but a new way of life. These are new constitutional powers. The British parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972. European laws have an overriding force with priority over our British laws... The articles on the supremacy of the British parliament are now only of historical perspective, they are non-binding."

We asked constitutional expert John Bingley, whether our politicians were entitled to abandon the rule of law by handing over the powers of British governments to a foreign power. 

"The answer is simple: NO. We have much written constitution, which is not really fully appreciated in this country. And these documents - The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights along with Magna Carta and many other legal instruments make it quite plain that allegiance is owed to the Queen. And that allegiance is returned by her through the contract of her coronation oath to the people. And that is not something, which may be broken. And our politicians are not entitled to break their oaths of office". 

"It follows therefore, that no government with or without a popular mandate may transfer sovereignty on a temporary or permanent basis to a foreign power that has no allegiance to the British crown and is unaccountable to the British people". 

The new European justice system currently being introduced in the UK is known as Corpus Juris, literally Body of Law. Corpus Juris is designed completely and permanently to overhaul the British justice system. And will include the following: The scrapping of trial by jury. Henceforth, you will face a state-appointed judge, who pronounce you guilty or not-guilty. The scrapping of habeas corpus. You are liable to summary arrest without charge. Under corpus juris, you can be detained without charge or any evidence being presented against you for up to 9 months. The scrapping of innocent until proven guilty. Henceforth, a citizen must prove his innocence against the combined machinery of the state. The scrapping of double jeopardy or not being tried for the same offence twice. Under EU-sanction, Jack Straw, while Home Secretary, gave prosecutors leave to appeal not-guilty verdicts, if desired. Technically, this could be done repeatedly, until the required conviction is secured. The scrapping of non-disclosure. Henceforth, under corpus juris, any previous convictions you have will be made available to the court before your trial begins. There is no presumption of innocence.

"The French system, or continental system broadly, that draft d'administrative, places everything the subject of the foreign or continental countries have no rights at all. An Englishmen has full liberty, except under the jurisdiction of law. Under the draft of administrative, you have no rights, except those, that's allowed to you by the state. This fundamental difference is very important, because it's now leading, with the takeover of the EU-situation, we are now leading to a state, whereby we too will come under the drafted administrative, and this will stop us having a right to trial by jury, and that in itself is a back door to a dictatorial arrangement". 

The officials themselves, we learn but we only learn it only step by step, have total immunity from everything. That is from criminal law throughout the member states. They seem to have extraordinary powers, but again, nobody knows quite what Then, gradually, incrementally, they acquire extra-powers. They acquire powers to look at terrorism. What they are precisely, we are not quite sure. They also have powers to look at fraud. What they are, we are quite not sure.

For centuries, it has been the British citizens most basic right, to vote-in 100% of the Members of Parliament to govern their country, or alternatively to vote them all out and sack them if they don't perform.

"For instance the basic principle, that one Westminster Parliament can always change, what the past Parliament did, that's the call of democracy, that you can elect a new parliament and you can have a new law. This call doesn't exist in the EU and doesn't exist in the constitution, we are building now". 

As more and more EU-sanction taxation hits the British taxpayer, from local council tax increases to higher national insurance levies. How many even appreciate the true price of what European Union membership has actually cost Britain.

People don't realise, that the costs of Britain is 1.3 million pounds per hour, every hour, every day, every year. And the way that figure will go is upwards, not downwards.

"We every year give them a nice big fat christmas cake, costing billions of pounds and they decide how many crumbs they are gonna give us back. They don't flannel me, but unfortunately are flanneling a lot of people in this country". 

The Europeans have far higher levels of taxation. With VAT, can you believe it? On food. There will be VAT on house purchase, there will be VAT on public transport, there will be VAT on children's clothing, there will be VAT on funerals. There is no limit to the greed of the bureaucrat.

And the other point of course is the sheer financial point. This place is thick with institutional corruption. You could now buy a cheap airline ticket to come to Strasbourg for about £45 return. When you get in you're reimbursed with nearly £800 for the cost of that flight. Now, this has been going on for the last 20 years, and of course what's happened is that our Members of the European Parliament simply hadn't been talking about it. This system is fraudulent, it's rotten to the core.

The EU's pilfering of airline expenses and the extravagant waste of taxpayers money on shmoozing and boozing MEPs into compliance, is of course serious enough. But there is a lot more. There is the endemic corruption, that has existed in the heart of the Union from the outset.

"The whole thing is corrupt to the core". 

The scale of the corruption, the figure given in a House of Lords committee, it was 6000 million pounds worth of corruption in a single year. Their accounts haven't been signed off for the last 8 years.

"Why would anyone wish to be governed by something, which is utterly corrupt? It is beyond belief". 

"And I think quite honestly, all these MEPs in Brussels. We are gonna have an awful job trying to bring this down, simply because they're on a cushy little number. And that has always been a problem with not only MEPs, but our own government. They are too busy feathering their own nest". 

In 1998 a man called Paul van Buitenen, who worked in European Commission, decided that the fraud, waste, mismanagement, corruption and nepotism had become so bad, that no longer could he hold his piece and went public and became the first whistle-blower. It turned out, that in fact all his claims were right and the entire European Commision was forced to resign in disgrace. The president of that commission, Jacques Santer is now here as a Member of the European Parliament for Luxembourg, and commissioner Kinnock, he was one of the twenty who had to resign, is now vice-president of the European Union and has been put in charge of sorting out fraud. Well, how has he done? Well, there is now another whistle-blower. Her name is Marta Andreasson. She went to Commissioner Kinnock, she said: "I'm sorry commissoner Kinnock, but I cannot sign-off these accounts." "You're using a cash based system, you're not using double entry bookkeeping, which incidentally was invented in the late 14th century." She said: "I cannot sign-off these accounts as being a true and accurate record of the EU finances," and for her trouble, she has been suspended pending an investigation. Everybody talks about reforming fraud within the European Union, I think this whole system is so rotten, that is now unreformable.

"It means that you will be ruled for the first time by people you cannot sack. Why would anyone would do that voluntarily? It's the politicians of all three major parties, who are all hell-bent on ever closer union. Ever closer union in fact means ever closer strangulation". 

Being part of the European Union will mean Britain will permanently lose control over her armed forces and foreign policy. The new European Army so enthusiastically pushed by France and Germany, in effect threatens NATO, the organisation that has kept peace in Europe for the past 50 years.

They can use our armed forces, the current forces, the army, the navy and the air force in the European Rapid reaction force. And imagine our forces being under command of some perhaps French or German general.

And then, there is the Euro. Joining it will be irreversible according to Hans Tietmayer, former president of the German Bundesbank. Monetary union is a path of no-return these days, no subsequent revision or withdrawal of any kind is either legally or politically provided for. Britain's economy traditionally tracks that of the United States because of our heavy trading on the dollar. So what would be the effect of joining the Euro and tying Britain's economy to this one-size-fits-all arrangement with the other nations of the EU?

Brussels wanted to know too, which is why in October 1990, Britain joined something called European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a dress rehearsal for the Euro and monetary union, which effectively locked the British pound into other EU currencies. 23 months of chaos followed. British business suffered its worst recession in 60 years. 100 thousand UK businesses went to the wall. Unemployment doubled from 1.5 to 3 million. More bankruptcies were filed than in any previous 2 year period ever. Repossessions of property increased 7 fold. By 1993, over half a million of us were at least 3 months of arrears on our mortgages. Britain lost estimated reserves of 68 billion sterling.

"And as someone once put it: You may be very friendly with you neighbours, but would you actually hand-over complete control of bank account to your friendly neighbours? Quite probably not. And that's precisely what we will have been doing if we join the Euro".

"And if, if you're in Ireland or in Latvia the Euro can be great, because you're having everything paid for. Unfortunately it is by us. And I don't think we could afford or sustain that level of payment for them all the time. If we join the Euro, and the same thing happen to our economy as what happened to Germany, we could find ourselves struggling to pay our mortgages". 

There has been great debate going on for the last five years about the supposed benefits of the single currency. We're told that business needs it and we're told above all that it's good for jobs. Well, how is it working out 3 years down the road? Well, in Germany, just 2 miles across the border, there are now 4.6 million people unemployed. They are experiencing exactly what we experienced during ERM back in the early 1990s. They cannot set their own interest rates, to set their own economy. And the great risk of joining the Euro is that you can finish out, totally out of sync with the rest of the European economy, and there's nothing that your democratically elected government can do to alter it.

There exists on the continent a massive unfunded pension debt. Run up by German, French and Italian politicians and has been estimated at 1300 billion pounds. And that would be something which we, the British people will be expected to contribute. But how could Britain ever free herself from the European Union through military action, if all her armed forces will be under EU command? And in the unlikely event she did regained her independence, how could Britain relaunch her own currency, if she had handed all her gold and currency reserves over to the European Central Bank?

"In a question that you can ask our ministers is: How is it, they have sworn oaths of office. They say, they will defend all jurisdictions and authorities belonging to Her Majesty against all foreign powers and then they give away those powers of governance or perporting to give away this powers of governance to those that owe no allegiance to this crown". 

Well today the European Parliament has voted on the admission of 10 new member states. I have to tell you that I was one of 22 Members of the House out of 626 that voted for those countries not to join. I did so not just because it would save the British taxpayer a great deal of money if they didn't join. I did it for their sakes because most of these countries have just left a system of centralised, undemocratic communist government based on Soviet Russia. I fear they're about to reenter a very similar system. But I'll say this to you: Not everything about this European project is bad news, because the really good news is, that there is something we can do about it. If we want to, all we need is political will, a British Parliament at any moment in time can vote for us to have an amicable divorce from this corrupt club. We can then re-negotiate a genuine free trade agreement which is what we thought we signed up to in the first place. And even over here, even here commissioners like Kinnock and Patten and luminaries such as Giscard D' Estaing say, that if Britain doesn't want to be part of this full political union, which are they attempting, we can if we want get out of it and re-negotiate a free trade deal. We don't need to be in the EU to trade with the EU, that idea is anachronistic and dates back to the 1950s and 60s. So it really is up to us. But we have to do something about it. We have to vote for people who will not allow this continual surrender of our sovereignty to continue.

If we don't do something about it in the next couple of years, it's goodbye democracy and everything which we fought for for centuries. Time is running out.

"I think Britain joining the EU contradicts the British constitution and the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights and Monarchy are undermined and I see the danger of British people losing their rights and liberties by joining the EU".

If police force diplomatic immunity as a front for democracy, it is highly dangerous and basically the politicians of the member nations of the EU have given away the rights and civil liberties of their citizens.

"It follows therefore, that no government with or without popular mandate may transfer sovereignty on a temporary or permanent basis to a foreign power that has no allegiance to the British crown and is unaccountable to the British people". 

"So I say, if you want to turn your democracy into a European federation without the British having any definite say on your own laws, then we make a historical mistake".

In the time it has taken to watch this programme, Great Britain's EU membership has cost you, the British taxpayer, just under 1,000,000 pounds.

www.mustwatch.cz For invaluable assistance in the making of this film our utmost thanks to John Gouriet, Nigel Farage, Norris McWhirter and Richard North.

PS Of course this was filmed some years ago, most of you who read political blogs are aware that things are by far, much, much worse now.

HAPPY ST GEORGE'S DAY