Part 5 - New World Order breaches UK Constitution
Sedition and Treason
In my previous article (Part 4) I discussed the illustrious efforts of Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett in addressing the breaches by the UK Government of our ancient constitution. Elizabeth sadly passed away on the 7th February 2009 and this classic letter is an example of her ability to shake the very foundation of UK politics.
The following dedication was made by Martin Cole on his Blog http://ironiestoo.blogspot.com/2009/02/elizabeth-beckett-letter-to-master-of.html
As an example of her long fight for the restoration of the Sovereignty of the British people and this nation's restored independence AND in recognition of the sturdy fight she waged for her fellow countrymen and women, I reproduce below a letter she sent to Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls dated 10th October last year which confronts recent constitutional outrages not least in the matter of the banks! Please circulate this as widely as possible in tribute to this fantastic Lady.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls
From Elizabeth Hibbert Beckett 10 October 2008
Dear Sir Anthony - your Lordship
I write to you in your position as Master of the Rolls and in view of your article on Magna Carta in The Times.
Churchill, writing on Magna Carta, said, that there will come a time when government, inflated with power, will try to overrule it, but it will come into use again.
I write with deep and serious concern about the present actions by government on using taxpayers money for their debts, apparently due to their encouragement of hysteria since there is "plenty of money around" (said by speakers on Today and Newsnight).
The safeguards that need immediate action are:
a) that the debt should be made under the Nordic system
b) that it should be safeguarded as belonging legally to the Taxpayers NOT the Government.
a) The Queen should be asked to prorogue parliament immediately as a temporary arrangement until there has been an election.
b) A national government of convention should hold the fort. (The Queen was unfortunately taught about the constitution by Sir Henry Martin who became a Fabian in 1921. She has apparently not grasped the significance of her position and her Coronation Oath and imagines that she is subordinate to her ministers.)
c) I consider that as Master of the Rolls in this terrible time it must be for you to try to disabuse her of this and hold chapter 61 of Magna Carta to her notice. (Various people have suggested Princess Anne as Queen in her place since Prince Charles has not grasped the Christian importance of our constitution in Magna Carta and throughout our history – our early Christianity, starting from c. AD 50, has been central to wars from without and within against 'this dear land'; Magna Carta as a defence against William of Normandy's laws. Llanfranc was the imposed archbishop of Canterbury and the invasion was inspired by Papal direction.
d) I write to you since Lord Faulkner acted unconstitutionally in putting before Parliament that the Royal Prerogative belonged to himself and the Prime Minister in the Constitution Reform Act of 2005. You will know Sir Edward Coke's clear description that the prerogative could not be taken from the monarch - even by act of Parliament, agreed by Halsbury.
Your position as effectively deputy Lord Chancellor gives you authority to support us, the people of England and Scotland. On the other hand, government has shown a lack of constitutional restraint and even lack of knowledge of the laws of this country both in the Constitution Reform Act and further acts that have forced me and others to ask you to use the strength of your position acting as the executive guardian the people of this country and contracted to the monarchy by law. As the substitute Lord Chancellor, when the other appointee betrayed his position a by treasonous claim initially defined by the 1351 Treason Act.
I have take two steps in the defence of our position
a) I have laid Information with the court lawyer at Newcastle, Mr. Brown, that by making the Queen sign the Lisbon Constitution, Mr. Gordon Brown, acted treasonably against various Acts, his own Oath of Allegiance, and his Privy Councillor Oath. (This perjury should legally remove him from Parliament.)
b) With the help of a friend, a retired policeman, I e-mailed the Speaker of the House of Commons that by passing as law the Bradford & Bingley takeover, being called 'nationalisation' by Statutory Instrument without mention of the name of the monarch Mr. Brown and Mr. Darling acted unlawfully and should not be allowed to take up their seats in the Commons. I quoted the basis of this illegality as the 1661 Praemunire in which the punishment of a Praemunire is outlawry, the loss of property and land and possibly death.
Harold Wilson repealed Praemunire which goes back to 1392. But since when he did this it would have been in defiance of the 1795 Treasonable and seditious practices act para 2, 36 Geo III c.7, his oath of allegiance and his Privy Council oath, it was not lawful. And this valuable act of George III was made permanent in 1807, 1817 and 1848, so was given strength and longevity even against Mr. Blair's endeavour to repeal it in the Criminal Justice Act 1998.
On The Borrowing
a) I doubt whether the government has the power to borrow to this extent for a national government. The 1911 Parliament Act which gives the majority power in the Commons without the Lord's right to amend had already been sent back as unconstitutional by Edward VII. It was accepted by George V under the impression that automatic assent of Asquith (another Fabian) was correct like the Statutory Instruments the present Government laid on the table at the time of Northern Rock. It was made on the false basis that no Bill has been sent back by a monarch since Queen Anne in 1707. (i) There is no trace of discussion in Hansard or anywhere else. (ii) Bills had been sent back by William III, George III, William IV, Victoria and Edward VII, as Asquith well knew. Such a claim of automatic assent paralysed our constitutional laws and is probably the basis of the Queen's behaviour.
If the people are to be helped at this time, three means of taxation should be changed.
a) Mortgage relief should be reinstated.
b) VAT which leans very heavily on small businesses - or at least Mrs. Thatcher's VAT rebate. It is merciless, politically motivated and costs the nation £20 Billion annually with no benefit to this people.
c) Tax on fuel should be reduced since its effect is arbitrary by any taxable logic.
So Mr. Blair altered legal aid so much that even people on my income (less than £9,000 pa) cannot get it and treason needs a very narrow certificate from the lawyers. I therefore ask you to take the steps necessary under 2a) above if it is by any means within your power.
I am taking a case on the illegality of some aspects of council tax in the high court: I was granted oral review, but thought it wiser to have counsel rather than act on my own and Leolyn Price CB QC has kindly agreed to represent me.
The lowering of trust apparently intentionally has led to loss to shareholders for whom legal protection is needed. The people in Parliament seem to have little knowledge of the law nor the legal protection of the people, only the desire for power and in this case globalisation. William Blackstone said, "Law is not a matter of opinion." This, our representatives seem not to have learnt.
The House of Lords is the Curia Regis to advise the Monarch. The suggestion that a man who has twice been asked to leave the government for malfeasance should be given a position in the Lords tends to further distrust of government at a time when trust is essential if the nation is to come together and rise above the present discomfort and lack of trust in this government and the Curia Regis. It gives an impression of irresponsibility in government which is outside our principles and traditions. But apparently fits in with the teaching of five-year-olds that they are part of a wider community without being based in their own. Mr. Blunkett, Mr. Brown and others have published books paid for by the tax-payer effectively dispersing any concept of our Christian heritage. Mr. Brown, as an example, in his white paper has said he intends to give the Royal Prerogative to Parliament or even to the people in one sweep of the pen without recognising the meaning of the prerogative removing our history and our constitution for which our ancestors fought.
I now put before your Lordship the grounds of high treason against those presently governing this nation.
a) Firstly so that the so-called removal of the prerogative power from the Queen comes directly under the 1351 Treason Act since the Act of Constitutional Reform by taking the prerogative from the monarch, the power being in Sir Edward Coke’s words a part of the monarch and cannot be taken from the monarch even by act of parliament and removal, therefore, comes directly within the phrase "if a man compasses or imagines the death of the sovereign . . ." it is treason: "if a man levies war against the sovereign …" and by taking over the position of the Lord Chancellor and turning it into something else this comes into "slaying the Lord Chancellor …". And as head of constitutional affairs and the justices by false laws that treason is further laid and supported in later treason Acts and backed by the 1351 Treason act in the words, "… and because that many other cases of the like treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot think or declare at this present time; it is accorded, that if any other case of supposed treason which is not above specified…" is to go before the justices and the king to be judged treason or felony
b) Under this heading I name the imposition of automatic into "the Royal Assent". for this has been claimed "as to the status of convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both houses of parliament the Prime Minister is in doubt …" (quoted from 1972 letter from 10 Downing street) This conflicts with the statement in Rogers Walters, "How Parliament Works", Pearson and Longman fourth edition which is in use in the speaker’s office and in most county libraries where the Royal Assent is clearly defined: "A Bill presently before both houses needs the Royal Assent as the third element of Parliament before it can become law." Rogers and Walters add the concept of the assent being ‘automatic’ and it is relevant to the treason that the phrase was inserted in 1911 for King George V to be persuaded to pass the Parliament Act and other legislation against our constitution. under the framework of the Treason and Felony Act of 1848, ‘any person who compasses or imagines devises or intends to depose … in order to force constrain or compel her or they to change their measures or courses … shall be guilty of felony", conviction being transportation for not less than seven years with hard labour.
In the book on the constitution by Nigel Knight, tutor in Law at Cambridge University, a further aberration and compelling of the mind of the monarch on the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was given against the wishes of George V.
That this chicanery has continued to be used does not make it less heinous and it is relevant that the claim of 1972 from Downing Street connived with the entry into the EC and hence the EU.
I write now, in view of the danger, after the attempt of Michael Foot to nationalise banks, now being effected under the same intention, but with the camouflage of a world economic crisis, to ask your Lordship to declare the automatic assent void and illegal under the constitutional statute including that of 1795 made perpetual in 1807, 1817 and 1848 and only repealed under the automatic assent, Rogers and Walters claim the assent by convention had become automatic since Queen Anne was the last monarch to send a Bill back. In fact, William III, George III, William IV, Queen Victoria and, as Asquith well knew, Edward VII (because the Bill had been handed to him), had all returned Bills.
Most of the ordinary people of England such as myself and my friends, know the principles of our constitutional laws for which the freemen and barons of England fought and forced on John with the help of the bishops and arch-bishops at Runnymede.
The cruelty, despite constitutional constraint, which successive governments have forced on us involves a mercilessness that has to be held as treason against the sovereign people and augurs badly for such people having the power over our money. I fought for ‘the man on the shop floor’ when I gave Lord Hailsham the concept of the conscience clause against the Foot Bill (Trades Unions and Labour Relations Amendment Bill). Lord Hailsham was unable to get that clause through and it had to wait until Mrs. Thatcher and yet this is central to our spiritual existence as a Christian nation. These politicians could see no relevance in the freedom of the spirit of man.
We, the ordinary people of Britain, the freemen, ask for you to take the steps needed to free our constitutional laws and customs giving us protection against the hideous and treasonous servitude under which we are presently held and free our sovereign from the Fabian thrall or, failing that, under chapter 61 of Magna Carta, replace her with someone able to honour their Coronation Oath. The present situation is worse than that under King John.
(signed) Elizabeth Beckett
As we can see this lady certainly knew her stuff and will be sadly missed…..”Dear Mrs Beckett may your soul rest in peace and I sincerely hope that your courage and determination lives on in the hearts and minds of those that care for their country.”
We can now turn to those that remain and continue to challenge the system. One such person that comes to mind is John Harris who on the 22nd of March 2008 travelled to London to serve an Affidavit on the Queen at Buckingham Palace.
As one would expect at the gates to the palace his journey to proceed was stopped by a very courteous policeman and thus was unable to deliver the Affidavit in person. John refused to give up on his mission and so he decided he would take took the next option and send it recorded delivery to the Queen before he left London. John has a long line of credits to his name and is persistent to say the least. You can see his effort to deliver the Affidavit on this link:
Another person who stands up for what is right is Brian Gerrish a true British stalwart who never gives up and has given so much of his time in fighting the fight for true justice. We should take our hats off to these two brave men who are prepared to take on the establishment. Brian like John also has a long list of credits and both can be research and viewed on the internet and You Tube. Brian’s follow up on John’s attempt to serve the Affidavit can be viewed on the following link:
There are many other proud Brits who do not want to see this country become part of the European Union and thus loose its identity….can one ever imagine not being able to say you are British, or English etc when you are asked the question….it is perfectly possible that your answer may well be simply European!
I cannot list all of those that continue this daily fight with the authorities but it would not be fair for me not to mention Albert Burgess (an ex policeman) who feels very bitter towards the way this country is being steered. You can view him on the follow link and see for yourself http://www.tpuc.org/node/560
What was interesting in the Affidavit document was a very powerful sentence which read: This oath, states quite clearly, that “I now give Her Majesty 40 days to dismiss the traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country.”
Because of the seriousness of the New World Order’s attack on our constitution I have decided to extend this aspect of the current series. It is so serious that there is a distinct possibility that our constitution could soon become null and void. I therefore ask the question, are we, the residents of this great country, going to allow key political figures to destroy our history and legal system? Are we going to allow our Queen to fail in her duties? Are we going to allow the United Kingdom to be handed over, by our corrupt politicians, and controlled by foreign powers? “This is clearly an act of treason as the highest level.”
Before closing this particular topic I would now like to introduce you to someone else who like many of us are fearless of authority. His name is Mark Welsh a very proud Brit who resides in Scotland and does not accept the lies and deceit that are handed out by the political elite in the Scottish Parliament and also in Westminster.
Although rather long I would fully recommended those that are concerned about the welfare of their country to read this in its entirety and also Part 6 for his final brief on the New World Order and the governments attack on the constitution up to the current time.
The New World Order attack on national sovereignty
By Mark Welsh
Another Conspiracy theorist? “Most certainly not!” First of all, as way of introduction to how this issue came to my attention: During the first 45 years of my existence on this planet, I considered politics, economics etc the way any average individual would. I had a University education in Physics and Business Studies and swapped a Radar Defence engineering career for one in High Tech and Telecommunications Business Development. However, life threw me a “curve ball” and I found myself dragged into the court system in Singapore defending against outright lies and deception. When I was initially called into the court system, I was unaware of the simplest aspects of law when it came to “jurisdiction” for instance. This was unfortunate because, had I been aware of such from the outset, the following 3 years would never have played out as they did. In April 2006, I found myself sentenced to a jail sentence at the hands of a corrupt court and judge. I was sentenced for two weeks for contempt of court (basically, embarrassing the judge by standing my ground in sight of truth). What I did not know then, which I found out later, was that, at no time, did this court have any jurisdiction to hear this case. To jump ahead however, come December 2007, I had taken it on myself to study the law relative to this case in detail since I had, by then, lost all confidence in the system and in my lawyer. I had, therefore, spent almost 3 years of intense stress, constant summonses to court, arrests in public places, jail time (with no actual criminal charge of any nature) and had lost a career on the basis of a knowingly corrupt judiciary. I brought my findings to the attention of my lawyer and he refused to do anything citing that it would embarrass the court and he wished to retain his career as a lawyer. By January of 2008, my lawyer advised me that the Supreme Court Judge had stated that, unless I “negotiated” with the third party involved in the case I would be jailed again. At this point I decided to contact the British High Commission in Singapore because I had evidence to prove I was being coerced by a corrupt judiciary. They would not accept the evidence from me - therefore, they would not act and stated they could not act since it was a matter for the legal system of a Sovereign state. They also sent emails to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Meg Munn) in London who stated precisely the same thing: “We cannot intervene in legal matters of a sovereign state” - even when that sovereign state’s judiciary itself is breaking its own laws! There was the previous case (and many others) of a British Teacher in Sudan whose primary pupils had chosen to call their Teddy mascot “Mohammed”. It is unlawful in Sudan to name an inanimate object after the prophet Mohammed. The teacher was then faced with jail and, perhaps, lashing. This was on the basis of Sudanese law (a sovereign nation). The FCO intervened as they have done on many occasions through the years. The FCO “prides” itself in stating that they work to protect UK citizens abroad but it seems that, while this is their “principle” and mantra, they choose if and when they wish to do so. My government, I found, were hypocritical and, in fact, do not sincerely hold to their promoted values of protecting and upholding human rights. The story goes on since I returned to the UK and found myself having to defend a corrupt court ruling from Singapore at the Strand in London and against a Barrister who found that his condescension and his arrogance together with a fundamental error on his behalf were his undoing. Again, I represented myself and finally, came out of it all, in one piece and in a far better position than had I employed a Lawyer to represent me. The foregoing was intended to shed a little light on why I then started to study and ask questions regarding the reality surrounding us all when we consider what we mistakenly interpret as “Law” and when we are faced with illogical (and essentially corrupt) decisions by those who purport to dish out “justice”. This experience then led me down a number of different paths yet, while different, I could see so many absolutely fundamental connections between them. I took a route of trying to apply simple logic and reason to what I perceived (and know) to be an insidiously corrupt legal system. One of these paths brought me, entirely independently, to the conclusion which Elizabeth Beckett arrived at. BILDERBERG AND THEIR BRITISH “MINIONS” In early 2009, I sent a rather detailed letter directly by email to Ken Clarke MP regarding his, and others, involvement in the Bilderberg group. I additionally sent a copy to my constituent MP, Anne Milton, to ensure that Mr Clarke would have to reply. The letter itself is quite long and involved so I will here, only select certain points which I made to Mr Clarke. It is important to grasp, however, that the man behind Bilderberg is a Mr David Rockefeller. He is also the “kingpin” behind the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Council of Americas while the Rockefeller family’s power extends to Oil, Big Pharmaceutical companies, the United Nations International Banking and the World Health Organisation. The list of Global Corporations and “Charities” and Foundations, with Mr Rockefeller’s involvement, is literally never-ending. The initial point on my letter to Mr Clarke was the following statement made by David Rockefeller within his own memoirs:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Now, I appreciate that many people on reading this then either simply switch off and say “Here we go, it’s the Rockefeller and Rothschild Conspiracy mongers at it again” or they may even read it and see it as related to the United States and not the UK. They may even read, as some do, and say “So what?” The latter response leaves me stuck for words however, because this man is stating, quite clearly and matter of fact, that his, and others’ intention is to attack the sovereignty and, therefore, the Constitutions of every nation on earth in an effort to install a world government. Such an attack is, in essence, a declaration of war. It must be emphasised that “War” need not be fought with armies, aircraft, bombs and guns, but may be carried out within the boardrooms of Corporations and Banks, presenting us with an economic and financial war. It is STILL war. It’s intent is to gain control over the sovereignty of a nation (or nations). I brought to Mr Clarke’s attention an investigation by a UK Parliamentary committee regarding his (and Tony Blair’s) attendance at a Bilderberg Conference in 1993, where I state the following -
What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Clarke, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:
(Parliamentary Question) “That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.”
(Mr. Clarke’s response) “The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, "So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?" I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, "So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?" Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.” I then went on to make the following pointed remarks: Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, "So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?... JP Morgan Chase for example? Further, concerning Mr Clarke and Mr Blair’s attendance at this conference, I brought to Mr Clarke’s attention the following statement he made in response to a parliamentary question:
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001
THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE
“I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”. I then went on to suggest to Mr Clarke that: It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted. For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me. Then, I raised to Mr Clarke an interesting series of questions to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, which, as can be seen, he entirely evaded answering while he is on record as having attended and as Mr Clarke, himself, has verified above.
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group.  The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally. Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997.  The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings. I then asked Mr Clarke the following: Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all). Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed! Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also. I then brought the following issues to Mr Clarke’s attention. Please take careful note of the subtleties of the responses made to these questions. Particularly that subtlety which attempts to differentiate between a “formal government attendance” and that of attendance in a “private capacity”:
Bilderberg 1960s: Roy Jenkins
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit.
§ Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.
An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?
1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference
HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W
§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty's Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty's Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.
The question did not arise then but we now know that Bilderberg participation is NOT in a personal capacity at all, as Mr Clarke admits. Therefore, the question certainly DOES arise now.
Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we? The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective. That objective, in essence, was the destruction of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and other nations and for the Nazi party to become the absolute rulers of a European Union. Now, many shall comment that the Nazi party attempted this by military force while the nations, today, have arrived at such, “democratically”, over a period of the last 70 years. We seriously are missing a few points here however when we consider that “war” need not be played out overtly with arms but may be a covert operation utilising the power of wealth and corrupting the core of a nation’s political establishment to progress an agenda through a series of legislation achieved by stealth.
Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)HC Deb 24 May 1977 vol 932 cc1195-203
§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?
§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.
My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws, such as the Treason law, toned down in severity), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void. This is simple logic. However, many will ridicule this suggestion of treason by stating the precise nature of what treason is understood to cover within our UK “laws”. I shall go on to discuss this later. Next, we have a further strange anomaly if, as our political establishment state, Bilderberg is simply a talking shop with no significant impact upon national nor world events. Mr Clarke was asked to comment on this also:
Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:
Portcullis: UK Parliament website.
Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP
Title Bilderberg Conference
Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP
Title Bilderberg Conference
Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that both documents should now be open however, it seems they have been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
Further, there are documents related to the Trilateral Commission which are also being held under the 30 year rule. To open such documents to the public I guess is “not in the public interest”?
Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP
Title Trilateral Commission
Three further documents regarding the Trilateral Commission are held under the 30 year rule: S/430, S/431 and S/523. There may certainly be more. Further, the following questions regarding the Trilateral Commission in January of 1999 by Lord Kennet, were never answered: The Lord Kennet—To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the composition and status of the Trilateral Commission; why Secretary-General Solana of NATO meets with it; why its activities are secret; and in particular why its meetings with Mr Solana are secret. (HL660) The Lord Kennet—To ask Her Majesty’s Government what statutes of Henry VII are relevant to their inquiry into the best means of controlling private military companies in this country. (HL661) Question: WHY are all these documents held under the 30 year rule when Mr Clarke and so many others try to dismiss the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission etc as nothing but a quasi private/political gathering of the world’s “power” just for a good old chat and a get together? Also, why would it be the case that the Prime Minister will not answer questions related to his attendance at Bilderberg (as many previous and existing PMs and MPs will not). Why is such a group allowed to meet under Chatham House rules (secrecy) and the content of their meetings never divulged while participants are sworn to secrecy? Allowed to do so in what is meant to be an open and democratic western society with a “free press”? - Yes, I know. Please don’t laugh at the “free press” comment. Continuing with Mr. Clarke:
The EU Question.
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose. The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC. The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy. I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC. I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose. Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate. However, as the well known saying goes: “Fabianism feeds off capitalism and excretes communism” - EXACTLY what we are witnessing today in the west. Bail out the Banking establishment to the tune of hundreds of billions while allowing the populace to progress closer to a lowest common denominator and lose their homes, wealth, families and pensions.
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party - Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec '98, in response to previous answers (see below) Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question) Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters - would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby? And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda - Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee. [Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.] - Nevertheless, he is! Patricia McKenna goes on: Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity? And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.
P-3880/98EN Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999) The Commission's reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission. And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you (Mr Clarke) were an attendee:
ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003:
"An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War."
Full article: HYPERLINK "http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003! There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”. Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen! To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke? Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy? Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes. From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention. I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever. Now, in response to all of the above SPECIFIC points and questions - based upon absolute facts and published within UK Parliament Hansards, Portcullis and reported in well established mainstream media such as the Asia Times - I received the following “reply” from Mr Clarke via my Constituency MP, Anne Milton: 11th March 2009 Dear Anne, Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is a long standing organisation which arranges conferences between politicians and businessmen from the US and Canada and Western Europe. The people who attend the periodic meetings cover a wide range of political opinions and are usually leading and well known figures in their respective countries. The meetings consist of interesting and well informed discussions about important international subjects. They are designed to enable leading figures from the different countries to get to know each other and exchange views on important current topics. Unfortunately, for some reason unknown to me, the Group has become the object of a small number of conspiracy theorists who continuously propound weird theories about it. The Group does not have any political opinion or agenda. It passes no resolutions and reaches no conclusions in its meetings because those who participate come from all the major political parties in the countries concerned. It makes no attempt to be secretive about its meetings and regularly publishes a list of those who have attended. The actual discussions are held in private, in order to enable a friendly and informal exchange of views without the constant glare of publicity or the issuing prepared speeches which would result if they were to turn into public meetings. I am very sorry if your constituent, Mark Welsh, is among the ranks of those who have been persuaded that these meetings are all part of some sinister conspiracy, but I have to tell him that they are nothing of the kind. I hope this explanation is helpful, and if you would like me to write personally to Mr Welsh in similar terms, I would be happy to do so. Yours Sincerely, Ken Clarke Now let’s just analyse this response a little:
1. Not a single question or point made in the letter to him is answered, considered or discussed at any point. Not a single reference to any single specific point. 2. The reference to “Conspiracy theorists” is par for the course it seems. Asked pertinent, direct, factual questions and one replies with no specific answers but a derisory comment thrown in to label the questioner a “quack”. The perfect (and easy) evasion of any and all questions. 3. The group “exchange views” yet has no “political opinion” - I assume he means an agreed and collaborative opinion. 4. “It passes no resolutions and reaches no conclusions in its meetings...”. True. But he evades, again, the obvious: It is a “brainstorming session”, after which there will be the steering committee objectives which are then communicated to the actual working groups of the Council on Foreign Relations, the RIIA (Chatham House), the European CFR and the Trilateral Commission amongst many others. These feed into NGOs and “Charities” which then utilise the strength of their patrons to push through various legislation of all sorts to progress the agenda. It is not simply that the Bilderberg Group say “This is what we wish the UK Government to do next”. It always frustrates me (and sometimes incenses) how people, even in high office, can be quite so simple minded to create an “argument” based on such a simplistic view of how it would work. It amazes me that such people can hold such important positions when they are only capable of putting forward such lame arguments. 5. “It makes no attempt to be secretive..” yet, in another breath “The actual discussions are held in private...” and “...without the constant glare of publicity..”. These are the leaders of western society, attending a global annual conference in total secrecy with absolutely NO mainstream media coverage while Gordon Brown or David Cameron simply have to pick their nose and it is given mainstream news coverage for at least 5 minutes and is repeated and discussed over, sometimes, weeks.
Will someone please, please wake up! Further correspondence with Mr Clarke was then consistently ignored. The correspondence was copied to most, if not all MPs within the UK Parliament. However, another subtle control mechanism of the electorate comes into play here. An MP will not respond to an individual outwith his/her constituency. They do - sometimes - but when the issue is too hot, they resort to the “parliamentary rules”. Now, interestingly, I had received a response from Lord Stoddart of Swindon regarding Bilderberg prior to the response from Ken Clarke. Interesting if only for his contradiction of Mr Clarke: 29th January 2009 Dear Mr. Welsh, Thank you for your letter concerning the bilderberg organisation. The organisation is a secretive one and it is difficult to obtain reliable information about its purpose, its activities or the outcome of its meetings. National governments say that it is merely a gathering of business people, politicians etc. to discuss current affairs and that they have no influence on policy making. I feel sure that a good proportion of those attending the Bilderberg meetings do believe in a world government but I believe that there is no chance of that being achieved for a very long time and, hopefully, never. Yours sincerely, Lord Stoddart of Swindon So, Mr Clarke, let me ask you another question: Is Lord Stoddart a “weird conspiracy theorist”? At this point, please let me be very clear that this issue is not a party political one. The three main parties are entirely involved in this. Please understand that the political cross party fighting is nothing but a theatre - a sham. The political parties all work within a very narrow set of goalposts and the Clarke/Mandelson debates you will see over the coming few weeks to the election are well controlled no matter what you may believe. They debate within their “box”. CLARKE EVADES - LET’S PRESS A FEW MORE MPs I would ask the reader to keep firmly in mind one simple fact at this point. All I have done throughout this time has been to ask questions. We are led to believe that our MPs and Government Ministers work on our behalf to govern this country according to the rule of law and manage its economy to their best capability. That is their fundamental task and the reason why they are elected to office. It is mandatory, therefore, that they listen to the electorate and answer any and all questions we may have to allow us to fully appreciate what they do and WHY they do it. Do you see evidence of considered, honest replies when they are faced with real, searching questions? With UKIP and BNP coming on the scene and, seemingly, strengthening in support; I took it upon myself to contact Lord Pearson in November 2009 to clarify a fundamental question I had regarding UKIP’s ultimate agenda as a political party. Here is the communication regarding this: Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by () on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 02:12:33 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Lord Pearson, I simply have two questions to ask of you now that you are Leader of UKIP: Are you or have you at anytime been a member of or attended a Bilderberg meeting? Under the same question umbrella; I would ask you if you have any association with the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, RIIA, International Institute of Strategic Studies, Common Purpose, DEMOS, Tavistock Institute? Have you had any association whatsoever with the Rothschild family? If not, I shall support you and the party 100%. If so, then I am afraid, as a Peer, while you may be anti EU, you are potentially another collaborator - with no interest in the people of this country - with what is the establishment and true government. For, as I do not even have to tell you I am sure, the three main parties' Executive Branches are entirely in the pockets of the International Banking cartel as this country has been for centuries. If UKIP are not going to then deal with the issues of the Banking, IMF and debt and are simply going to withdraw us from the EU and sit back and think they have done their job, then again, as you know, they will not be doing the full job and, as such, will be simply carrying out another agenda. I like to speak straight Lord Pearson - there is no other way. Regards. Name: Mark Welsh The reply: Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:12:21 -0500 Subject: Re: ***Web Site Question*** Dear Mr Welsh, Apologies for delayed response. I had a computor problem and I am only just catching up! No Lord Pearson has no connection with the organisations you name. Indeed you may take it that he will be very unpopular with them, for the stand he takes on numerous issues. There is much work to be done but for a start we must govern ourselves again. Malcolm Wood Lord Pearson Leadership Campaign. On behalf of Lord Pearson With this being a positive, yet not entirely precise, answer; I decided to ask for further clarification thus: Dear Mr Wood/Lord Pearson, Thank you for your reply but I have one or two further comments since, I hope you shall appreciate, the initial reply did not quite precisely answer my query. You have stated that Lord Pearson has no connection with the organisations but you did not state whether he has any connection with the Rothschild Family (not an organisation as such). Can you please be more specific? Further, I mentioned the IMF/Debt issue - basically our membership of the IMF, a corrupt institution, part of the United Nations and has absolute immunity from any and all prosecution. WHY would ANY organisation require such immunity? There is no valid reason and while I know the answer I would appreciate your comment. My issue was this: While I have asked (below) about UKIP's views toward Bilderberg etc (and I may add I have asked and received a number of replies from various high level political persons) I see Nick Griffin of BNP making a strong speech in the EU parliament regarding the Climate Change scam while also mentioning Bilderberg. He knows the issue very well as does UKIP. But my issue with UKIP is that each time I mention that they should be shouting this issue from the rafters so to speak, they retort with "We would be concerned that the established parties and press would demonise and pour scorn upon us as Conspiracy theorists for suggesting such". Yet the facts speak for themselves and the massive impact and influence of Bilderberg and the people behind it (one in UK political circles being Ken Clarke a Steering Committee member and traitor therefore) would support UKIP's actions in bringing it firmly to the British Public's attention. Yet, you won't. We, as a country, simply do not have the time to continue the political game and playing "party politics". You are either wishing to win this "war" and your actions demonstrate this, or you are more interested in the life of your party. Furthermore, as I see it, on ALL major issues impacting this country today - the EU, Immigration, Integration of such immigrants, Climate Change scam and perhaps quite a few economic issues, both UKIP and BNP have similar, if not exact, views. Yet both parties, while talking of wishing to see an end to the Lib/Lab/Con era, do not do what would have a significant impact on the electorate IN YOUR FAVOUR - that is to join forces either as one party or some form of collaboration. We have a fabian government who are neglecting the people's wishes while they (and their Conservative and Liberal collaborators) ignore the highest laws in this country - our Constitutional law - which states NO FOREIGN STATES! They are literally breaking the highest laws in the land and between you and the BNP, you could be bringing this forcibly to the electorate's attention and educating them as to why this is so but, again, you are not! That leaves people like me questioning your ultimate agenda. I would appreciate your considered response, Regards, Mark Welsh Unfortunately, however, this time I received no reply even on a follow up chaser email. I wonder why? These people are so quick to respond with an initial reply which never fully (if at all) answers one’s questions but they are not so quick to respond - if they do at all - when one “interrogates” their original response. It seems, again and again, they believe that a single response or statement - no matter how impotent it is - is all they need provide and all YOU deserve. So then on to the Liberal Democrat party and THEIR view of what sovereignty means: The simplest of questions put to our representatives -
Sent: 05 October 2009 12:00
To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark; CLARKE, Kenneth; MILTON, Anne; CLEGG, Nick; CAMERON, David; email@example.com; LETWIN, Oliver
Dear All, Since I have had ZERO answers from my MP, Mr Lazarowicz, to any of the questions put to him below, I shall make this extremely simple for you. ONE question for you ALL to answer: to whom, ultimately, does the sovereignty of this nation, the United Kingdom, belong? Simple question. No complex answer necessary for it has a very simple one. So what is it? Regards, Mark Welsh
The only reply then coming in from UKIP (obviously looking for additional voters): From: LIBDEMLEADER@parliament.uk Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:06:38 +0000
Dear Mr Welsh, Many thanks for your letter to Nick Clegg MP regarding the European Union. Nick has asked me to reply to you on his behalf. Liberal Democrats believe that sovereignty should rest with the people of the United Kingdom. At present, in law, it remains with the Crown in Parliament; we would wish, in the long term, to see a written constitution vesting it in the people themselves. With respect to the role of the European Union, I think it’s important to highlight that the UK’s participation in the EU is based upon British Acts of Parliament so far as British law is concerned and that the EU’s treaties are clear. The European Communities Act 1972, as amended, provides the legal basis for our membership – and this could, of course, be repealed by a future British Parliament. Indeed, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, there will be a formal mechanism for countries to the leave the EU. As a party, we firmly support membership, but I hope this helps to assure you that the EU is not abolishing or removing British sovereignty. Liberal Democrats remain in favour of active British participation and cooperation in the EU. We want the United Kingdom to play a full role in the European Union. We are not uncritical Europeans and we believe that there are many areas where the EU badly needs to improve its performance – but the best way to achieve this is by persuading our partners of the merits of our arguments. In general, we believe that the government’s failure to make the case for European co-operation has done great damage to the British national interest. It is crucial to understand how the EU works when making laws. The Union does not operate as a superstate imposing law on Britain – national governments are involved at all stages of the process. EU legislation requires the consent of national governments in the Council of Ministers without exception, and usually elected MEPs in the European Parliament, before it becomes law. There are no circumstances in which the EU can ‘impose’ law without a British government voting on it, and I hope this may be of some reassurance on the question of its powers and the manner in which British sovereignty is retained. This means that the EU, far from being an institution which takes powers away from Britain, is a crucial means by which our voice is made louder in the world at large – for the simple reason that twenty-seven member states are stronger than one. In the future, the European Union will be critical as we grasp the challenges of climate change, globalisation and international terrorism. Only by working in the EU can we get strong, global action to cut carbon emissions, secure fair trade deals, deliver effective burden-sharing for asylum policy and help the developing world and make areas like the Balkans more stable. Thank you once again for emailing. Best wishes, Douglas Dowell Office of Nick Clegg MP Ah! “grasp the challenges of climate change, globalisation and international terrorism” the very cons which the globalists have brought upon us used by the LibDems as a reason for remaining in the EU - Mr. Icke’s “Problem, Reaction, Solution” in full technicolor! That said, the reply sounds sensible and balanced on the face of it doesn’t it? But then, I still had a few “little” issues I wished to clarify:
To: firstname.lastname@example.org CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:34:11 +0000 Dear Mr Dowell, Thank you very much for taking the time necessary to respond to my email. I would, however, hope you would now offer me the right to reply? You/Nick say that the Liberal Democrats only "believe" sovereignty "should" rest with the people and that, in Law, it remains with the Crown in Parliament. Two questions for now: 1. Which "Law" actually states that sovereignty remains with the Crown in Parliament? I would wish to read this Law document. 2. Can you summarise please, very simply, whether - when you speak of "the Crown", you are speaking of the actual Monarchy or, better still, can you define precisely what "the Crown" is? For the problem lies here in what are entirely conflicting statements from the Parliamentary website:
Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays an essential role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law.
The highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom. Made up of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen (who is the UK's current hereditary monarch).
This is another way of referring to the monarchy - which is the oldest part of the system of government in this country. Time has reduced the power of the monarchy, and today it is broadly ceremonial. The current UK monarch is Queen Elizabeth II. You see, my confusion re the Crown is this: "The Queen plays an essential role....approving Bills before they become law" And treaties it seems. The operative word here being ESSENTIAL. Then it is stated, quite clearly again, that the highest legislative authority includes the Queen. Yet it then goes on to dilute this importance entirely by saying the power of the Monarch has been reduced and is, broadly (not entirely?) ceremonial. We could then delve into the Royal Prerogative but even much of that is now held within the Executive branch of government and the PM himself. Much of the Royal Prerogative issues being handled by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. But then, it is collectively known as HM Government. The Queen STILL retaining the power to dissolve government if she should ever wish to do so. One also has "Royal Assent":
When a Bill has been approved by a majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords it is formally agreed to by the Crown. This is known as the Royal Assent. This turns a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the UK. So before ANY Bill becomes law it must pass Royal Assent. If the Queen literally has such power then, without any argument, the Queen has the highest authority in the United Kingdom bar none. Therefore, to suggest, alternatively, that such Royal Assent is purely ceremonial would be stating that such assent is, in fact, entirely redundant. So, do you see my confusion here? Now, referring back to the core issue of sovereignty and where it lies:
You are stating that the national Sovereignty of the United Kingdom does NOT, in law, lie with the Monarch. Is that correct? You are also stating that the national Sovereignty of the United Kingdom does NOT, in law, lie with the people. Is that correct? You have stated that the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom, in law, lies with Parliament. Therefore, the previous statements must be correct. Therefore, it cannot be argued that, at this present time, the United Kingdom is NOT a free democracy (democracy being an over-used and wrongly used term) but, in fact, a Dictatorship. Bear with me on this point please. Why a Dictatorship? You will argue, I am sure, that it is not because the government/Parliament is "democratically" elected by the people (which, in of itself clearly points to where Sovereignty lies). With that argument, however, we then go around in circles because the people elect a UK government to GOVERN the UK. The people DID NOT at anytime present ANY government with a mandate to transfer NATIONAL sovereignty to a FOREIGN POWER. Would you agree that each successive government/Parliament that the people elect, are simply caretakers and, in fact, work FOR and ON BEHALF OF the people? If not, then why have elections? Why offer such "power" to the population of this nation to elect "THEIR" government? If you DO agree with such, then it is patently obvious that, inasmuch as the people did not present this mandate to government for transference of sovereignty, then the government has and is acting, with each and every treaty, outwith it's remit. You will then come back to Parliamentary Sovereignty giving the Government/Parliament of the day it's authority to do as it wishes. You have it so very wrong. The people elected a UK parliament for the UK nation. That is all. The Dictatorship comes in when, as you have said, Parliament has Sovereignty and therefore Parliament may then do exactly as it pleases once elected. There are between 300 and 400 members of parliament. Even within that number, there are many members who do not agree with the transference of sovereignty and power which is inherent within the Lisbon Treaty. But let us, for now, assume that there are 400 people within Parliament etc who are in agreement with such a treaty and willing to ignore the voice of the people, the electorate, the population of this country which they are MEANT to represent (that word REPRESENTATION again pointing toward the reality of where the sovereignty of the nation lies). Then what we have are 400 people DICTATING to a population of over 60 million people. THAT is quite simply a Dictatorship. Meanwhile, the present Labour Party Government is making such clearer and clearer while you and the Conservatives allow it. The reason for this being that you and the Conservatives are simply (at the Executive level of your respective parties) just three separate legs of an establishment tripod ensuring the status quo. Ensuring no matter which of you gains office, the establishment remains. Now, as for the European Communities Act of 1972, the Heath Government of the time had the entire British Public understand/believe that the EEC was just that, an Economic Trading Agreement within Europe. No more, no less. To point to that Act now as the formal legal basis of our membership of the European Union then clearly exposes the Heath Government for the fraud (and Treason) that such an Act was based upon. I can assure you, meanwhile, that the EU WILL abolish British Sovereignty whether by the Lisbon Treaty itself or by the sheer apathy of the people through time and further legislation once it is ratified. The establishment parties can offer NO guarantees or assurances to the British electorate for each and every successive government since 1972 (and particularly the Heath Government, the Major Government and then to cap it all, the Bliar/Brown Government) have outright lied to the people. Liberal Democrats cannot even consider suggesting that because they have never been in power they cannot be blamed. Nick Clegg and previous incumbents have stood idly (and even supported) each government whilst the party in power have gone ahead with their plans. LibDem, being EU friendly as you have said, supported Labour in their stance of reneging on their promise of a referendum to the electorate, hiding behind the suggestion that the Lisbon Treaty is not an EU Constitution. An EU Council (unelected), an EU Parliament with no power, an EU Court and an EU President. Please point to another region of the world which is not a nation or a state which has a President and every other aspect of Statehood as just listed. Please do not treat the UK electorate as fools. It is exactly this that is losing you all the electorate's confidence. From MPs expenses to the sheer corruption and corruption of the Laws of this country. As for EU legislation requiring the consent of our own government, can you please point to any and all EU legislation (which impacts significantly upon the people of this nation) which has not been imposed upon us? It must be understood that while the majority of people do not wish for the EU, it can also be stated categorically, that those who understand and take the time to reflect upon our politics in this country, no longer wish for a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Government either. Twenty Seven member states are stronger than one? In which sense may I ask? Mr. Dowell, I do not know who's words these are - whether yours or Mr Clegg’s - but if you consider the world outside of this conditioned "ideal" you have re the EU, you might find that there are nations which do particularly well for themselves within World Trade. For example: South Korea, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan. The UK and Europe buy massively from such countries and will continue to do so whether there are EU tariffs or not. So tell me the REAL argument for UK membership? These countries are sovereign nations of various sizes. Yet what do they have in common? What makes them so successful? Banking? No! It's called INDUSTRY. Where is OUR industry Mr. Dowell? It matters not a jot whether we are in some EU superstate or not. A country does not exist on having a banking industry with the majority of people having no career or job to allow them to use it!! The government is currently allowing a Bank of England to use Quantitative Easing to pay itself to buy up this country's tangible assets (REAL ASSETS) to pay off debt (to who?) because there is insufficient GDP being generated. The government is then planning on further tax increases and privatisation of the road system to pay this debt because, again, there is insufficient GDP growth. The country is being "raped" of its wealth and taxed to death because there is no wealth generation through INDUSTRY. How blind are our government and opposition parties? I would say not blind at all. "You" know exactly what the game is. In ending, may I request, again, that you furnish me with the answers to the questions I have posed in this email. It would be most appreciated. Regards, Mark Welsh Now, for some reason unknown to me (echoing Mr Clarke’s “unknown reason” as to why Bilderberg attracts such “conspiracy theories”), UKIP did not reply to this follow up nor to a chaser email. Again, one response and that’s your lot! Don’t DARE question particularly when we just have no answers for you or the answer we’d have to give is the one you already know but don’t wish to confirm. So then, on to Mark Lazarowicz. While this is an extremely serious topic, I have to admit that communicating with Mr. Lazarowicz, first on Climate Change (which is, perhaps, another eye opener) then on Constitutional law was, if nothing else, somewhat “entertaining”. Here we have an MP who is presently a part of the United Kingdom government while being a trained lawyer and a historian. Bear this in mind while reading the correspondence with Mr Lazarowicz won’t you? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:09:51 +0000 Mr Lazarowicz, One question for you if I may. One simple question I would like to be answered. What does the following mean: Oath of the Queen's Privy Council - “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.” Then, if you would, tell me: Are oaths meant to be kept? Or is that allegiance to the Queen and country as valuable as a pound note these days? It is a VERY simple question Mark. No tricks. Simple and straightforward. Thanks and Regards, Mark PS: Of course, to those who are copied, I would also appreciate your answers just to ensure we're all singing from the same "hymn sheet" here. Now wait for it..... This is the response received from Mr. Lazarowicz via his secretary: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:52:21 +0000 Subject: Mark Lazarowicz, MP Dear Mr Welsh Thank you for your recent email to Mark Lazarowicz, MP. Mark is not a member of the Privy Council and holds no information on the point you raise. He will therefore pass your email on to the Prime Minister to ask for a response to the point which you raise, and to provide you with the information which you seek. Please advise us of your address in the constituency so that Mark can pass on any letters he receives in response to his query on your behalf. Karen Doran Office Manager Incredible isn’t it? The man does not know what an oath of office is or whether such an oath should be taken seriously or not! My reply was as follows: Sent: 04 November 2009 15:37 To: DORAN, Karen Dear Ms Doran, Quite stunning! There simply are no words for the incompetence (which I am well aware it is not) that Mr Lazarowicz is displaying here. The only incompetence being his belief system that someone with half a brain would accept this statement. Really quite incredible. I suggest very strongly that Mr Lazarowicz is sacked and removed as a representative within Parliament. His clear intent in answering NO questions, however simple, is simply showing his contempt toward his constituency. The attitude of this government toward its electorate - remember WE elect you people!! - is disgusting and has no place in a Representative Parliament.
He graduated from St. Andrews University with an MA in History, and the University of Edinburgh with an LLB in Law. Yet, when asked the following:
What does the following mean: Oath of the Queen's Privy Council - “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.” Then, if you would, tell me: Are oaths meant to be kept? Or is that allegiance to the Queen and country as valuable as a pound note these days?
Mr Lazarowicz suggests that, because he is not a member, he has no "information"?? He has no idea of what an oath means? And he is a LAWYER? If I asked my child to swear an oath that she would do (or not do) something, she would know the intent of such an oath. Yet here is Mark Lazarowicz, a HISTORIAN and a LAWYER saying he has no idea what an Oath is? Or what it is meant to signify? Does Mr Lazarowicz understand where our Laws in this country derive from? That they flow from our Constitution and by Statutes. That such Oaths of the Privy Council are among the highest oaths of office (secondary to the Monarch's) in the land. That they form the basis for such positions to be given to such Oath takers who then decide on the Laws of our society which are meant to flow from the highest laws (Constitutional Laws). If Mr Lazarowicz, in a position of being the Lawyer of a witness for example, within a Court case, and Mr. Lazarowicz then found that his client/witness had lied under oath, while the jury then also found this out, what would Mr. Lazarowicz's rebuttal be? "I am sorry your honour but I cannot speak on behalf of my client as to whether he took his oath to this court seriously or not. I believe that, to my client, it is just a bunch of words which mean nothing therefore I do not believe this court has a valid basis to charge my client with perjury". Are you serious? You work for this man and you "spit" out a response as you have just done? Are you people truly serious? Then I guess Mr. Lazarowicz has no idea (or alternatively has no care) regarding the following oath of office:
"I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." Mr. Lazarowicz may wish to read this entire document and if he has any questions regarding his understanding of it, I would be more than pleased to explain it to him. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-017.pdf Now, we have Her Majesty swearing an oath of office which is to uphold laws of the UK etc within her Coronation Oath. THESE LAWS AND THIS OATH HAVE NOT CHANGED FOR VERY GOOD REASON. So when either Mr. Lazarowicz, within his Parliamentary oath or ANY OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL within their oath, duly take such oaths, they are to protect the Monarch and HER Oath OTHERWISE NONE OF YOU COULD TAKE OFFICE! However, to suggest that you are going to ask the incumbent Prime Minister to comment on such a question is akin to suggesting you'd ask a murderer if he/she understands the term "Thou shall not kill". Mark Welsh
Eventually, I receive a response from Mr. Lazarowicz’s office by post - which includes a reply from Peter Mandelson to the question stipulated - as follows: 10th November 2009 Dear Mark (Lazarowicz), Thank you for your letter of 28th October to the Prime Minister, enclosing a copy of an email from your constituent, Mark Welsh, about the meaning of a particular section of the Privy Counsellor’s Oath. Your letter has been passed to me to reply in my capacity as Lord President of the Council. Mr Welsh asks for a definition of “You will to your uttermost bear faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty, and will assist and defend temporal juridictions, Pre-eminences and Authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Act of Parliament or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates”, which forms a part of the Oath taken by new Privy Counsellors. Although the Oath dates from Tudor times and its language and style reflects this, I believe its meaning is quite clear. It is a solemn and binding promise of allegiance to The Queen and is meant to be kept. Regards, Peter Mandelson. Now, you can’t get much clearer than that can you? While Mr Mandelson knows well what I am striving at yet, again, manoeuvres around it. He states it is “solemn and binding” to the Queen while ignoring that The Queen, herself, had to make an Oath to uphold the laws of THIS country NOT the EU! The question remains (for now): Who (or what) exactly does the Queen make an Oath to? Herself? Perhaps then, if that were so, it can be compared to something we all tend to partake in - New Year’s Resolutions! Let’s face it, if that’s the case, then we are in big trouble!
This will be continued in Part 6…………………watch this space!
Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 13/4/2010