(Updated 17.02.15)

HOW THE EU COMPARES

WITH THE OLD USSR. (AND THIS IS THE EU AS IT IS TODAY)

Table of Contents

1. European Union 'Democracy' How will it affect me? 1

2. Keep the Population in the dark. ....................................... 3

3. New Political Boundaries ................................................... 5

4. European Institutions. ......................................................... 7

5. Passerelle' clauses under QMV ....................................... 11

6. Personal freedoms. ............................................................ 13

7. EU Expansionism .............................................................. 20

8. Our Armed forces are being deliberately Neutered.........23

9. Surveillance - We can see you! ........................................ 29

10. Will we ever get an honest referendum? ....................... 32

11. Fraud, Incompetence and Corruption ............................ 36

12. Corpus Juris..........................................................................41

13. Article 222 of the Lisbon Treaty ...................................... 45

14. It's the economy, Stupid. - (and they think we are)......50.

15. No economic reason to stay in the EU.............................53

16. Finally................................................................... ............56

1. European Union 'Democracy' How will it affect me? The following are a series of short chapters describing the very real potential for how the British (and other European peoples) will be subject to Democracy under European Law in a formalized European State if the UK should be foolish enough to embark on such an exercise. It is written from the perspective of the ordinary man in the street. It is not intended as a treatise in Law I am not qualified to write one but it is factual.

None of it is fantasy as it is almost entirely part of EU Law NOW. I have included one or two possible scenarios that illustrate the likely extension of the way that this existing Law could be applied. Those scenarios are formed from my own opinion but the references provided can be checked by anyone from official EU documents on the internet. It is left to the individual whether they choose to interpret these arguments to be benign or not.

For many years, various Treaties signed by successive British Governments have placed the UK in a position where a system of Law, which is entirely alien to British Common Law, now takes precedent. None of these Treaties have been endorsed by the British People but have been signed by Politicians in full knowledge of the consequences to the British People. Under the '30 year rule' a document; FCO 30/1048: 1971 has been become available. In this document, all Governments of all parties have been instructed not to bring to the attention of the Electorate, anything that will show the true intention of the EU: A Federal Europe.

Successive British Governments have continuously subverted British Sovereignty by ceding powers to Brussels. Britain had a number of vetoes in which they retained 'competence' but each successive Treaty has reduced those rights of veto allowing a majority vote (QMV) to override those vetoes. Since the Treaty of Rome, 213 vetoes have been lost of which when the last Labour Government were in power, gave away a total of 133 of these vetoes in just 13 years, not to mention a sizeable portion of our rebate, with virtually nothing in return.

.The 2011 European Union Act promising a referendum in the event of further Treaty change is meaningless as the Lisbon Treaty does not require any further Treaty change or endorsement from Member States. The Lisbon Treaty and others has given the EU the right under Passerelle to increase the scope of any Treaty to the point of declaring a Federalized Europe and to control it once declared.

To date, there are approximately 111,000 directives that affect the legal status of everyone living in the European Union. Under the proposed assumption that Britain be subjected to the Common system of Law

1

within the EU, Corpus Juris (literally: The body of the Law) which will allow no defence of ignorance of the Law, will require that each EU Citizen becomes liable for any breach of those 111,000 (and counting) even though no ordinary person could reasonably be expected to be aware of all or any of them.

The famous quotation by the American President Abraham Lincoln Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth does not apply under the EU Constitution (the Lisbon Treaty). The US Constitution with all of its subsequent amendments amounts to around 7200 words. The Lisbon Treaty amounts to 78,000 words (and is constantly being amended and added to). It is the intention of the EU to control every aspect of the lives of its Citizens by placing them under the control of unelected Commissioners who cannot be displaced by the ballot box. Under existing EU Law, this Commission can be reduced to a smaller and smaller group of people who will effectively be a 'Politburo' on the old Soviet style who will have total control over all of our lives.

The very fact that the United Kingdom is in the European Union at all is the result of Treason. That is not too strong a word as the actions of Politicians within Government that have lied to us and conspired to take us ever deeper into the European Federalist State is in direct conflict with the Treason Act in which it is treason to act or conspire with others to reduce the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom without the direct authority of the People. This also applies to the 1975 referendum - the only one allowed to us - because the Government conspired to feed the People with a tissue of lies about the ultimate aims of the 'Common Market' and that staying in would result in no appreciable loss of Sovereignty. In the almost 40 years since that referendum, the truth is now plain for all to see.

I expect that many of the people who read these chapters will discount them as fantasy. I cannot do anything to help those people. My only hope is that sufficient numbers of people begin to realise just how insidious the European Project has become and do what is necessary to remove the threat before it becomes totally immovable.

2

2. Keep the Population in the dark. The EU Commission has always attempted to hide it's true intentions when enacting any form of Legislation. It does not want the person in the street to be too knowledgeable about what is actually happening.

Several EU leaders have admitted that the Lisbon Treaty when presented was deliberately inaccessible: The author of the Constitution Valery Giscard dEstaing has said that All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.

Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato has said that: They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum*, because it would mean that there is something new. (*On the Lisbon Treaty) Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht has said that, "The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.

Some opponents of a referendum when the Lisbon Treaty was adopted have even argued that the new treaty is shorter than the old constitution and so therefore cannot be substantively the same thing. This is a dishonest argument.

The Lisbon treaty in its unconsolidated form contains only the active ingredients the changes which were proposed by the original Constitution. However, once it is turned back into consolidated text it becomes obvious that the new treaty essentially edits the existing treaties to bring them into line with the rejected constitution.

The same is true of the Lisbon Treaty as it now stands. There have been hundreds of amendments to the original Treaty when signed. In each set of amendment, the new text is published without being accompanied by the original text making it impossible to compare the changes made. To make matters more difficult, there are many versions of the Lisbon Treaty online, most of them 'consolidated' down to mere headings. It is for this reason, although not perfect, my references to the Lisbon Treaty will come from this document from the Bruges Group: http://www.brugesgroup.com/LisbonTreaty.pdf which shows the original text of the Lisbon Treaty with amendments added together with the original.

3

There is no reference as to when this document was published in 2008 but there have been several amendments since and the Reader should realise that the EU does not abandon ANY powers and that the actual state of affairs will probably be much worse. In final versions (so far), there has been extensive renumbering of clauses which further obfuscate the issue and fewer and fewer versions showing the whole thing are appearing on the internet.

Anyone who doubts, or for that matter, does not doubt that the signing of the Lisbon and all other Treaties by Politicians without seeking the approval of the People was and is Treason should view this short film on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIjEZMH9GT0

People should also be made aware that any dissent from the aims of the EU in the European Parliament by elected representatives is ruthlessly put down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceejnrM858k

Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation (Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).).

4

3. New Political Boundaries The Nation States as they are now will no longer exist. Nation States will be condensed into a series of regions. In England, that will mean the abolition of the 48 Counties and Parliamentary Constituencies that now exist and will be condensed into 9 regions equivalent to the MEP Parliamentary areas that we now vote our MEPs from.

The Westminster Parliament has often been criticized for having too many MPs at 650 but under a Federal Government, these MPs will no longer be recognised as representatives of the people. Instead, the entire population of England will be represented by just 73 MEPs. Even this

number will reduce as the European Parliament is limited in size by the Lisbon Treaty to a maxim um of 750 Members1. At present, there are 766 MEPs and are due to be reduced in number by June 2014 and will result in the further loss of MEPs in the event of further EU expansion)2 especially if that expansion includes Turkey with almost 90 Million people which would demand a vote weighting similar to that of Germany, France and the UK reducing the UKs 8.6% of voting influence in the European Parliament even further and making it far less likely that British MEPs will be able to pursue British interests.

National Political parties will no longer be recognised. The Labour Party, Tories, LibDems, Greens, etc will be abolished as the EU requires that all representatives must be applicable to all EU Citizens within the European Parliament. These British Parties do not exist outside of the UK and will not be allowed. Only groups in the European Parliament such as the EPP and the S&D will be recognised.3 It is only Europarties that receive State funding and it may not be used either directly or indirectly to fund National Parties. Europarties cannot be formed as they are in the UK. They must be formed from members in at least 10 European States and must either have sitting members in the European Parliament or command at least 3% of the vote in each of those Member States to qualify as a EuroParty.4

All Eurosceptical Parties such as UKIP will also be abolished as since the European Court of Justice ruling in 1999 (ECJ 274/99), it is now illegal to criticize the EU. This will be rigidly enforced inside a Federal Europe.

5

1`http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130308STO06280/html/How- many-MEPs-will-each-country-get-after-European-Parliament-elections-in-2014

2 (Lisbon Treaty, Page 19, Article 9A, Clause 2)

3 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00264f77f5/Grants-to-political-parties- and-foundations.html

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party

References to the Lisbon Treaty refer to the copy published by the Bruges Group and can be obtained from the Bruges Group Website: http://www.brugesgroup.com/LisbonTreaty.pdf

6

4. European Institutions. British Parliamentary democracy has been in existence for 800 years. It has comprised three parts; the Monarch, The Commons and the House of Lords. Each part has provided checks upon the other two to ensure that democracy continued.

The Commons, the legislative body, formed from elected representatives drafted the Law which was then scrutinised by the members of the House of Lords formed from hereditary peers originally but now largely replaced by appointed Life Peers though their function remained the same. The Laws were passed back to the Commons either in complete form or with amendments as required. This process was continued until complete. The Law was then enacted by the Monarchs signature.

Under a Federal State, British citizens will no longer have such access to representation in the way that we do now. The Government of the European Union will be carried out by a series of Institutions which comprises:

the European Parliament,

the European Council,

the Council,

the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"),

the Court of Justice of the European Union,

the European Central Bank,

the Court of Auditors.

The European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only elected body within the EU. These are the MEPs that will be elected by each Region and are the only representatives of the Electorate. Yet, the European Parliament has no legislative power at all. It cannot make Law in its own right. The sole purpose of the European Parliament is to peruse the Legislation coming from the Commissioners, in some ways, the equivalent of the existing House of Lords in function (though in practice, this does not occur as there is so much Legislation and so little time to read it) then ratify it by means of a bloc vote. In fact, there is little point in

having elected MEPs except to give the appearance of legitimizing the Law making process within the European Union.

7

The European Council

A Council formed from the (political) Heads of each Member State though how this is decided without a Party system is anybodys guess. Perhaps they will be appointed by Brussels as has already happened in Italy and Greece.

The European Council has, again, no legislative power. Their sole purpose is to discuss issues and invite the Commission to come forward with any proposals.

The European Council gets to elect the Commission, a President who will serve as a full time job for 5 years and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. As the election will be decided by QMV, the most powerful bloc will always get to elect the Candidates of their choice.

The Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers comprises one Minister from each Member State. The Council meets to discuss EU Policy, take decisions and pass EU Laws. These Ministers have the authority to commit their respective Governments to the actions agreed in the Council. As these Ministers are appointed by National Government of few members (in our case, a maximum of 73 members that will reduce as the EU expands), it leaves considerable risk of our National fate being held in the hands of very few people. It also means that a very small State such as Cyprus has equal power in this Council to the larger States.

The Council will decide on most of the important aspects of our lives including monetary policy, foreign affairs, defence, International Agreements and Treaties, Science and technology, Agriculture, Fisheries, Transport and the EU Budget.

The Council then recommends its findings to the Commission who alone have the power to enact the Legislation.

The Commission

These are the people with the real power in the EU Government. They are totally unelected by the Citizens and are put in place by The Council of Ministers. Although technically, they can be sacked by the European Parliament, this is very unlikely to happen except in extreme circumstances due to the preponderance of federalist members in the European Parliament. However, the 1995-1999 Commission headed by Jaques Santer were forced to resign en-masse due to allegations of gross corruption during the setting up of the Euro currency. Despite the allegations, all were allowed to resign with all benefit and pension rights.

8

A new Commission is elected every 5 years with a new President elected by the European Parliament. The President Elect, in discussion with Member States then selects the other Commissioners. The President is usually the most senior member of any alliance bloc than can be negotiated among themselves.

The Commission has four main roles:

To propose legislation to Parliament The Commission has the right of initiative which means that the Commission alone has the right to draw up legislation.

To manage and implement EU Policies and the budgets.

To enforce European Law in conjunction with the Court of Justice.

To represent the Union around the World.

It is the Commission President who decides which role a Commissioner will carry out and the President has the right to demand the resignation of a Commissioner at any time.

The European Court of Justice

The European Court is comprised of 28 Judges, one from each Member State So that all the Member State legal systems are represented. Since National Law is subservient to European Law, this is meaningless. These judges are assisted by a further 8 Advocates General who are appointed by agreement of the Council. Many of these judges and Advocates are simply Lawyers who have never been on a bench and made a judgment in a court. They are purported to be trusted to give an impartial judgment.

The purpose of the Court is to interpret EU Law and ensure that it is complied with in all Member States. Since all European Law is drawn up by the Commission, the Court is bound to uphold those Laws alone.

Unlike British Law which for 800 years has been orientated to uphold the rights of the individual, the European system; Corpus Juris (literally the body of the Law) requires that the Law is paramount and that it is to the benefit of the State alone. Since the Law coming from Brussels numbers already in the hundreds of thousands and that Corpus Juris allows no defence in ignorance of a Law, it will be virtually impossible for anyone NOT to break the law at some time and the population will be at the whim of a prosecutor whether we will be held to account for a crime that does not occur in British Law.

9

The European Central Bank.

The Bank at this time is mainly concerned with trying to maintain the viability of the European currency; the Euro. The ECB has been given the power to set the interest rates of Commercial Banks much like the powers held by the Bank of England in this Country. The BoE only has these powers because the UK is not a member of the Eurozone. A centralised banking system has proven disastrous for many of the debt-ridden economies in Europe because those countries are no longer have their own currency and are unable to revalue in order to encourage national growth. Instead, interest rates are set to the benefit of the more powerful EU countries to the total detriment of the less well off economies. A prime example of this was Britain joining the ERM during the 1980s which almost resulted in bankrupting the British economy because of the intransigence of the BundesBank in refusing to lower interest rates that was desperately needed to increase British prosperity.

The European Court of Auditors

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) is the independent external audit institution of the European Union. It checks that the Unions income has been received correctly, that its expenditure has been incurred in a legal and regular manner, and that financial management has been sound. It performs its tasks independently from the other EU institutions and governments. In doing so, it contributes to improving the management of European Union funds in the interests of its citizens.

Such is the lofty claim of the European Union concerning the Court of Auditors. However, far from fulfilling their objective, the EU has become so corrupt and inept that, at the time of writing, the accounts of the European Union have not been approved for 18 consecutive years.

Ref: http://www.gr2014parliament.eu/Portals/6/PDFFILES/NA0113090ENC_002.pdf - How the European Union Works

10

5. Passerelle' clauses under QMV -- What is Passerelle?

For many years, British Law where it comes into conflict with European Law is subservient to the latter as a result of the various Treaties signed by British Governments. So little legislation is now (May 2014) carried out by the British Government that they have become already, largely irrelevant. So much so that they are awarding MPs longer and longer Parliamentary breaks because there is insufficient work in debating and drafting new British Law to keep them occupied for the Parliamentary period.

The UK Parliament is finding itself more and more confined in its ability to produce legislation that is unique to the United Kingdom. This trend will continue to increase until Federalization is formally accepted as being in force. It is recognised by both the EU and British Politicians that the UK is already in a state of de facto membership of a Federal Europe as most of the building blocks are already in place and those that are not; can simply be imposed upon the UK by the Passerelle clauses within the various treaties already signed. Passerelle is a French word which means pass over. It is commonly referred to as the ratcheting clause that allows the European Commission in specific areas (competences) to enact legislation without recourse to Member States.

Before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty there were only four Passerelle provisions:

on police and judicial cooperation established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992;

on immigration and asylum, social policy and the environment established by the Treaty of Nice in 2001.

In 2004 the European Council used the Passerelle Clause to move to QMV on asylum and immigration.

After the 2009 Lisbon Treaty a further 68 Passerelle provisions were added:

QMV

Instead of requiring a unanimous vote of Member States, QMV is based on a system of weighted voting1 in which various Member States have a greater or lesser number of votes compared to their population. All that is now required

to enact a vote in the given competences is that a minimum 55% of countries comprising of at least 15 of the Member States (18 if vote is not called for by the

11

Commission) and a total of 65% of the EU population can carry the vote. A blocking minority must consist of at least 4 Council Members making it very difficult to block a vote. The full system of QMV comes into effect in November 2014.1

The EU has already attempted to reduce the size of the Commission by 1/33 but it was later resolved to keep one Commissioner for each Member State after the first Irish Referendum. However, there is nothing to suggest that this will remain the case and that the Commission may at some stage NOT represent Member States completely which has the potential for absolute power to be consolidated between a much smaller group: in other words, a Politburo in all but name. 2

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_majority_voting)

(Lisbon Treaty, Page 21, Article 9C, Clause 4)

European Policy Centre document: http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1554.pdf - The European Commission - Smaller yet more legitimate?

12

6. Personal freedoms. Britain has in the past enjoyed relative freedom for its citizens that many other countrys citizens would envy. In recent years, however, this freedom has been severely curtailed as a result of political ideology from Parliament but more especially by directives from the EU.

In a Federalised Europe, the already prodigious amount of legislation will continue to expand until the very thoughts of individual are subservient to EU Law.

Much of this legislation is already in effect, though not at the moment, enforced rigidly. The following are a very few examples to give you an idea of the direction that the EU is taking but bear in mind, there are many more:

To criticize the EU is illegal - Since 1999, an employment tribunal case (ECJ 247/99 The Commission v Connolly) concerning an EU official working in the financial sector of the EU Commission was sacked for writing a book on the ineptness and corruption of the EU system. The public reason for Connollys sacking was upheld by the European Higher Court on the grounds that he wrote the book without permission from his employers. In fact, the Judges set a legal precedent in the trial ruling that to criticise the EU was illegal. It was suggested that to do so was tantamount to sacrilege; a term normally associated with uttering falsehoods against religion. Like so many EU Documents formally on the internet, the transcript of the trial, originally published by Curia.eu (the ECJ website) is no longer available on the internet.

The EU no longer outlaws the Death Penalty It has long been the belief that the Death Penalty was outlawed for Member Countries within the EU. In fact, a document from the EU Delegation to Thailand in May 2014 had in its first paragraph; The European Union maintains a principled position against the death penalty. All member countries of the EU must have abolished it before they can join the Union. The EU also works in favour of abolition worldwide, and conducts activities to this effect in a number of countries where capital punishment is still used1. Yet strangely, when the Lisbon Treaty was signed by our treacherous politicians, the Treaty also incorporated the Charter for Fundamental Rights that have been around since 1947 but few countries signed up for it. The Charter is now incorporated into EU Law. Just 4 months after Lisbon into force 1http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/thailand/eu_thailand/political_relations/the_european_union _and_death_penalty_in_thailand/index_en.htm

13

in December, 2009; in April 2010, amendments were published under Passerelle legislation allowing for:

Everyones right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 1

In other words, it is now, once again, acceptable (and legal) within the EU for National Governments to enforce capital punishment despite what is said to Thailand in the document.

The Right to Habeas Corpus (See Chapter 11)- Habeas Corpus (Latin - That you have the body) is written into the jurisprudence of all English Speaking (and others) countries that have adopted English Common Law as it's basis.

For more than 800 years in England, everyone has had the right to face his accusers in a trial by his/her 'peers' within 60 hours. In a Federal Europe, there is an entirely different Jurisprudence: Under Corpus Juris (The Body of the Law) in which there is no right of Habeas Corpus nor is there the burden of proof upon the Prosecution. In other words, there is no assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but it is for the Defendant to prove that he/she is not guilty. Imagine the situation for an accused person who has to face the might of a European Police Force and Courts without any of their resources.

Under Corpus Juris, a person can be arrested at any time on the order of a European Judge and interned for 6 months without trial whilst the 'crime' is being investigated. This period can be extended by a further 3 months.

Under the European Arrest Warrant (see next section) this can happen to any British Citizen who will be brought to trial by Corpus Juris anywhere in Europe NOW.

European Arrest Warrant - The European Crime and Policing legislation proposed by the EU consists of 135 different competences covering various aspects of policing within the EU. The Government has the right to opt- out of all them but insists that it will retain a few of them including the notorious European Arrest Warrant.

1 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, Page 6, ARTICLE 2, Clause 1.

2 http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the- european-union-and-comments/part-5-external-action-by-the-union/title-7-solidarity-clause/510- article-222.html 3

14

The EAW will give the right for any other EU State to require the UK to arrest and deport a British or EU Citizen and deport them to the country from which the warrant was issued. The only requirement for the Warrant is that the correct paperwork is issued and a British Magistrate or Judge must comply. No Prima Facie evidence is required to be produced and the Warrant may easily be for a 'crime that does not even exist in British Law.

Once the person has been deported, he is subject to the Law of the Country to which he/she has been taken together with all of the harshness of Corpus Juris and without the benefit of Habeas Corpus.

The following are some examples that have occurred to British Citizens already:

Andrew Symeou - In 2007, Andrew was on holiday with friends in Zante, Greece. One night while Andrew was in Zante, another young Briton was assaulted and fell off an unguarded stage in a night-club, and died two days later from head injuries. Andrew insists he was not even in the club at the time as is borne out by many witnesses. He was never questioned at the time, and still knew nothing about the incident when he flew home at the end of his holiday.

A year later, he was arrested under an EAW seeking his extradition to Greece to stand trial for murder. During his trial, it emerged that the EAW was based on completely flawed evidence, much of it extracted through the brutal mistreatment of two witnesses who have since retracted their (word. for-word identical) statements. In fact, the Prosecuting Officer called for his acquittal after Andrew had spent 10 months in a Greek jail under appalling conditions. Andrew has since returned home.

Joseph Mendy - 18 year old Joseph went on holiday to Spain with two friends. While there, all three found themselves arrested in connection with counterfeit Euros. Joseph was not in possession of counterfeit currency upon his person or in his belongings when arrested. He had no idea how the notes came to be on his two friends and in their rented apartment. The police found altogether, two 50 Euro notes. All of the boys were held in a cell for three nights, then on the fourth day they appeared in court and had a hearing lasting less than an hour. At the end of the hearing, they were told they were free to leave but might receive a letter from the authorities later.

15

They returned to the UK and heard no more about it until four years later when. officers from the Serious Organized Crime Agency arrested Andrew on an EAW. and was extradited to Spain and held on remand in a maximum security prison in Madrid. Other inmates told him he might be in prison for up to two years waiting for a trial, under immense pressure and fearing for his future, he decided to plead guilty, even though several grounds of defence were available had he been able to fight the case on home ground, on bail, and with a good, English speaking lawyer. Andrew ended up spending nine weeks in prison before coming home to commence his university career, with an undeserved criminal record.

Lee Yarrow and Michael Tonge - Michael Tonge and Lee Yarrow were arrested on holiday in Crete in 1999 after a nightclub fight in which Michael sustained injuries. Lee was released from police custody after four days but Michael was held on remand for four months, during which he was beaten, kicked. flogged with rope and denied food and medical treatment. He was then released and came back to England, only for both men to receive EAWs in 2005. with no explanation for the delay. At their eventual trial in Greece. charges were dropped against Lee. Michael was convicted of assault. served a short sentence in Greece and was released and returned to the UK in August 2007.

Once again, an EAW was executed despite serious police misconduct and abuse and following unreasonable delay. The English Court should have been empowered to refuse extradition on the basis of justice, fairness and the rule of law but under the new system it held that it had no discretion to refuse.

Michael and Brian Hill - In 1997 the Human Rights Committee of the UN reported that Michael and Brian Hill had been denied a fair trial in Spain following their arrest in 1985 and were entitled to a remedy entailing compensation as a result. But Spain failed to comply with this ruling. Instead. it issued an EAW seeking the brothers extradition to Spain. In October 2005. Michael Hill was arrested in Portugal and extradited to Spain where he served seven months for breach of parole conditions. They had already served three years in prison in Spain

This is a clear abuse of process. Courts of executing states should be empowered to refuse extradition in such cases, rather than perpetuating the injustice of the original trial.

16

Ms X (anonymity requested) - In 1989. British citizen Ms X was arrested in France on suspicion of drug-related offenses and held in custody. Her trial took place there in 1989. The court acquitted her of all charges. finding she had been set up by her then partner. She returned to the UK thinking that was the end of it.

But unbeknown to Ms X, her case was appealed by the French prosecution. She was not notified and the appeal went ahead without her knowledge in 1990. No lawyer represented her. The Appeal Court overturned the original verdict and sentenced Ms X to seven years imprisonment. Again, she was not informed.

In April2005. an EAW was issued by the French authorities for Ms X to be returned to serve her sentence. Unaware of this, in 2008 she travelled to Spain and to her horror was arrested and taken into custody there pending extradition to France. Ms X refused to consent and spent a month in custodyaway from her daughter and grand- children in Englandwaiting for an extradition hearing. Eventually the Spanish court refused to extradite her. given that 19 years had passed since the alleged offenses.

Ms X was released and flew home to the UKonly to be re-arrested on the same EAW by the British police at Gatwick airport. The City of Westminster Magistrates Court refused the extradition in April 2009 given the passage of time.

This could happen again and again, until France removes Ms Xs EAW from the EU-wide system. Ms X is virtually a prisoner in her own country as any trip abroad could result in her arrest. She wants to visit her sick and elderly father in Spain but cannot risk it for the sake of her family.

In fact, failure by the originating country to cancel the EWA or an inappropriate conviction record is common leaving people who are blameless with a criminal record that may stay with them for the rest of their lives causing continuous hardship to them and their families.

In the UK- In September, 2014, Hampshire Police issued an European Arrest Warrant against the parents of Ashya King because they had the temerity to want to explore an alternative treatment for his illness in Malaga, Spain against the advice of a British hospital. When the Kings were arrested in Malaga, the treatment to Ashya continued but without the necessary support from his parents who were incarcerated. Hampshire Police later admitted that they only wished to 'interview' the Kings but there actions interfered with the normal wish for parents to do their best for their

17

child and the child had to not only go through the trauma of being treated for a potentially fatal brain tumor, but had to do it alone because his parents were prevented from being with him.

Serena Bowes - Claimed that she was sexually assaulted in a nightclub in Florence, Italy by one of the staff during May, 2014. Since returning to Britain, Serena has learned that the Italian Police have now sided with the alleged perpetrator and that now, Serena is terrified that an Arrest Warrant may be issued against her and that she will be dragged off to Italy to answer a charge of 'Slander' against the perpetrator and face a possible 10 year prison sentence.

The Government had the opportunity to opt-out of the full Lisbon Treaty legislation for Justice and Home Affairs which it did in 2013. The Government then had to decide which of the 130 odd parts that they wish to keep. Among those that the Government wished to retain was the European Arrest Warrant simply because it made extradition easier. They completely ignored the fact that the legislation tramples all over the right under British Law that a person is innocent until proven guilty together with the right of Habeus Corpus. In November 2014, the Government by a huge majority opted back into the EAW.

If someone yells stop, or Ill shoot in Trafalgar Square (or anywhere else in Britain) - Believe them. Here in the UK, Policemen normally do not carry guns and are under very strict rules as to how they are used. On most of Continental Europe, all Police carry guns and the rules that control their use are very different.

In a Federal Europe, what is now the UK would be subject to the same Law and Law enforcement as the rest of Europe. In the same ARTICLE 2 in the Convention_eng.pdf document referred to previously earlier in this Chapter; Clause 2 is headed:

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force"then sub-clause 2b reads: (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;. In other words, this amendment gives a Police Officer or Official the arbitrary right to use up to lethal force to affect an arrest or to prevent anyone escaping from being detained.

18

The right to peaceful protest is likely to get you killed It will be very risky indeed to involve yourself in any kind of demonstration under a Federal Europe.

Even in the UK today, it is very rare for what is intended to be a peaceful demonstration or rally not to have the inevitable idiots who wish to cause trouble. Under the same Deprivation of Life declaration mentioned in the previous section, Clause 2(c) allows for lethal force to be used in: (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. .

The recent riots in Greece and Spain, though violent, have not yet seen an official use of these clauses. However, the 2014 European Parliament elections have seen an upsurge of Euroscepticism across the whole of Europe caused by disquiet over the policies of Austerity, Free Movement of Labour and the cost to Member States in bolstering the moribund Euro. Even in Germany, the prime mover of the European Project, 7% of the vote went to a Eurosceptic Party. Despite no longer quoting the desire for ever closer Union, the EU remains firmly committed to the principle and already has most of the legislation required to bring it about without further reference to Member States. It is inevitable that there will be some form of civil unrest in the richer Member States as they find that their wealth is being eroded by the dilution of its infrastructure and demographics by the ever increasing expansion of the EU and by the admission of relatively destitute, former Communist Bloc countries.

The introduction of the new Article 222 of the Lisbon Treaty requiring all Member States to contribute to the 'Euro Gendarmerie Force' ( See Chapter 12) could easily result in 'foreign' troops being used to ruthlessly put down any rioting or any form of insurrection against the EU

The EU Commissioners have foreseen the inevitability of Civil Protest and that is why they presented these amendments to the EU Parliament for ratification hidden under several layers of documentation (in a footnote to a footnote). They will use these powers to employ lethal force in the event of unrest.

We will all be criminalised by the, so far, 111,000 regulations. It is impossible to know or understand 111,000 (and counting) regulations, and the poor cant possibly afford to comply. We will all be subject to frequent fines and arrest as a result. We will live under permanent threat of arrest and fear of the knock at the door that takes us away.

EU Regulations affecting business - How business is conducted in this Country affects all of us. It affects the viability of companies as to whether they can conduct their business in an economic manner which in turn, provides

19

us, the people with job security and prosperity. The life blood of any Country's prosperity is for small businesses to grow and prosper which they cannot do if they are over burdened with excessive regulation. Unlike the large conglomerates that can absorb the high cost of compliance, the small business cannot. They simply cannot afford to comply with the cost of regulation and still be able to employ people. As little as 5% of businesses in the UK have any dealings directly with the EU, yet 100% of those businesses have to comply situation that cannot possibly be to the benefit of individual Nation States

with every Regulation. Such Regulation should be the remit of National Governments who tailor them to suit their own situation. Yet, more and more regulation is coming from the EU which is intended as a 'one size fits all'

Hey! You can't do that!! - Under British Law, and for that matter, most systems of Law throughout the World, unless something is specifically PROHIBITED, you are allowed to do most things that you wish. Under EU Law, you are not allowed to do anything that is NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED under EU Law. That is the basis upon which the European system of 'Corpus Juris' is based which is why the EU 'Constitution' (The Lisbon Treaty/TFEU) is more than 10 times the size of the American Constitution together with all its amendments. It is also why EU Regulations and Directives already number well in excess of 111,000 and rising.

20

7. EU Expansionism The EU is playing a very dangerous game of expansionism that runs the very serious risk of conflict with Russia. With the ending of the 'Cold War', the threat of conflict between the West and the what is now, the Russian Federation, was considerably reduced with the fall of the USSR. However, that is rapidly changing. The EU has been deliberately offending the Russian Federation by continually courting the old Soviet Bloc countries to join the EU and NATO. Russia cannot help to see this 'tweaking of the nose on the Russian Bear' as being provocative and contrary to their National Security.

At some time in the near future, there will probably be a further 77 Million Turkish People (an Asian Country) joining the EU. It matters not to the EU Commissioners that Turkey has most of its porous borders with volatile countries in the Middle East with very poor border control. Europe would be a destination of choice for many of these people from the Middle East further adding to discontent among EU Citizens and the very real danger of easy access from Islamic fundamentalism. At this time, the EU is not allowing membership to Turkey because of the civil unrest due to an upsurge of fundamentalism within its own borders. This is very likely to change because Turkey is a hub for Petroleum Gas from Azerbaijan and

therefore in a very strategic position for supplies to Southern Europe as well as controlling the Bosporus Straits from the Black Sea and, in turn, controlling the Black Sea which is home to Russia's only 'warm water' port. A very dangerous policy as it threatens Russia's strategic capability and one that Russia will not sit idly by and allow.

Added to this, Albania has just been given Candidate status to join the EU at the recommendation of David Cameron despite his stance that no more countries should be allowed to join before the question of free movement of 'poorer' countries into the richer countries has been resolved. Not only is it the

21

intends that all of the remaining Balkan countries are incorporated into the EUintention of the EU to form a Federal Europe in 'Ever closer Union' it also in compliance with Van Rompuy's taunt to Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, that " the EU will control all of the countries along Russia's Western border".

At some stage, the Russians will have had enough of this provocation and it has to be borne in mind that Russia has maintained most of its Armed Forces and the West has not.

Russia has an active military strength of 776,000 with an active reserve force of 2.5 million personnel and with

almost 47 Million fit for service. Added to this, each year, 1.35 million people reach military age.

Russia also has almost 54,000 offensive fighting vehicles including 15,500 Main Battle Tanks together with 3,800 multiple launch rocket systems, over 4000 strategic aircraft and a naval strength of 352 ships.

Contrasted to this, most of the NATO equipment in Europe has been broken up for scrap and will take years to build up again. Our naval forces across Europe have been severely depleted due to various defense policies yet Russia still maintains a defence budget of $76.6 Billion every year.

Does anybody who has a care for their welfare and that of their children wish to be involved with a Federal Europe that is being led by blind fools that seem to not notice that they are creating a very real threat of war?

It is indeed ironic that the Nobel Institute decided to award the 'Peace' Prize to the European Union in 2012.in 'recognition' of the EU's self-proclamation that the EU has prevented War in Europe despite the fact that the Peace Prize was intended by Alfred Nobel that it was to go to an individual who had made the most contribution to the reduction of conflict and standing armises. Yet for over a year previously, the EU had been complicit in the regime change in Libya which, arguably, was the start of the current troubles in the Middle East.

22

8. Our Armed forces are being deliberately Neutered

The United Kingdom has been a global power for centuries. The first formation of a National 'Navy' for Britain is credited to King Alfred in the 10th Century AD when he built four longships to his own design which defeated the Danes off the Essex Coast. In the 11th Century, Edward the Confessor inaugurated the 'Cinque Ports', (originally) 5 ports along the South Eastern coast of Britain that would enable merchant ships to be quickly mobilised to form a Navy in the event of need. In 1190, Richard I introduced the Laws of Oleron into England; these were a code of maritime law originally enacted by his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine. The laws dealt with the rights and responsibilities of ships captains in relation to discipline, mutiny, pay, cargoes, sickness on board, pilotage and the like. Britain led the way and the whole World followed in using the British Maritime Law.

In 1340, the Battle of Sluys was the first naval battle fought in ships, although the fleet was made up of mainly merchant vessels commandeered for use by the King. The English fleet was being commanded by Edward III. This is deemed to be the first time a naval dispatch had been sent, when the King wrote to his son, the Prince of Wales, after the battle. Edward III became known as the King of the Seas. In 1391, Earl of Rutland was appointed as the first Lord High Admiral .

The Tudor period was the great age of discovery and the beginning of world expansion. In 1495 Henry VII built the first dry dock at Portsmouth. Henry VIII inherited seven warships from his father, which he increased to twenty-four in the early part of his reign. Henry VIII had ships built which had improved sea-worthiness and armaments, and in 1514, the 'Henry Grace a Dieu,' the largest warship in the world, was launched. It was the first ship with heavy guns, and this led to an end of archers firing on ships and hand to hand fighting, and so developed a new technique of sea warfare

By the beginning of the 20th Century, Britain had the most powerful Navy in the World including the 'Dreadnought' Battleship which outclassed any other Naval ship in the World. Britain, with HMS Hermes, were the first to use an aircraft carrier with a full length, unobstructed flight deck thereby giving Britain the first entry into modern Naval warfare.

23

But the ability for Britain to defend itself has now changed completely.

The last two Governments have consistently set about removing the United Kingdom's Defence capability in order to take away our Military independence by entering into joint defence agreements with the EU.

Under Labour, the first Strategic Defense and Security Review in 1998 was carried out soon after they came to power. Even though the Trident upgrade and the Typhoon Eurofighter programmes were excluded, Britain's Military capability was reduced to being able to carry out a single War action such as in 'Operation Granby' during the Gulf War together with a longer non-War role such as in Bosnia. Britain should also be able to carry out a second 'War' role simultaneously but neither role should last for more than 6 months.

After coming to power in 2010, Cameron conducted a second SDR which included the following:-

Harrier Force

Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm to merge their Sea Harrier force with the RAF's Harrier GR7s to form "Joint Force Harrier." This joint force was to operate from Royal Navy Invincible class aircraft carriers or air bases as required. With the retirement of the Sea Harrier from 2004 to 2006 the Joint Force Harrier will operate the Harrier GR7 and the upgraded GR9 until the introduction of the 'Lightning II' Joint Combat Aircraft.

Aircraft carriers

The current three Invincible class aircraft carriers are to be replaced by two new larger and more flexible aircraft carriers. These ships, the Queen Elizabeth Class (known at the time of the review as CVF) should enter service in 2012 and 2015.

Mobility

To increase strategic transport six Point class sealift ships were ordered, and four C-17 Globemasters were leased. The SDR also reaffirmed the need for a permanent strategic transport force and the Airbus A400M was selected in 2000. Since that time, with operational tempo increasing the seven year C-17 lease has been extended and it is reported that the RAF will purchase them outright at the end of the lease and operate them alongside the A400M and C130 fleet.

Royal Navy fleet

The surface fleet force was reduced from 35 to 32 frigates and destroyers with the withdrawal of Batch 2 Type 22 frigates, 25 to 22 minehunters and the SSN attack submarine force was reduced from 12 to 10. The potency of

24

the SSN force was increased by the decision to make all capable of firing

the Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM.) The SDR confirmed the purchase an initial batch of three Astute class submarines.

Nuclear deterrent

The maximum capacity of the Trident missile system will not be exploited. Approximately 200 warheads will be maintained, reduced from 300. Further the last batch of missile bodies will not be procured, with a total of 58 missiles. The patrols of the Vanguard class SSBNs will be limited to one vessel carrying a reduced warhead load of 48 (reduced from 96.) The SDR recommended acceleration of the retirement of the WE.177 tactical nuclear weapons.

Army

The British Army was reorganised, with the establishment of two deployable divisions in the UK and Germany; 1st (UK) Armoured Division and 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division. Another important move was the establishment of the spearhead 16th Air Assault Brigade which includes the Army's WAH-64 Apache attack helicopter force. This gave an overall deployable force structure of three armoured brigades, three mechanised brigades, and one airmobile brigade. A Joint Rapid Reaction Force was also established to provide the capability to deploy a Brigade-sized force at short notice. The Army's size in Germany was to be reduced but numbers increased by 3,300 overall. The eight armoured regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps were to be reduced to six larger ones, fielding 58 rather than 38 Challenger 2 tanks each.

Territorial Army

The TA was to be modernised and enhanced to make it more readily deployable and usable, primarily through greater integration with the regular Army. Total numbers were to be cut from 56,000 to 42,000.

Ground Based Air Defence

Ground-Based Air Defence would no longer be separated under the Army and the RAF, but consolidated under a single Joint Ground-Based Air Defence Command.

Support helicopters

All of the services battlefield support helicopters (around 400) were combined to form the Joint Helicopter Command.

25

RAF fast jet force

The number of frontline aircraft was reduced by 36 (two squadrons) but the MoD reaffirmed their commitment to the Eurofighter. The SDR identified the need for a replacement for the Tornado GR4 and initiated studies under the Future Offensive Air Systemproject. The purchase of Meteor, Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles was confirmed.

NBC defence

An integrated British Army and RAF force, comprising both regular and reservist elements would be formed to specialise in NBC defensive capabilities. This resulted in the formation of the Joint NBC Regiment in 1999.

In 2012, the Government announced the abandonment of the Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance Programme. To add insult to injury; instead of maintaining the existing fleet, they literally bulldozed 9 new Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft into the ground removing at a stroke our coastal defence capability in order to make a short term saving of 1.9 million over the next decade but at a long term cost of 3.4 Billion to the taxpayer. Immediately after this; Cameron and Sarkozy involved us in the disastrous conflict in Libya where we had to go cap in hand to the Americans to borrow AWACs capability to replace the now destroyed British Nimrods.

Deliberate delays to the building of the two new aircraft carriers and the Astute Class Nuclear submariens have already cost the taxpayer more than 5 Billion in long term costs.

The much needed replacement of our four ageing Vanguard Class Nuclear Submarines with the new Astute Class Submarines has been deliberately delayed merely to keep a skilled workforce for the new Trident programme has already cost 2 Billion and has left the Country at risk because not only are we running a sub-optimal force, the SDR reduced our patrol capability to just one boat at a time with only HALF of its original payload. A Nuclear Submarine Force with three quarters of its capability in port, together with a massive reduction in warheads leaves us entirely vulnerable to a 'first strike' attack.

The reduction of our Regular Army by more than one-fifth to just 80,000 has removed our capability to fight the two war situations together with a longer

term 'police' action allowed for in the 1998 SDR. The Government has insisted that the shortfall will be made up from Territorial Army Reserve Forces. In fact,

unlike the American National Guard system, British Reserve Forces just 26

do not get sufficient training to make a viable replacement to Regular Forces.

26

Inevitably, in any cases, Territorial Army recruitment falls far short of the needed replacement personnel numbering only in the 'hundreds' rather than the many thousands needed to return us to even 1998 capability.

It gets far worse.

After consulting with the American and UK Governments, Angela Merkel 'appointed' Jens Stoltenberg (a Norwegian) to replace Anders Fogh Rasmussen (a Dane) in October 2014 as Secretary General of NATO.

The latest proposal from NATO is that the European Union combines it's whole military capability into a central 'Pool' under the command of EU Generals. The reasoning behind this proposal, they say, is to reduce costs as the whole of the EU has failed to achieve their commitment that each Member State spends 2%of their GDP on defence. It is also proposed that Battle Tanks are supplied by the Americans across the whole European defence force. How very convenient, not to mention extremely profitable, for the Americans. And, how very UNPROFITABLE for European Defence manufacturers. Add to this, will be the sharing of top secret Satellite and communication systems with former (sic) Soviet Bloc countries such as Latvia and Estonia.

The upshot of this proposal will leave Britain completely defenseless and unable to fight any conflict on its own. This is especially relevant with the increased 'sabre rattling' from Argentina over the Falklands. Britain has 5 operational 'Typhoon' fighters stationed on the Falklands which are capable of deterring any attack from Argentinean forces with their present capability.

A Royal Navy type 45 Destroyer is also close by and is one of the World's most capable anti-aircraft and anti-missile vessels with a capability of addressing 1000 targets the size of a cricket ball and travelling at 3 times the speed of sound but even this vessel which was programmed to be put into service in 2007 did not arrive until 2010 because of delays and cost over runs. The original requirement was for 12 vessels which was reduced to 8 and now to just 6.

Despite this capability, Argentina has for sometime being trying to buy more advanced aircraft to replace it's obsolete fighter fleet. Initially, it tried to buy Swedish 'Gripen' fighters through Brazil but was blocked by the UK Government as 30% of the parts were supplied by the UK. It then tried variously to buy second hand 'Mirage' fighters from Spain and 'Kfir' fighters

27

from Israel. This has not occurred. However, further options have opened up with the possibility of Russian bartering food for military equipment but the most likely option is that China will supply FC-1/JF-17 which although short ranged, can be bought cheaply and in large numbers. The FC-1/JF-17 is a joint Chinese/Pakistani development based on the capable Russian Mig 21 aircraft. Argentina has already a trade deal with China for its Changhe Z-11 and other helicopters and may negotiate a deal to manufacture the fighters in Argentina. Even should Britain regain its defence superiority, such a move by the Argentineans would have to provoke a much deeper penetration into Argentina than the 200 mile 'exclusion zone' of the 1980's war to destroy that capability in the event of conflict.

In the mean time, the Government is still giving Overseas Aid to Argentina to the tune of 50 Million.

28

9. Surveillance - We can see you! Though the United Kingdom has for many years been the largest user of Public CCTV Cameras per capita in the World, this, by and large, has been seen as mainly benign in providing security and reducing crime on the streets. This all about to change. The EU is at this moment embarking on a series of surveillance systems that will give TOTAL surveillance of the European Landmass (together with the borders of neighbouring countries) and all of the EU's surrounding sea area. REMEMBER, THIS IS ALREADY CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND IS BEING USED.

Drones (UAVs) - The United States has seen a proliferation of Licensing Applications to the FAA from Law Enforcement and Public Bodies to allow them to operate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or 'Drones' that can be flown remotely from many thousands of miles away for the purposes of surveillance and aggression. These 'Drones' range in size from simple electrically powered units similar to those used by Radio Control enthusiasts to the Turboprop powered vehicles similar to the 'Predator' type Military Surveillance and attack Aircraft. At present, there have been over 90 Licences issued giving almost complete coverage of the Continental US except in a very few cases where Cities have banned them such as in West Virginia and Chicago.

Although drones can be used for neutral, or even for positive purposes, drones are also capable of highly advanced and, in some cases, almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. Even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cell phone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial recognition. And, as recent reporting from the United States shows, surveillance tools, like the US militarys development of gigapixel technology capable of tracking people and vehicles across an entire city, are improving rapidly. This technology is sufficiently advanced that it can identify an object just 6" (15cm) long from 40,000 feet.

The EU has been using small UAVs for a number of years but using the small 'model aircraft' type for small scale surveillance of farm land to

29

enforce the CAP Regulations. More recently, they have acquired the full sized items that can give total surveillance over Europe of both land and sea areas enabling them to observe anything at anytime, night or day

The Copernicus Satellite system - Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a heliocentric model of the universe which placed the Sun, rather than the Earth, at the centre of the Solar System. The Copernicus Satellite System, was formerly the European Commission's Earth Observation Programme (GMES).

The EU is in the process of setting up a system of ground surveillance satellites that will give permanent and continuous ability to observe the whole of the Earth but with specific observation of the European land mass and coastal waters. Rather than looking out into the cosmos as Copernicus did, the EU is confining it's attention downwards to provide TOTAL observation capability with the same optical clarity of the drones mentioned above.

The Copernicus system is being presented as a public service system but gives the European Authorities full access for whatever reason they wish. The system is comprised of a series of geostationary satellites, some of which have already been launched, but for 'public service' use, they all transmit to another fixed satellite using laser technology rather than radio that cannot be listened into leaving the operators with the choice of which information is disseminated for public reception but leaving other information that can only be collected by EU Authorities.

Satellite surveillance of private vehicles - From 2015, under EU Order, all cars manufactured will be required to incorporate an automatic transponder that can be accessed at any time by the Copernicus Satellite system. This transponder will be able to activate or deactivate equipment in your car including the braking and fuel systems enabling the Police or other Agency to stop your car immediately as they wish. The Satellite will see where your car is at any one time.

In common with the drone system mentioned above, memory storage is now so cheap that they can record and keep ALL information. This will enable them to back-track over many days to see exactly where you have been with your car and how fast you were going. You will no longer have any privacy at all.

30

enables the Authorities at ANY time to throw a switch and actually listen to your conversation. This is a considerable departure

Government access to phone conversations. - Vodaphone have recently announced that 29 countries today have direct access to their system which from a computer recording a phone call that used certain 'key' words.

Speeding in your car - The UK Government this week (June 2014) that they were considering quadrupling the maximum penalty for certain motoring offences including speeding. This will bring the maximum penalty to 10,000 for a single speeding offence and once the Copernicus system is fully in place, the EU can back-track you for days to see if you were speeding automatically without the need for Police speed traps. It is said that the fine would not normally be imposed to that level unless for very rich people. However, given the endemic corruption already in the EU, they have set the groundwork for the EU to use draconian methods for offsetting their wastefulness at the expense of the individual.

31

9. Will we ever get an honest referendum? As of June 2014, all three of the established Political Parties in Westminster have stated that they are opposed to having a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU before the next General Election in May 2015.

The Liberal Democrats state categorically that they are 'the Party of Europe' and that the issue is too important to go to the Country and decided upon by the Electorate. We are too 'stupid'.

The Labour Party insist that they will not support a referendum unless a new Treaty is proposed that affects sovereignty. This, however, is meaningless as under the Lisbon Treaty and Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) by the Council of Ministers under the Passerelle principle, there is no need for any further Treaty change before we can find ourselves in a declared Federation of Europe. There is already sufficient legislation from the EU in place that we are, in effect, already in a de facto state of Federalisation.

David Cameron, the Leader of the Conservative Party has, under pressure from a large percentage of his 'back benchers', stated that if the Conservative Party win the 2015 Election outright, he will hold an 'In or Out' referendum before the end of 2017. Cameron states that it is his intention to negotiate with the EU before the referendum in order to 'repatriate a number of the more important competences back to the UK and to present them to the Electorate for their consideration before the referendum. Though having been repeatedly told by senior members of the EU, among them, the Commission President and Angela Merkel that this unlikely to happen, Cameron still persists in telling the Electorate that he will begin negotiations after winning the Election. This begs the question: why has he not already started to do this when he announced the referendum more than a year ago if he had any intention of honouring this pledge?

The answer to this question is in Cameron's stated timing for the referendum; the end of 2017. A referendum in late 2017 following the usual Government procrastination means that a Statement of Intent by the Government to the EU to leave the Union may not be submitted before May of 2018. This statement of Intent will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which will require that the UK then enters into negotiation concerning our status with the EU over a period of two years from the date of Declaration. However, Article 50, Clause 3 states: "3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period".

32

The timing of the referendum proposed by David Cameron is likely to take the UK into a period of another General Election in May, 2020.

Given that the British Constitution does not allow for a previous Government to bind a new Government to any undertaking by the displaced Government; the phrase at the end of Clause 3 - "unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.", and given the reluctance of the existing parties to leave the EU, this last part could have very far reaching possibilities should a new Government decide to ignore the Declaration of Intent already submitted and keep the UK within the EU for an indefinite period.

In any case, during these two years of negotiation, the UK will be subject to all of the Rules and Regulations of the EU but WITHOUT representation on the European Council or the Council of Ministers with respect to the UK secession in accordance with Article 50, Clause 4: "4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.". The obvious conclusion to this Clause is that a seceding State will not be privy to the negotiations and discussion on the fate of the Country that will be affected by it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the EU will revoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty under QMV and thereby retain all members in perpetuity should a new Government in the UK decide to extend membership of the UK in the EU given the stated purpose of the EU is a Federal Europe.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) has stated that it supports a referendum on Europe but any influence upon this matter is entirely dependent upon gaining sufficient numbers of seats within the new Westminster Parliament in 2015 to hold the balance of power to be in a position to force an early referendum.

Even if this should occur, Nigel Farage, the Leader of UKIP insists that he favours the following of the full 'Article 50' route including the two years of negotiation under the premise that 'it is the polite thing to do'.

33

Clause 4 of Article 50 states:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

This means that any Country State that wishes to leave the EU and follows the route as described in Article 50, that seceding state shall have no right to be involved in the discussions concerning it and it's trade relationship with the EU.

In other words; we shall not be able to NEGOTIATE a trade agreement but shall have conditions IMPOSED upon us. This is very likely to be a condition that we shall still be tied to the EU in some way and likely still to be making a large contribution to their funds and would be unacceptable to the seceding State given their Electoral decision to leave..

Clause 3 of Article 50 says that the two year period from the date of declaration to actual secession may be extended by mutual agreement. Given the attitude of the Leaders of the existing, 3 main Parties, it would not be beyond the possibility that they could keep us within the EU in some form indefinitely.

If a decision to leave by referendum should occur, the UK will still be subject to much of the risk outlined above. The only safeguard to such threat in the event of a vote to leave the EU is for the British Government to immediately revoke the 'European Communities Act: 1972' in which the UK signed up for a 'Common Market'. The effect of repealing that Act will be that the UK is immediately withdrawn from the EU with full sovereignty restored and will be free to negotiate any Trade Deals from that point.

Indeed, Nigel Farage knows better than most how the EU has the ability and will to pile on the pressure to a country that does not comply with its wishes as in the case with Ireland, was twice told to go back and hold further referenda until the 'right' result was achieved but the that is why we must cut ties immediately with the EU at the first opportunity. Nigel Farage has stated on numerous occasions that should we leave the EU, we will have a trade deal immediately because Mr. Mercedes and Mr. Volkswagen would not allow their Government to do otherwise. Lord Digby Jones, the Business Secretary under Gordon Brown, at the UKIP Conference in Westminster last year said that he would prefer the UK to stay in the EU but, if it left immediately, there would be a trade deal within 24 hours.

34

It is inconceivable that EU Governments have not draw up contingency plans for them to continue to trade with their biggest market in the event of British secession from the EU.

My opinions on the Article 50 Clauses above are conjecture, yet the ambiguous wording leaves them open to my suspicions. The fact remains; of the UK finds itself in the position of being subject to Article 50, then it will be too late to do anything about it if my suspicions are correct. I believe it to be not worth taking the chance with the wording as it now stands because the Electorate can neither trust any politician in this matter and the EU Commission in particular.

35

10. Fraud, Incompetence and Corruption These words form Article32 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty (ESM) which came about as a result of the illegal breach of Article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty which forbade the EU from providing financial support to failing EU Member States.

They serve as a very good example of the EU Commission's attitude to financial transactions within the EU and it's adherence to EU Law. In other words; if they don't like it as it is written, they simply change it.

36

ARTICLE 32

Legal status, privileges and immunities

1. To enable the ESM to fulfill its purpose, the legal status and the privileges and immunities set out in this Article shall be accorded to the ESM in the territory of each ESM Member. The ESM shall endeavour to obtain recognition of its legal status and of its privileges and immunities in other territories in which it performs functions or holds assets.

2. The ESM shall have full legal personality; it shall have full legal capacity to:

(a) acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property; (b) contract; (c) be a party to legal proceedings; and (d) enter into a headquarter agreement and/or protocols as

necessary for ensuring that its legal status and its privileges and immunities are recognised and enforced.

3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments. 4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action. 5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.

Clause 1 sets out the scope of Article 32 in that it not only does it have full jurisdiction within the EU, but that it should endeavour to achieve the same status in every theatre in which it operates.

Clause 2 establishes the legal protocol of the ESM Apparatus. It shall have full right to obtain and dispose of property; can enter into legal contracts and ensure that it's rights and privileges are preserved.

Clause 3 gives the ESM Apparatus and all of its employees total immunity in Law for ANY wrongdoing such as fraud or other misappropriation. This means that there is no Court within the EU that can prosecute them for anything unless they should waive that right. It is hardly likely that such a waiver will be given for any of the senior apparatchiks caught with their hands in the till, though it may be given for some poor scapegoat lower down the food chain.

Clauses 4 and 5 give them total immunity from search of their various premises and/or documents by the Police or the Courts.

Not an isolated case Civil servants working for the European Union (Commission, Parliament, Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, Europol etc) are not like any other civil servant in the European Union, or like any citizen of the European Union. Why? Because they are not subject to the same judicial constraints as any of us or any of our national civil servants are.

'EU civil servants are immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office' (reference: Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965).

What does that mean? It means that even after they retire, they cannot be confronted by justice for anything they did while in office. Even politicians do not enjoy such an immunity. Our presidents, our ministers, our MPs, our EuroMPs, the European Commissioners all are only protected by legal immunity for the duration of their mandate.

But EU civil servants in Brussels or Luxembourg for instance are protected for life!

37

Why is it necessary to give this kind of immunity in Law unless it is expected that such immunity will be exploited by the very people who will control the way of life and finances within the EU?

EU Incompetence concerning fraud A 2011 report said that more than 4 billion of taxpayer cash is "disappearing" from the European Union budget every year because officials are failing to get a grip on fraud, and that is only the fraud that the EU admits to. The EU Select Committee whose oversight includes fraud admit that the actual figure could be up to twelve times as much.

British taxpayers are affected because they contribute just over one in ten pounds spent every year by the EU - making the fraud against the UK

Treasury almost 500 million at 2011 rates. Given much higher funding now, it is likely that the fraud is much greater. The EU recently bragged that they have reduced fraud by 21% last year but ONLY on that which they can detect. It is just the tip of the iceberg. European Union spent nearly 6billion in 'error' last year At a time of unprecedented European-wide austerity, the EU mis-spent almost 5 per cent of its budget in 2012 on projects that should never have received any of its money.

Last year (2013), the European Court of Auditors said the budget was riddled with fraud and error and that the situation was getting worse.

"The European Union wasted almost 6 billion last year - including 800 million from British taxpayers - on fraudulent, illegal or ineligible spending projects, official auditors have found".

'Every year we are told the Commission is serious about tackling the problem. Every year it gets still worse. It is shameful to the EU's integrity and unacceptable to its taxpayers.

38

According to the report, fraud affecting the EU Budget, which was detected by national authorities, decreased slightly in 2013 compared to 2012. On the expenditure side, 248 million in EU funds were affected by fraud. This compares to 315 million the previous year, a drop of about 21 per cent. On the Revenue side, suspected or confirmed fraud amounted to 61 million compared to 77.6 million the previous year, also marking a drop of 21 per cent.;

Auditors refuse to give EU accounts a clean bill of health for 19th year in a row as rate of unexplained spending rises 23%... with UK liable for 800m

If you found misappropriation and mis-spending on this scale in a commercial business - or in a properly-accountable public administration - there would be sackings all round. In Brussels, it's "Carry on Squandering.

2013 showed the 19th consecutive year that the EU Auditors have refused to 'sign off' the EU Accounts due to fraud and mismanagement. and it is likely that 2014 shall show the same result.

EU Overseas Aid 1 The EU Budget for Overseas Aid last was 47.2 billion last year (2013) and is likely to achieve considerably more over the next few years as several countries within the EU have signed up to give 0.7% of their respective GDPs. The UK's contribution to Aid amounted to 1.1 billion of which around 18% is paid directly to the EU.

The UK Governments have a lamentable record when it comes to overseeing the expenditure but the EU's attitude is considerably worse.

Only 46% of EU donations to reduce poverty reach lower income countries that most need it. Instead, the preference is to target former colonies and geographical proximity (i.e. emerging EU countries). Emerging EU countries received $10.49 per capita whereas Africa received only $3.94 per capita. Turkey, as a potential Member, received the highest award with Kosovo and Serbia were within the top ten recipients.

EU Aid, managed by the European Commission has administration costs of 5.4% of donations compared with the UK target of 2%. Some EU Aid Streams such as to Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries have administration costs as high as 8.6% above the ceiling that the UK imposes when giving grants to NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations).

Around 10% of the total EU budget is given needlessly to other multilateral donors such as UN and the World Bank. This results in several more tiers of admin costs.

The current drive of the EU is to donate 50% of its aid directly to the Government of the recipient country leaving the system wide open to corruption and financing despotic regimes.

EU aid is too often not even aligned with other EU policies. In 2008 for example, the Commission established a Migration Centre in Mali to provide support to migrants seeking temporary jobs in the EU. But, with only Spain

39

having a migration agreement with Mali, only 6 Malians were helped at a cost of 10 million.1

Some of the EU aid funding does not even leave Europe, or even Brussels. In 2009 alone, the EU granted a Brussels based communications agency nearly 500,000 to produce various promotional brochures and campaigns. This 1 EU data obtained from the Open Europe Think Tank report on EU Aid dated 2012

included 90,000 to co-ordinate an "I fight Poverty" music contest for young people in Europe to promote "development awareness".

What can we do about this waste and corruption? The short answer is nothing. With the UK either inside or outside of Europe, such corruption is endemic and designed into the system. It is written into the Laws and encouraged by the whole EU apparatus.

You have already learned that the European Civil Service is untouchable either now or when they leave European service.

As to the European Commission they too are unimpeachable. The European Parliament, if they have the unlikely collective will have the power to dismiss a Commission on a two-thirds majority of those voting.

Just once this almost occurred on the 19th March, 1999 when the Commission presided over by Jacques Santer was investigated for wide spread fraud and nepotism. The MEPs voted against dismissing the Commission but the Commission was allowed to resign en-masse together with all its privileges and retained their pensions in entirety. The British Commissioner at that time was one Neil Kinnock who currently languishes in the House of Lords busily blocking any legislation that might endanger British Membership of the EU whilst drawing on a lavish (currently) 81,000 p.a. EU Pension

40

11. Corpus Juris. The Government intent on taking the UK into the European system of 'Justice' is well aware that to do so will remove many of the Rights and Freedoms established for the People over many centuries.

The UK system of Law is designed to give protection to the accused on the premise that he or she is 'Innocent until proven guilty'. This is not the case under the preferred European system of Law - Corpus Juris (literally, 'The body of the Law') which, in effect, means that the Law is more important than the rights of the individual. Given the tens of thousands of Laws and edicts coming from the EU, the individual could not possibly hold him or herself safe from prosecution simply because it is impossible for an individual to be aware of all of the Law.

Though far from perfect, the system in the UK is that all proposed Law has to be debated in Parliament and voted on by elected Members of Parliament. In the EU, ALL law making is carried out by the European Commission. The Council of Ministers may discuss it but, ultimately, it is the Commission who have the final say. There is a pretense at 'Democracy' in that the only elected officials in the EU, the European Parliament, are allowed to 'scrutinise' the proposed Law but this is usually carried out by presenting many proposals for ratification, sometimes as many as 100, at a single sitting of 3 or 4 hours (often in redacted or obfuscated form) which are then decided by a block vote without any time to read or discuss the proposals.

Corpus Juris is not a system of 'Justice', it is a set of mandatory rules and regulations that are imposed by the State without regard to the well being of the 'Citizen' but entirely to the benefit of the ruling classes within the EU and to large Corporate concerns that can afford an army of Lawyers.

Up until the end of the 12th Century and the beginning of the 13th in this Country, power over all of the People was in the hands of the King and the Church. which gave them both absolute power. They often used that power to imprison or put to death anyone that were not in their favour. In the year 1215, the Knights, Peers and Senior Churchmen met at Runnymede and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) which limited the right to punishment only to those that broke the Law instead of being used as a weapon of repression. The Pope at that time was incensed that English Catholic Churchmen should be signatories to such a document because it removed the absolute right of the Church in England.

The 'Inquisition', with the full authority of the Catholic church set up a system

41

whereby a churchman would travel around a country and try various individuals at will for such crimes as 'heresy', witchcraft or sacrilege and maim and/or put the 'guilty' person to death. The 'Inquisitor' was the sole investigator, judge and jury and there was no appeal. Whereas the Inquisition terrorised most of Europe over many centuries, because of Magna Carta, England escaped it more or less completely although the early Church in England was not blameless as it conducted many investigations into witchcraft and other 'crimes' but at least held a trial of sorts though often the trial was worse than the punishment. From this poor start, however, English Jurisprudence evolved into the system of Law that we have today.

This has never been achieved on the vast majority of the European continent because at various times, each country has been under the power of a despot whether it be a Monarch or the Church who were not con