The man depicted above left is the disciple, Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Christ. Racked with guilt after receiving his thirty pieces of silver, Judas hanged himself. Since then, the word “Judas” has become a byword for betrayal along with the phrase, “thirty pieces of silver” being used to describe any material reward for betrayal.
Gordon Brown, above right, may not have betrayed his God, but he has most certainly betrayed his Sovereign, his office and his country. Of that there can be no doubt now that the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by all twenty seven member (to 30th November, 2009) suzerain (from 1st December, 2009) states of the European Union. Clearly, Gordon Brown’s reward should be thirty 1 Euro coins – silver plated of course.
In New Delhi on Friday 15th August, 1947, just before the Midnight hour marking the end of two centuries of British rule over India, the Indian statesman, Jawaharlal Nehru famously said: “While the world sleeps India will awake to life and freedom.” At the Midnight hour on Monday 30th November, 2009 this historic speech of India’s first Prime Minister can be paraphrased to: “While the world sleeps the United Kingdom will awake to vassalage, not freedom.”
An exaggeration ? We think not.
Many will argue however that Lisbon is but an incremental change, not a radical shift in power from London to Brussels. Those who think this misunderstand the nature and extent of the effects of Lisbon within the context of the United Kingdom’s constitution. On a superficial level, these doubters may appear to have a case. It is the case that the Lisbon Treaty refers to the text of previous treaties. It is the case that the former attempt to create the sovereign state that will be (from 1st December, 2009) the European Union, the European Constitution contained much of the same text as the treaties it was intended to replace. However this view fails to take into account two fundamental aspects of the situation:
1. Ever since its formation in 1957, the European Community/Union has progressively expanded its powers and competences. The “Common Market” that the arch traitor Heath took the country into developed into the European Union of today. Had the British people had been able to foresee the extent of the powers and competences that were to be handed over to Brussels, Heath would never have gotten away with it. Of course, this was the plan all along. See Monnet’s quote below:
2. The treason that the Europhiles have committed since 1972 has moved from being de facto to de jure. This, within the context of United Kingdom politics, is the most fundamental aspect of the Lisbon Treaty. And Gordon Brown – a lawyer knows it. This of course explains Brown’s dithering.
To quote from Ian Dale’s blog (http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/10/gordon-browns-top-ten-dithers.html): In late 2007, Gordon Brown couldn’t decide whether to personally sign the Lisbon Treaty or not. After days of dithering, he finally opted to put his signature on the document, but not to attend the official signing ceremony on 13 December 2007. However, a question still remained over whether he would sign the renamed EU Constitution in public: ‘At first Downing Street suggested that he would miss the entire event.
When his attendance was confirmed at the start of the week, it was suggested he would sign the treaty in private. It was only on Tuesday that his officials finally announced he would sign in public’ (The Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2007).
We would draw Ian’s and you the reader’s attention to an earlier event in the history of our nation which will help shed further light on Brown’s hesitancy. Following the trial of King Charles I, Oliver Cromwell had determined that the King should suffer death by beheading. Cromwell subsequently requested the signatures of the seventy five commissioners who were the jury and the judges at the trial to sign the death warrant for the King. At this point many balked and invented reasons/excuses why they could not sign. Of the 75, 59 eventually signed, but only after heavy “arm twisting” by Cromwell.
As a lawyer, Brown knows full well that the European Communities Act of 1972 and every subsequent treaty, would appear to violate the perpetual treaty that is the 1688/89 Declaration/Bill of Rights which is the basis on which every monarch since King William III and Queen Mary have governed in this land. The Declaration/Bill of Rights stipulates that laws enacted by the Sovereign MUST receive the consent of Parliament. EU Directives DO NOT.
As a lawyer, Brown knows full well that the European Communities Act of 1972 and every subsequent treaty would appear to cause the Queen to violate her own Coronation Oath (Coronation Oath Act, 1953) to “….govern [us] according to our laws and customs….”
As a lawyer, Brown knows full well that the European Communities Act of 1972 and every subsequent treaty would appear to cause HIM to commit the crime of PERJURY, in causing HIM to breach his Privy Council Oath, NOT to “….allow any foreign prince, potentate or power precedence in this land….”
Crucially however, Brown as a lawyer knows of a defence to the charges of HIGH TREASON and PERJURY. It is that the European Union is an UNICORPORATED PARTNERSHIP of nations. That the sovereign powers it uses, ARE NOT ITS OWN, but merely LENT to it by the member states [of the unincorporated partnership].
The Lisbon Treaty fundamentally changes this however. Giving the European Union its own LEGAL PERSONALITY means that the Sovereign Power the European Union uses is ITS OWN and NOT those of the member states (who will from 1st December, 2009) rank not as member states of an unincorporated partnership of nations but as suzerain states of a new Imperial Power.
A good analogy is this: a criminal is caught committing what an arresting police officer believes to be an offence. The criminal is taken to the police station, is interviewed under caution and is charged with the offence. The criminal hires a competent lawyer who at the trial presents to the judge a legal argument that shows that although the facts of the case are not in dispute – namely that the lawyer’s client did indeed commit the acts described by the prosecution – in actual statute law no offence has been committed. The trial judge agrees with the defence lawyer and directs the jury to acquit the criminal.
This relates to Brown (and all other British Europhile politicians) thus: when the European Union was an unincorporated partnership of nations it was possible for Brown to argue that no offences had been committed. However, from Tuesday 1st December, 2009, this will no longer be the case and Brown (and all other British Europhile politicians) will no longer be able to deploy this defence.
Of course, since the entire British establishment is in league with this monstrous criminal conspiracy, no prosecutor or judge will entertain any action brought against any Europhile – they are all guilty. However, this does not mean that British Europhiles are safe. Foreign governments and authorities – particularly in the United States of America – are becoming increasingly determined to extend their legal jurisdiction into foreign countries. The chaotic legal state that membership of the European Union has bestowed upon the United Kingdom effectively opens up potential legal windows which foreign powers may be able to use to require such as Gordon Brown to be held answerable for possible future actions.
There is one other person who is affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Namely Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second herself. This is because when on the afternoon of Tuesday 3rd November, 2009, he gave effect to the Lisbon Treaty, Mr. Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic effectively handed Elizabeth of Windsor her redundancy notice – a Notice to Quit.
This is for the same reason why Brown and all other members of the Queen’s government are (from 1st December, 2009) guilty of High Treason and Perjury. From that date, there can be NO DEFENCE to the charge that the perpetual treaty which is the 1688/89 Bill of Rights, the Coronation Oath Act of 1953 and the Privy Council Oaths taken by all participating councillors will have been wholly violated. This means that Elizabeth of Windsor will be the first British Monarch since King James II to have VACATED THE THRONE.
This has two consequences for this lady:
1. Were it not for the fact that the Queen is independently head of state of fifteen other Commonwealth nations – all of which are set to remain independent – her proper title and style of address should (from 1st December, 2009) be: Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich.
2. Potential litigants in particular in the United States of America, may take cognisance of her new status in relation to possible actions against her.