(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. 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.

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.

1`http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130308STO06280/html/Howmany-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-partiesand-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

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
Commission"),

referred

to

as

"the

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.

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
established by the Treaty of Nice in 2001.

policy

and

the

environment

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

1

http://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-theeuropean-union-and-comments/part-5-external-action-by-the-union/title-7-solidarity-clause/510article-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 England
waiting 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 seaworthiness 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 antiaircraft 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.
ARTICLE 32
Legal status, privileges and immunities
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.

1.

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.

2.

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

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
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.;
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

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 constrained by
something like Magna Carta and ruled with absolute power of life and death.
Consequently, the legal systems on the Continent, and for that matter, most of
the World, have been written for the benefit of those in power and not for
those that are ruled. That idea has not changed even today.
In 2007, a document was produced at a seminar in Spain which outlined the
proposed system of Law for the whole of the EU - Corpus Juris 1.
This form of Law, if the UK should be foolish enough to become part of a
Federal Europe, would remove so many of the safeguards that have been
fought for so dearly by the British People.
Torquil Dick-Erikson, an eminent British Legal researcher who has lived for
many years in Italy researching the Continental system of Law has given
evidence to many Government Committees2 on the far reaching consequences
of Britain joining the Corpus Juris legal system yet the politicians of each of
the established political Parties are intent upon us doing that very thing. The
following points are just some of the evidence given to the Government in
2007:
The Reform Treaty (Lisbon) will ensure that criminal justice is
eventually brought under the decision-making power of the central
authorities of the EU and JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) will lose its
present status an exclusively National prerogative.
1

Corpus Juris (Corpus Juris (ISBN 2-7178-3344-7))

2
Written
Answers
to
Lords
Select
Committee,
European
Union
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62wed06.htm)

42

 There are two broadly, and profoundly, different families of systems of

criminal justice in Europe todaythe inquisitorial system, prevalent
throughout the continent of Europe, and the adversarial system, which is
in use only in the "island jurisdictions" of the UK, Ireland, and Malta.
One problem we have is that little is known about continental systems
of criminal justice. It is an area that has hardly ever been studied. There
are no university chairs of comparative law that specialise in
comparative criminal procedure, anywhere in the British Isles.
The proceedings during the seminar in Spain and an examination of
the Corpus Juris proposal, as well as the demands put forward by
Commissioner Franco Frattini last year, show clearly that there is a firm
determination on the part of the EU's central bodies to set up a single
system of criminal justice for the whole of the EU, based on the
Inquisitorial model.
Article 26.1 of Corpus Juris provides that cases shall be heard by
professional judges, excluding "simple jurors and lay magistrates". This
is how cases are heard and tried all over the continent (where there are
"lay assessors" they retire to the jury-room with one or more professional
judges, so the influence of the "judge on the jury" can be very heavy
indeed and is exercised in secret). So there is an end to trial by
independent jury.
Article 20.3.(g) grants powersdenominated powers of investigationto
the European Public Prosecutor to order the incarceration of a suspect,
for a period of up to six months, renewable for three months at a time.
This "order" is countersigned by the so-called "judge of freedoms" on the
continental Napoleonic model. These two work together in tandem on
case after case, and are colleagues and members of the same professional
brotherhoodthe career judiciary, from which the defending lawyers
are excluded. The decisions on pre-trial detention are taken in
the privacy of the judge's office, and there is no obligation on the "judge
of freedoms" to examine any evidence that his colleague may, or
may not, have collected to show that there be a prima facie case to
answer. So there is an end to Habeas Corpus.

Article 27.2 provides quite simply that the Prosecutor may appeal
against a verdict of acquittal. So there goes our protection against double
jeopardy.

All these changes will irk the common sense of fair dealing and justice
to which our fellow-citizens have been accustomed for centuries. They
will
43

 appear oppressive and unjust. They will however not appear unusual or
strange to our new "fellow-citizens" on the continent, for they have
never known anything different. There is this deep cultural difference
between the two sides of the English Channel, and since they are in the
far greater majority, in a union between the two their system will
eventually come to be imposed on us, and our system will be effaced.
Having been told all of the above, the Government still seems intent to
embroil us all this despotic State.
Even before an official Federal State is declared, we are already subject to most
of these points and it is getting progressively worse.
There is another highly significant difference between our traditions
and theirs, and it is in the area of policing.
Ever since the police was first instituted by Sir Robert Peel, nearly 200
years ago, our police have always been:
(a) locally recruited and locally accountable;
(b) regularly unarmed;
(c) non-military in their nature and their organisation, since each single
constable is a self-propelling law enforcement officer, whose prime duty is
to apply the law; and
(d) the underlying ideal to which our policing policies aspire is "policing by
consent". We set high store on the ordinary members of the public willingly
assisting the police by stepping forward and volunteering information.
On the continent, in contrast, the police forces are:
(a) centrally controlled, by central government, and moved around the
country so they are, more often than not, not local people in the area where
they operate;
(b) always carrying lethal weapons at all times;
(c) military, stationed in barracks, equipped for battle against a hostile
populace. Their prime purpose is to maintain public order; and
(d) our notion of "policing by consent" is basically unknown. The police are
designed as an instrument whereby the central government imposes its will
on a population, parts of which are expected may be hostile. It is closer to
what we would see as an army, than a police force.
44

12. Article 222 of the Lisbon Treaty

and the European Gendarmerie
The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF)
In line with the Napoleonic tendency to uniformity and
centralisation, not only has Europol been set up, but also
the less-well-known European Gendarmerie Force
(EuroGendFor), which has been drilling in a base in
Vicenza, Italy, since around 2003. These are specialised riot
battalions. Even less well known is the fact that on 18
October, 2007, the five countries participating in the EGF
signed a Treaty in Velsen, Holland, under the auspices of
the Portuguese presidency, establishing the EGF itself on
an official footing. Under this treaty, they may be deployed in any third state
with the agreement of that state (art 6.3)and presumably this means just the
agreement of the government of the day of that state, which will not have had
to consult its Parliament far less its people on such a momentous step. Under
the Reform treaty, we will
see that with JHA passing
under the jurisdiction of
the ECJ, any supposed
opt-out for Britain will
not last, so that it will be
possible to deploy the
EGF by majority decision
at the centre, which will
over-rule any lack of
consent given by the state
concerned.
We
can
therefore expect to see
them at some stage on the
streets of British cities.
Any opt-out will be subject to an opt-in to be decided swiftly and easily by the
British Government of the day without recourse to Parliament far less to the
people. And once the immunity of an opt-out has been relinquished it may
never be recovered, under the well-known ratchet mechanism provided by the
doctrine of acquis communautaire (French term for the whole EU Law
system).
45

The announcement of this Treaty of Velsen by the Portuguese Presidency

spoke of the possibility of drawing recruits not only from Member States but
also from candidate states (Art 44), and mentioned with satisfaction that
Turkey had shown interest in providing recruits to this nascent force.
Let us all bear in mind that if the European Gendarmerie (EGF) is ever
allowed to deploy in Britain, these will be especially trained riot police, fully
armed with full military weaponry.
The Policemen will be from outside of the UK and will have no particular
liking for the British People. They have been trained to put down insurrection
or Civil Disobedience brutally and effectively. Remember also, that the
Charter for Fundamental Rights was amended in 2010 to give immunity to the
Authorities in the event of someone being killed (see Chapter 6) 'accidentally'
during such a
police action. This is not fantasy, it is already EU Law, and the EU do not
bother to make Laws unless they wish to use them.

Article 222 of the Lisbon Treaty

At the signing of the Lisbon Treaty on the 13th December, 2007, it was
agreed that a new Article 222 (EU Solidarity Clause)2 would be added but
that the wording of the new Article would be delayed and implemented
later. That wording was finally implemented on 26th June, 2014 without either
being published on an agenda, nor with a Press Release. In other words, just
like the amendments providing for the return of Capital Punishment, they did
not want you to know about it.
There was already provision in the treaty for European Union (TEU) for
mutual cooperation in defense (Article 42/7 of the TEU) but this new
article goes much further in allowing for 'all available resources'' from
Member States in implementing this Clause including the use of
supranational police and military to:
prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any
terrorist attack;
assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political
authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack;
assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political
authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster
46

This wording, typically, is so vague that it can be interpreted in as many ways

as the EU wishes as has often been shewn by the cavalier fashion that the EU
has misused Treaties in the past. There is no definition of the word 'terrorist'
and could easily be applied by them to include any form of internal
insurrection or demonstration as has already happened in Greece and Spain
among other countries in the EU. The fact that many of the demonstrators
were 'armed' with sticks, throwing crowd control barriers and even petrol
bombs would provide sufficient 'evidence' of 'armed terrorism'. Even the riots
in the UK last year, though largely non-violent (to the person) could easily be
sufficient provocation to use the legislation as the Police were powerless to
step in due to lack of manpower. All that is required to initiate this action is a
request
from
a
National
Government for help 'as a last
resort'. Once this request has
been received and accepted by
the EU, it is then taken out of the
hands
of
the
National
Government and controlled by
the Commissioners, The 'High
Representative' and the Council
of Ministers. Once the foreign
paramilitary police are here,
there is no way of getting rid of
them unless the EU Commissioners remove them because they answer only to
the Commission itself.
Having already seen the replacement of the heads of Government in Italy and
Greece arbitrarily by the EU, it could safely be argued that even the 'request'
itself could be initiated directly by the EU.
The wording of the Clause includes the use of 'all available resources'
including the use of Military personnel. The Elite German Counter- terrorism
force, GSG 9 has already been in training with other EU countries for just such
eventuality.
Given the much increased level of 'Euroscepticism' as exemplified in the May
2014 European Parliament Elections where even Germany voted 7.3% of the
poll to a Eurosceptic Party and given the imminent full implementation of
QMV

47

in November 2014 where it is likely that much new legislation that is vital to
individual member countries is forced through on a majority vote, it is entirely
possible that there will be many protests by the population. It is indeed
ominous that this new Article 222 should be published at this time. Should
the 'EuroGendarmerie' be deployed in the UK, it will comprise Police and
Military from outside of the UK. Many of whom will have no liking or
sympathy for the British People and being controlled completely outside of
British control, will in all likelihood, be very forceful in their methods and will
likely enjoy total immunity from prosecution for such acts because of the
immunities granted under Article 2 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights by
the EU that allows for lethal force 'where absolutely necessary'.
The fact remains that Gordon Brown and David Milliband signed the Lisbon
Treaty without knowing the content of the future Article 222 wording. In fact
they bought a 'pig in a poke' with, ostensibly, no idea of the consequences to
the citizens of such an action and in any case, were so enamoured of the EU
institution that they did not care what those consequences might be for the
British People as it has historically been the case that the lower income
families will bear the brunt of most EU legislation..
The EU is deliberately reducing the wages and living standards within the
richer countries of the EU by mass immigration from poorer, previously Soviet
Bloc Countries.
This is the sole reason why the EU is adamant that the 'Free Movement of
Labour' above all other directives, is non-negotiable (see next chapter).
It is also no accident that back in 2004 amendments were made to the Charter
for Fundamental Rights surreptitiously allowing not only for EU Member
States to reinstate the death penalty (though they continue to berate other
countries around the World for retaining it) but giving legal immunity to the
'Authorities' to use up to lethal force against the Population for the 'crimes' of
riot or insurrection and for resisting/escaping from arrest.
It is inevitable that there will be mass unrest throughout the richer Nations of
the EU as their historical living standards are deliberately eroded as has
already been shown in Greece and Spain. Greece was deliberately allowed to
join the Euro and live far beyond their means even though it was known that
they could not afford to expand their living standards merely by borrowing
without the economy to sustain it. It was inevitable that there would come a
time when Greece would have to pay the piper but it was precipitated by the
Global recession before the EU was ready.

48

In Britain, there is already severe discontent at what is relatively minor

austerity caused largely by inordinate amounts of immigration that are
lowering wages and flooding the infrastructure. So much so, that the British
People are no longer content to be their normally sanguine selves and have
forced the debate nationally despite the attempts of the ruling masses to
impose political correctness upon the People.
If Britain stays within the EU, not only will the situation of mass immigration
get far worse, it must eventually come to a point where there are mass protests
at the Government.
Consider that just the two items of Legislation that include the legal right to
use lethal force and the formation of several Battalions of paramilitary Police
that will not be used in their home State but in neighbouring Countries and
with the sole purpose of quelling insurrection are the very tools necessary for
a totalitarian state.
Farfetched? Does anyone truly believe that? The EU does not enact any Law
unless it intends to use them. The fact that both Laws were enacted
surreptitiously without fanfare should be enough to ring alarm bells.
This Country rejected Oswald Mosely and his fascist 'Black shirts' because the
people saw that such behavior was an anathema to the British way of life. We
no longer wish to impose our will on others as we did during the days of the
Empire nor do we wish for others in a Soviet style SuperState to impose their
will upon us.
We certainly do not want Battalions of heavily body armoured shock troops
controlling our streets and totally outside of the control of our own
Government.
Unfortunately, the above is now LAW and the present Government has
already given tacit approval to it in Parliament in stating that it is feasible that
such events could occur in Britain if the Government considered 'that it was
warranted'. The only way to be free of such a threat is to leave the EU.

49

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

The EU has ambitions. It wishes to compete with the expanding Markets in
China and India but cannot because the EU starts from one big disadvantage.
Western Europe as a whole is, comparatively, very rich and has been for
many centuries. The population has been historically well paid and will not
tolerate a reduction in wages and living standards that will bring it down to
closer levels as the majority of workers in China and India. On the other
hand, workers from Eastern Europe, predominantly from the old Soviet Bloc,
have not been used to high wages and living standards and will work hard for
much less money.
The Prime reason for the 'Free Movement of People' directive is to reduce the
economies of the richer European States and to elevate the economies of the
poorer States to a point where all economies comply to a single common
denominator. Once this state has been achieved, then the 480 million people
of the European Union will become a cheap and compliant workforce simply
because there will be no competition within the EU States.
By forcing a glut of unskilled labour onto the richer countries it forces down
wages and increases the welfare and infrastructure costs in the richer countries
to a point where it becomes unsustainable and their standard of living too,
becomes lower.
If anyone should doubt this, consider the recent demand by the EU for an
additional 1.7Bn contribution from the UK whilst Germany and France get a
rebate. The UK alone has a positive economic growth whilst all of the other
EU countries are either stagnating or in a state of recession. Even the
'powerhouse' Germany has admitted to being in technical recession. The fact
is that the United Kingdom is being penalised for having a growing economy
whilst the remainder of EU States are failing in their economies. The EU
simply cannot allow such disparity between Member States.
The Governments have expressed surprise yet they have been expecting this
demand as it is written into the 'rules' of the Lisbon and other Treaties.
Despite protestations of surprise from David Cameron, the Treasury have
always known about the system and have expected a demand for some time.
It is inconceivable that nobody told the Prime Minister about it especially as
the Chancellor and Prime Minister are such good friends.
Just like the people of Germany have paid vast sums of money to the
European Central Bank to support the moribund 'Euro', the United Kingdom
is expected to subsidise the poorer and more wasteful governments in the
Union. Since 2005, the annual payment by Britain into the EU budget has
quadrupled and
50

that does not include the additional sums that we have been asked to pay to
cover various 'black holes' in the EU economy caused by overspending,
wastage and downright fraud.
If anyone joined a club, for example a Gym, after paying their annual
subscription, would they be happy to receive a demand for more money
during the year because the Gym Company wished to buy additional
equipment or that they had not received as much profit as they had expected?
Of course they would not be happy. Why then should Britain be happy to be
in the European Union when it uses exactly the same methods and we can do
nothing about it?
But that is exactly the price that our successive Governments have told us that
we need to pay in order to join the prosperity of the European Union. Under
EU rules, we now have to include earnings for Prostitution and illegal drug
selling into our GDP even though, unlike some European Countries where
they are legal, the UK gets almost no tax revenue from either yet they are
included in the sums that the EU calculates in order to assess the extra money
that we should pay to the moribund EU.
But do we need to be in the EU to enjoy such 'prosperity'. The answer, quite
simply, is no.
Britain has always bought far more from Europe than they buy from us.
Historically about 50% more. That disparity has become far greater in recent
years because of the austerity measures within Europe have simply meant that
they do not have the money to buy our goods yet we continue to buy from
them at the same rate as we have always done.
Britain is not allowed to negotiate trade deals on our own behalf. That is done
for us by an EU Commissioner with the responsibility for the whole of Europe.
Britain has it's own seat at the World Trade Organisation but we are simply
asked to leave the room when trade affecting Britain is discussed. The current
discussion with the United States on the TTIP is being generated by the
Germans who rely heavily on exports. 52% of Germany's GDP is based on
exports. What may be good for Germany is not necessarily what is good for
the rest of the EU. It is ridiculous to be in a situation whereby Britain cannot
take advantage of a specific trade deal without the approval of an EU
Commissioner.
Our trade with the rest of the World is now far greater than it is with Europe.
The GDP of the British Commonwealth now exceeds that of the EU. We
simply do not need to be in the EU to flourish. Especially as it is inconceivable
that we will not continue to trade with Europe if we left the Union. Even if we
51

were tobelieve the deliberate lies propagated by our politicians that 3 million
jobs would be at risk, if the EU were to make it difficult for us to trade with
them, (which would in any case be illegal under WTO rules) then by the same
token, FIVE million jobs would be at risk in Europe as we are their largest
customer.
No, the likely scenario, in fact the ONLY scenario, is that we would be exactly
the same as the other 150 or so countries that trade happily with the European
Union but without being in a political union with them. We would regain our
own seat at the World Trade Organization and negotiate our own trade deals
to the benefit of the UK.
Europe is the only Continent in the World that is losing their share of World
Trade.
Even though it is extremely unlikely that we should lose any of our present
trade with Europe, why should we even want to shackle ourselves exclusively
to trading with the EU?

52

14. No economic reason to stay in the EU.

Despite what the Government and other politicians are telling you, there is no
pressing economic reason to stay in the EU. Politicians would tell you
otherwise because they have their own political and personal agenda for
doing so.
In 1973 when Britain joined what was then termed as the 'Common Market',
Europe accounted for the enormous figure of 38% of World GDP. Today, that
figure is 24% and it is estimated that in 2020, European GDP will account for
only 15%. This decline is partly explained by the fact that the EU is the most
overly regulated Trading Bloc in the World and it will only get worse. Unlike
the UK, if something is not specifically against the rules, then it is permissible.
The ethos in the EU is that we are only allowed to do something if it is
expressly allowed in Law. That is why the EU accounts for over 111,000
different rules and regulations and this number is increasing all of the time.

Data from IMF (Direction of Trade Statistics database)

In their usual tactic of trying to scare the Population of the UK, politicians try
to tell us trade with the EU is of paramount importance and that we risk losing
it
53

should we leave the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth. Quite apart
from the fact that we are the EU's biggest trading partner, EU exports between
other EU countries are in serious decline. In the preceding graph, the last 4
years from 2012 to 2014 show a dramatic decline for Intra-EU exports between
European countries. There is very little difference in the trend between Euro
and non-Eurozone countries
The following figures from 2012 for our exports to Europe according to the
ONS was a mere 46.3%. That figure also includes the distortion of the
Antwerp-Rotterdam effect in which all UK exports to outside of the EU which
are transshipped through the container hub in those ports are shown as
exports to the EU.
In the last 3 months of data available at the time, exports to the EU fell by a
massive 7.3% whilst exports to the rest of the World rose by 12.8%. With all of
the European Countries except the UK that are now in recession, there is
absolutely no reason to believe that this decline in Europe has improved and is
far more likely to have worsened.

Data from www.worldeconomics.com

54

The graph clearly shows that trade in the Commonwealth is easily

outstripping the trade enjoyed by the EU and this trend will be even further
pronounced as the EU trade continues to decline as the Commonwealth and
the rest of the World (RWT) trade continues to grow for Britain.
The Swiss declined to join the EU, instead negotiating a series of individual
trade agreements decided by referenda of the Swiss People covering
everything from fish farming to the permitted size of lorries. As a result, they
are fully covered by the four freedoms of the single market free movement,
that is, of goods, services, people and capital but are outside the CAP and
CFP, free to determine their own human rights issues, and spared the budget
contributions which EU members are required to make to Brussels.
The Common External Tariff, which the UK must apply to its trade with nonEU states, now averages between five and nine per cent a higher barrier than
we had in the 1920s. We have, in other words, bought trade with a dwindling
European market at the expense of trade with a growing global market. Just
think of how much more competitive our trade would be with the rest of the
World if we were not forced to introduce these barriers to trade. Do not even
contemplate that the EU would impose such barriers of the UK should we
leave the EU because of the massive trade deficit we have with the EU. Can
you imagine the large German or French vehicle manufacturers allowing the
Commission to impose such a tariff on us making their product
uncompetitive?
The UK has traditionally been a 'Maritime' Nation. Our whole heritage has
been one of trading across the World but are prevented in a large part by
membership of the EU that will not allow us to trade freely with the rest of the
World but, instead, must wait for an EU Commissioner to negotiate on our
behalf and often taking many years to do so. If this Country is to prosper
again, we must do so without the yoke of the EU around our necks.

55

15. Finally....
As stated in the opening page of this series, it was not my intention to provide
a definitive description of what is likely to happen to democracy if the UK
should ever be drawn into a Federalised Europe. I am not a Lawyer but I am
capable of gleaning all of the information in the preceding articles from the
internet as are all of you if you have a mind to do so. Also previously stated, I
have made various comments which are my own, but in every case, it is based
on factual information. Wherever I could, I have provided references to
official documents that can be checked by those that wish to do so.
In the writing of this series, I have frightened myself because of the
implications of what I have found out in a very short time. It is in no way
comprehensive but the little I have come to know as a layman makes me
fearful that the United Kingdom is sleepwalking into a state that will remove
1000 years of freedom that has been the birthright of every British Person. It is
not something that should be allowed to happen because of complacency by
the British People or by the machinations of self obsessed politicians that have
lied extensively to the public merely to suit their own ambitions.
My primary fear is for myself and for those of my children and their children
in living under a totalitarian regime as the EU is closely following the old
USSR Communist model in the way that the Commission is positioning itself
to gain absolute power. However, I also have the greatest regard for the
sovereignty of my Country. It does not need to be part of a declining EU
economy.
When Britain joined the European Union in 1973, The EU (as it now is) made
up 38% of global GDP, according to the US government. Over the next 30
years, however, that figure declined to 19.2%, according to an October
(2013) report from IMF. This means that the EUs share of world GDP has
practically halved since the UK joined. And, by 2020, it is projected to sink to
just 15%. It is only the arrogance of the EU Commissioners that makes them
not realise the declining significance of the EU on the World stage. I don't
want to be part of that decline.
Politicians have continuously told us that the prosperity of the United
Kingdom depends on our continuing membership of the EU. It does not.
Politicians are wont to tell us that, variously, between 3 and 4.5 million jobs
are dependent on the EU. This is a bald-faced lie. The origin of the claim
is the deliberate alteration of a statement made by Professor Ian Begg of the
London School of
56

Economics some 13 years ago that stated that up to three million jobs in the
UK are connected with the EU. This claim frequently made by Nick Clegg
is at considerable odds to an answer made by Vince Cable, the Business
Secretary and a member of Clegg's own Party to an EU Consultation Paper in
April 2011:
"The single market has also contributed to increased growth of at least 1.85%
and the creation of 2.75 million new jobs across the EU since 1992" 1. Cable's
statement to the EU completely contradicts Clegg's statement (that to this
day, he continues to make) when Cable maintains that only 2.75 Million jobs
have been generated by the EU across the whole Union. Who do you think is
most likely to be lying? Clegg to us, or Cable to the EU Commission?
Professor Begg has recently stated that 'if the UK left the EU tomorrow,
it would reduce the British GDP by less than one percent until the transition
was complete'. Others have said that the GDP may well go up as foreign
investors are nervous of the state of the Euro and a Britain not in the EU but
trading with them will be seen as a safe haven for their money.
In the automotive industry alone, vast amounts of foreign investment is still
coming into Britain despite the wish of the majority of the people to leave the
EU.
2014 Investment in UK Automotive Industry (as at November 2014)
20 October - Ford invested a further 190 million in production of its new low
carbon engine range at Dagenham. This brings the project total to 490 million.
20 October - Jaguar Land Rover has invested 3.5 billion in the UK supply
5chain to support development and production of the Land Rover Discovery
Sport.
24 July - 150 new jobs created at Covpress Holdings in Coventry after a 15
million investment which will see an expansion of their factory and
investment in state-of-the-art robotic and laser equipment.
7 July - Vauxhall is to create 550 new jobs in the UK about 300 new positions
at Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, ahead of production of the new Astra and then
adding a second shift at the Vivaro facility in Luton creating 250 jobs.
19 June Jaguar Land Rover will create 250 new jobs as part of 200 million
investment in its Halewood plant ahead of production of the new Land Rover
Discovery range.
Nissan/Renault - Announced a 3.5Bn investment in its Sunderland Plant in
Nov 2012. Despite its CEO saying that they may have to consider pulling
out to elsewhere, they have just increased spending (June 2014) for its new
57

Qashqai model which accounts for 50% of its total 85% export market.
Nissan, due to uncertainty in the Eurozone, is busily expanding their market
to outside of the EU.
Aston Martin - A new consortium of British, American and Kuwaiti investors
have announced a further 20 Million on new models on 28th May 2014
27 May - Henrob, an automotive parts supplier in Flintshire, will create 100
new jobs and open an additional factory in Deeside as part of 5.2 million
funding.
Bentley - Announced a further 140 jobs at Crewe on 19 May 2014.
On 9 April 2014, European Springs and Pressings announced a 30% increase
of personnel by the end of 2014
Brose UK on 4 April 2014is to create 300 jobs in Coventry to produce more
parts for the Nissan Qashquai
Jaguar Land Rover announced a new 45 Million expansion to its servo
operations at Halewood on 20 March 2014
Bus and Coach Manufacturer Alexander Dennis has signed a 100 Million
contract to supply buses to National Express on 20 March 2014
Announced 19 Mar 2014 - Bentley's Crewe HQ are set to become the centre of
excellence for all VW Group W12 engines which will create 100 new jobs and
see 9000 engines produced per year.
Stadco announced on 3 March 2014 that a new 30 Million investment at its
Shrewsbury and Telford plants creating 200 new jobs.
Entek International on 3 March 2014 announced a 10 Million investment for
its new generation of automotive battery separators.
Coventry based RDM Group, a supplier to Jaguar Land Rover, Aston
Martin and Bentley to invest 400,000 in acquiring a new 20,000 sq ft plant
with 25 jobs created.
28 January - Nissan has announced that it will assemble its new NV200derived Taxi for London in partnership with ADV Manufacturing in
Coventry, a joint investment of 6 million.
16 January - Thermal and acoustic insulation manufacturer, Automotive
Insulations, has invested in a new 65,000 sq. ft. premises in Warwickshire,
which will employ around 200 people.

58

9 January Rolls-Royce Motor Cars will create 100 further jobs at its
Goodwood manufacturing plant. This is in addition to the 100 positions
announced in July 2013.
In the first six months of this year alone, in just one industry and the
announcements
that
appear
on
just
one
website
(http://www.smmt.co.uk/investment/) hardly show that investors are
running away from investment in the UK despite the prospect of the UK
leaving the EU. Add to this that many of the announcements made are
from European manufacturers and it would seem that the nonsense being
handed to the population by biased politicians and the media is just
scaremongering by people with a vested personal interest in the EU.
I am not so arrogant to believe that all of you will agree with what I
have written here, even if you take the trouble to follow the links and
references that I have given you. All I ask is that you give the hypothesis a fair
hearing; follow the references and make a sound judgment without too
much personal prejudice. I sincerely hope that you, too, will be as concerned
as I am.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322
75/11-760-uk-response-single-market-act.pdf, Page 7, paragraph 2

59

If you should come to the same conclusion as I have, then you must, if
you value your liberty, not let politicians (and that includes ANY politician)
have the benefit of your trust until we are free from the insidious movement
towards a permanent and irrevocable loss of our freedom. It is too
precious a commodity to allow charlatans and traitors to relieve you of it.

Peter Brown
November 2014
theunituk.com.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
60