Skip to main content

Fraud, Deception and Treason - Part 2

by | Thursday, 30th October 2008
In the second part of this article, we will examine in detail some of the activities of our own politicians and also those of politicians of the European Parliament. In a slight change of style I will present much of this evidence by providing links to online video materials. Firstly, you are invited to examine the attitudes of some of our own Government Ministers towards the British electorate and, secondly, I will provide you with an opportunity to examine the video presentation of Danish MEP, Jens Peter Bonde. This provides an explanation for some of the devious tactics employed against the European people by those seeking to impose direct EU rule without first seeking informed public consent

In the first video we will see the reaction of British Cabinet Minsters, David and Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn when pressed on the question of their continuing refusal to allow a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in clear breach of their manifesto promise to do so.

In the second video I present evidence of a lack of democratic process demonstrated in the European Parliament on 12th December 2007.

In this third piece of video evidence your will hear the views of the Danish MEP, Jens Peter Bonde, addressing an Irish audience on political sleight of hand.

Let us now switch our attention to a debate within the House of Lords during 2005. I ask: Does it call into question the legitimacy of our elected MPs' decision to ratify the European Treaty?

Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government, "Why they have been unable to inform members of the public who have enquired the reason for the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal), "My Lords, neither the records of the relevant debates in Hansard during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, nor the Bill papers held in the Home Office explain fully why the 1795 Act was repealed in its entirety. It is, however, evident from the Hansard records that the repeal was considered to be a necessary consequence of the decision to repeal the death penalty for treason. The substantive offences that were contained in the 1795 Act are covered by other parts of the criminal law including the Treason Act 1351 relating to conspiracy and incitement."

Lord Stoddard of Swindon, "My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the European Union Commissioners affirm an Oath of Allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand in itself would be treasonable."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, "My Lords, I hesitate as always to give any disappointment to the noble Lord, but I have to tell him that the EU Constitution is, unfortunately, not a treasonable document." Link to Hansard source

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is not the EU constitutional document itself which is treasonable, but the action of executing that document in the absence of a positive referendum vote. Furthermore, would not the action of repealing the Treason Statutes itself be an act of treason if such act is to protect Crown Ministers from being brought to justice?

This is the constitutional conundrum which now confronts the British Parliament.

Why, may I ask, have the opposition parties chosen to remain silent for so long?

Help the UK Column by becoming a member: