Kate Re your email to me today. I re read what you circulated previously.Using
the same logic as with investments which is if you don't fully understand it
don't do it, I would say this comes very close to that assessment. I do
understand it but I think the makers of these laws purposely made them obscure
so that it leaves it open to many interpretations which brings in another
logical argument. The strongest will survive.Generally our English law makes
sense to the English mind. The exceptions are forced on us by the EU who in
turn are controlled by the UN.We are being offered a window of opportunity to
get our country back.I believe many should challenge UKIP to discuss the
illegal EU treaties. If they were forced to uphold the rule of law then all the
arguments of what the treaties allow or do not allow would disappear. Just put
yourself in the position of the average voter who is confronted with the fact
that all EU treaties are illegal. Most would be angry that they had been duped.
Please write to any UKIP councillor and challenge them.JohnT
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 20:18:44 +0000
From: talk2ktc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Law of the Sea and common law principles.
To:
EU implements UN laws and policies. Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty
here.The
Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982.
Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the
oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea,
one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were
believed to be inadequate.Negotiated in the 1970s, the
treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order,"
a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda
called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the
so-called under-developed and developing nations.Another way the New
International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist." The
Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth
transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires
parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution
of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons
President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese,
U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained, "...it was out
of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that
Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."In
additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes
specific jurisdictional limits on ocean areas that countries may
claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone limit.Some proponents of the
treaty believe !!!! the treaty will establish a system of property
rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in
such ventures more attractive.Notwithstanding (or regardless of k.) concerns
raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to
the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.Despite the significant passage of
time, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be
scheduled.http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org/ The Islamic Qirad was a
precursor to the European commenda limited partnership.The
"Islamic influence on the development of an international law of the
sea" can thus be discerned alongside that of the Roman influence.Admiralty law
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Admiralty law - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopediaAdmiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that
governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law
governing maritime activitie...View on en.wikipedia.orgPreview by Yahoo
HarmonizingCommon Law
Principles with Article 7(b) of the UNESCO Convention, (under the guise of
'stolen art'!)
The Convention's principles are at odds, however, with common law
principles.http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=ilj
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected
by Avast. www.avast.com
