Yes BUT where are Christopher Booker, Richard North, and the rest of the so
called Brexiteers today? They could join together with all the others and call
a live TV/press conference and tell the truth. Instead they are willing to
receive your support and thereby their income from the MSM , while at the same
time remaining silent on the truth. Our government is operating outside the
rule of law. Challenge the Brexit pundits, and they will say something like,
"Our constitution is too complicated for the British public to understand". The
sub text is, "I haven't the courage to stand up for what is right, and anyway
I've got to support my wife and family". Gerard Batten, please note. You will
sink without trace if you don't follow the rule of law.
There is nothing complicated about our constitution. It can be stated in short
sharp sentences.
"It is a treasonable offence for anyone to give away my sovereignty (control)
to another state unless we have been defeated in a war".
If you want your country back, challenge these cowards/parasites to tell the
truth. If you don't your children will be enslaved to serve the NEW WORLD ORDER.
________________________________
From: Paul Talbot-Jenkins <fame_97@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 12 April 2018 16:18
To: Paul Talbot-Jenkins
Cc: brexit@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: How the deception of the EU was foisted on the British people.
From "The Great Deception" by Christopher Booker and Richard North, a 600 page
book about events leading up to and including membership of the EU, the extract
below gives a flavour for the content. Worthwhile reading especially for
Brexiteers.
Macmillan in his memoirs merely records that he was left in no doubt that a
decision to join the Six would be welcome. 307 He makes no reference to
political unification. Ball recalls that at dinner in the British Embassy next
evening, Macmillan twice took him privately aside, seeming ‘excited’.
‘Yesterday was one of the greatest days of my life’ he said with apparent
emotion, ‘you know, don’t you, that we can now do this thing and that we’re
going to do it. We’re going into Europe’. The only obstacle left was de Gaulle,
but Macmillan was convinced ‘we’re going to do it’. 308
If Macmillan was elated, he had every reason for so being. Although he had been
moving towards the idea of joining the EEC, this might seem to conflict with
the ‘three circles’ doctrine, in that Britain’s ‘entry into Europe’ would
detach Britain from the United States. Furthermore, it might rule out any hope
of US agreement to supply Britain with missiles, eliminating Britain’s
‘independent deterrent’ and all the prestige which went with it. Suddenly,
however, that obstacle had been removed. Kennedy’s enthusiasm for Britain’s
entry presented Macmillan with an almost miraculous answer to what had seemed
an insoluble problem. Far from entry to the EEC being an obstacle to close
relations with the US, it now seemed as if it would strengthen their alliance.
Macmillan’s last hurdle was the Cabinet. Back in February Heath had warned
Macmillan that its earlier opposition had been so pronounced because, in July
1960, the prime minister had allowed a free debate. Instead, Heath advised, he
should now organise the policy-making process in such a way as to lead to the
conclusion that the EEC application was ‘inevitable’. 309
In the last days of June, therefore, the Cabinet was asked to decide. Macmillan
opened the discussion by pointing out that the first question they needed to
consider was that ‘if we were to sign the Treaty of Rome we should have to
accept its political objectives, and although we should be able to influence
the political outcome we did not know what this would be’. 310
He conceded that a decision to enter would ‘raise great presentational
difficulties’. On the one hand, it would be important to convince the Six that
‘we genuinely supported the objectives of the Treaty’. On the other, ‘we should
have to satisfy public opinion in this country that the implementation of the
objectives of the Treaty would not require unacceptable social and other
adjustments. The problems of public relations would be considerable’. The
chief way in which these ‘problems of public relations’ might be overcome would
be to stay as quiet as possible about the ‘political objectives’ of the Treaty,
and to sell British membership of the ‘Common Market’ as if it was primarily a
matter of economics: improved trade, more jobs, greater prosperity. It would be
yet another victory for that central strategy of deception dating back to 1955,
when Spaak had struck out from the ‘Benelux memorandum any references to a
‘United States of Europe’ and played up the importance of creating an ‘economic
community’. The Cabinet voted for entry. To general public astonishment, on 31
July Macmillan announced the decision in the Commons. 311
According to Duchêne, citing a conversation with Camps, the key part played by
the US President in bringing about this volte face had been no accident. ‘There
was a “Monnet effect” on Ball and then a “Ball effect” on Kennedy, and then a
“Kennedy effect” on Macmillan. It was a triumph for Monnet’.
With best wishes
Paul Talbot-Jenkins BSc(Hons)
"Semper veritas"
"God is on the side not of the big battalions but of the best shots" Voltaire.
Sent from my iPad
