Friday, February 01, 2008

The EU gets its ‘Enabling Act’

The president of the European Parliament has acquired the powers to arbitrarily override the limitations upon his power, the authority to crush dissent and silence those who oppose the creation of a totalitarian European empire. And according to Dan Hannan MEP, the stifling of free expression is so outrageous that he was ‘almost tempted to compare it to the Nazi Ermächtigungsgesetz - the Enabling Act of 1933’ which granted Adolf Hitler unlimited power.

Of course, by ‘almost’ comparing, he was manifestly alluding to the historical precedent, and he ought to have known that in Brussels one may never refer to history, democracy or teleological theology, even if that reference is ‘almost’. And this ‘don’t mention the war’ mentality has got him thrown out of the EPP. Yet the very manner of Mr Hannan’s expulsion was evidence for the arbitrary exercise of absolute power, for it was declared in the Chamber by the EPP leader, Joseph Daul, just as Mr Hannan sat down. ‘Enough is enough!’, he said. There was no discussion, no hearing, no due process. The EPP belongs to Mr Daul, and it was therefore his sole prerogative to expel the turbulent member. Mr Daul told Mr Hannan he ‘did not want the Tory MEP calling for an EU treaty referendum as a member of the EPP’.

Since this is the official position of all British Conservative MEPs, by that reasoning Mr Daul should be expelling the entire group.

The EPP –the ‘European People’s Party’ - belongs about as much to the European People as anything else that emanates from this fascist Tower of Babel. In order to give the European people what they need, the EU’s führers dictate that the European people shall neither be consulted nor given voice. 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich' is precisely the spirit of the Treaty of Rome, and so Mr Hannan succinctly observes: ‘ "Yes" votes are treated as final and binding, "No" votes as obstacles to be overcome. Unaudited accounts are treated as a small price to pay for the goal of closer integration. The end justifies the means’. It is no surprise that Christians of the millennial doom ilk view the EU as the seat of the Antichrist.

Since its foundation, the EPP has been strongly committed to the creation of a United States of Europe and has been at the forefront of demands for a constitution. Most Christian Democrats are keen Euro-federalists, and view themselves as somehow divinely ordained to fulfil the European vision. And the incongruity of the Conservative Party's domestic policy with its European allegiance has created intolerable tensions of 'Jekyll and Hyde' proportions. A party in Westminster which stands for British sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy cannot be allied in Brussels with a group which seeks to destroy those very foundations.

In fulfilment of David Cameron’s pledge, the Conservative Party is in the process of leaving the EPP group in Brussels because of this ‘federalist’ agenda. Mr Hannan is thereby hastening the day of liberation, and has fulfilled Mr Cameron’s word before Mr Cameron himself.

While many may disagree with Mr Hannan, he is manifestly a man of principle and integrity - a truly honourable politician who restores credibility to an otherwise debased profession.

13 Comments:

Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Nice pictures, Your Grace. One can say a lot in pictures that would be far too exciting if put into words. Pity Hannan did not do the same. But then he is such a twit.

1 February 2008 at 11:34  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

I wished Mr. Hannan had not apologized.

Thank you for this post, Your Grace.

1 February 2008 at 13:02  
Blogger Newmania said...

I only console myself that they are going to far. The local Papers have been full of splenetic cries of outrage when in the past it would have been the Parking scheme .
This is decidely awkward for the Liberal MP ( Norman Baker) , who likes to pose as a local champion.Boris Johynson might acccuse him ,with justice, of accidentally misleading the electorate. Almost a liar in the sense that I am almost bi-pedal

1 February 2008 at 13:23  
Anonymous mary tEUdor said...

Do calm down...

1 February 2008 at 13:51  
Anonymous red despot spotter said...

its wasting money, promoting its own ends, ruining christain faith, a cover for political trade agreements that favour the marxist cause and cause enviromental damage.it cannot control its spending or sign off its accounts .

they should have just left it as a trade agreements nexus , and peace and defence agreement . everything else just looks to have been a complete waste of time and ruinous.

dan hannah and roger helmer your right for speaking up about it , its wrong , what is so so wrong in wanting a referendum , letting the people decide on knowing the facts. if the EEP cant even get that basic aspect of western politics , its not worth a dime .

1 February 2008 at 13:51  
Anonymous i spy strangers said...

Your Grace should make the swastika/EU stars graphic available as a car sticker. I'm sure it would catch on and it would be interesting to see if any prosecutions followed.

Meanwhile, those genuinely Conservative MEPs who are of like mind to Mr Hannan (Heaton-Harris, Callanan et al.) should engineer their own expulsion from the EPP forthwith.

1 February 2008 at 15:09  
Anonymous mickey said...

Your Grace, there is an old adage in the world of finance about companies merging because neither knows where it is going, so they seek solace in joining forces and going nowhere together. Seems rather apt to the situation facing the UK and the rest of the EU these days.

Whilst the EU 'federalists' may appear to have a plan, which is more than can be said of the 'United Kingdom', it hardly looks like a scheme that will give us all any significant competitive advantage within the global economic transformation that lies ahead.

My theory? Well, I would suggest we would be in a much better position to define our relationship with the rest of Europe if our leaders (whether Conservative or other) had a credible vision of what our own country should be striving to achieve within this new geo-economic environment. It seems like we have been adrift, in this respect, for a very long time - much longer than the last 10 years.

To coin a loaded phrase, we need a "Plan for the New British Century" and we need it, like, yesterday!

1 February 2008 at 15:22  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

I'd have thought a hammer and sickle would be far more appropriate for the pro-ethnic, pro-feminist, anti-white, anti-male European Union than a swastika.

1 February 2008 at 16:27  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Don't use the Swastika, it's a form of holocaust denial, you may as well compare losing your car keys to losing your children.

The picture found here is better, it has all the right eschatological overtones without occlusive recalling of previous forms of government.

1 February 2008 at 17:36  
Blogger Not a sheep said...

I disagree with homophobic horse, usage of the swastika in this instance is not "a form of holocaust denial" it is quite fair a comment re the "Enabling Act" comparison.

1 February 2008 at 18:24  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Daniel Hannan . . . is such a twit." That is a truly astonishing assertion and some evidence ought to be provided.
Excellent post, Cranmer, and excellent use of swastika and stars.

1 February 2008 at 21:51  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

I thought His Grace and his communicants might agree with the sentiments of the following learned blogger.

Anyone fancy coordinating a mass repudiation of Euro-'citoyen'-ship?


http://gaius9.freeblogit.com/declaration-of-independence-from-eussr/

Declaration of Independence from EUSSR

In view of the heinous act of signing the EU Reform Treaty I the undersigned wish to give notice herein that I have made a

PERSONAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION.

I, Guy Richard Leven-Torres do declare on this day 15th December 2007 AD, my full and complete personal independence from the European Union. I regard it and its officials, bureaucrats, police and any other body that represents it, as utterly illegal and totally unconstitutional. I also regard it and its denizens highly illegal and contrary to the United Nations Charter, that guarantees the right of independent nations to exist free from foreign interference and subjugation.

I was and am still a British Subject and shall remain so. I recognise no other authority, other than those allowed by the unwritten and written mandates of the British Constitution, to wit the Magna Carta, The Act of Settlement 1689 to 1701 and various Acts, instruments and legal interpretations at English Common Law, prior to the Act of European Accession 1972 that I believe was a falsehood in that the British People were lied to by the Heath Government of the day.

I am also prepared to give my life in defence of the country I love and inhabit if called upon to do so!

Name: Guy Richard Leven-Torres

Signed: 15th Day of December 2007.

Cry Conscience! Cry Freedom! Cry Enough!

Join La Resistance! guyleventorres@hotmail.co.uk


AND


http://gaius9.freeblogit.com/2008/01/02/6/#comment-3

Mos Maiorum!

Guy R. Leven-Torres, BA(Hons) Ancient and Medieval History, London University Royal Holloway and Bedford College, MA Archaeology, University College London Institute of Archaeology, FSEFA, A Fellow and Principal Field Archaeologist Society of Experimental Field Archaeology and Honorary Life President.

Expertise: Roman Army, Warfare and Society.

It is rare that I write in a mode that combines the academic and political like this article is going to be. It is even rarer that I give my full titles in an article but this time I have, because what I am about to relate to you, the reader is probably the most important article you will have read from myself to date and I want there to be no doubt in anybody’s mind that I now write as a scholar and expert in my field. There will be those that scorn and attack what I say, so the titles are shown in full as a mark of my authority and expertise. These titles are not some airy-fairy award but the result of forty years hard but highly pleasurable labour: a labour of love for a subject and the actors, especially the Romans and British. I began as a amateur but now I am a professional. In many things I am ignorant and do not suffer like so many, from conceit or affectation of knowledge I do not have but in my own field, I think I can safely state I know my stuff, being so familiar with it.

Yesterday, Mr Gordon Brown signed the Reform Treaty establishing the European State. This was no idle signature to some diplomatic spin operation that was simply for the cameras and fawning fools that gathered together in the company of the great and good, or those referred to by Marcus Tullius Cicero, the lawyer, orator and Consul of the Roman Republic as the ‘Boni’: no indeed this single act is an historical act that I think in times yet to come, should the human race survive and especially our British civilisation under attack as it is by Islamists, aided and abetted by the Brown Government that stupidly and ignorantly appease and even work with these very forces ranged against us, in the mistaken belief they can divide and rule such evil, will be remembered as the greatest betrayal of the United Kingdom and even Europe in the 1500 years, that the name ‘Britain or England’ has meant something or other to the population of these lands.

Britain has a long ancient pedigree whether it was Celtic ‘Pritan’, Roman Britannia, English ‘Angland’ or Georgian ‘Greater Britain’, or the modern United Kingdom. We are a nation; an island nation of four nations; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We are not Europeans. The British Archipelago is a group of islands on the North West coast of France. If anything we are closer in character to the Scandinavian Peoples of Norway and Denmark, not our European ‘cousins’. We are also an island race with legal and political conditions very different from those of the Continent. Our culture is also very different directly as a result of that ancient isolation from the European tradition. We are different in racial composition, in our unique sense of history, our attitude to citizenship, but above all, in our attitudes towards the State and our place within it.

Indeed we are quite unique and I do not believe in all seriousness that any othre People anywhere in the world, even across the Atlantic have such a unique claim to singularity of existence and specialness as we British do. The only other People with a similar historical claim to uniqueness is the Romans that I admire so much, precisely because they are so much like us with their own peculiarly self sense of history and destiny; yes we share much in the spiritual plain but also on the physical socio-cultural one as well as I am about to describe to you. The modern Americans I regard as an extension of this ancient state of affairs.

The Romans like us did not have a written constitution. Sure enough they had their Tables of Law written down around 304BC, after threatened rebellion by the plebs and some scholars give dates as early as 454BC for the original inscription by the Romans but I think this is a mistake and that they were written down by Appius Claudius Caecus or as he is known, Claudius the Blind. I chose this year because Rome was fighting for her life against the vicious mountain tribes of the Samnites and the Romans were not doing very well, including being made to march through the Caudine Forks by a Samnite victor as a mark of their submission. This was a common practice in the Italian peninsula that shared a not dissimilar cultural background, that allowed Rome to Romanise and assimilate all of Italy in time. Rome was by 304BC the dominant power in Italian politics and she was head of all the various leagues and covenants she had established through war and diplomacy over the 500 years of her existence. The Samnites had other ideas and threatened Rome in her heartland of Latium but the problem for Rome was far greater than this. Her tribes were split asunder by political struggles within the Republic itself and the Samnites knowing this, drove their attack forward with all their might.

The Plebeians or Commoners wanted a share in Government of the respublica. Respublica means ‘Public Ways’ or ‘Common Wealth’. Those terms are familiar to us are they not? Have you never stopped to wonder why? Well now I shall explain.

Faced with such turmoil within and turmoil without, the more far sighted of the Roman aristocracy, seeing the suffering and resentment of its Roman Commoners (plebs) at the hands of arbitrary Roman magistrates and realising too, that these same plebs already withholding themselves from military service and obligations in protest at this behaviour, saw to it that their demands for parity with the aristocracy, especially in matters legal resulted in the writing down of the laws of Rome, that until then had been a closed kept secret among the aristocrats themselves. However, this was no a written constitution and that only came about hundreds of years later, when Emperor Justinian codified the laws long after the Western Empire had collapsed. He was a tyrant and like all his kind, like to have things in writing so he knew where he stood and where the pleb did not.

Written constitutions are historically speaking, usually instruments of despotism. The Roman legal system was like the British, slowly evolved over the centuries through custom and usage, by legal interpretation of judges and lawyers but most importantly a well understood system of Roman Common Law and traditions known as the ‘Mos Maiorum’, that everybody understood well enough was unassailable, just like the British Common Law until very recently, or the American Declaration of Independence that still relies on Magna Carta before the advent of European ‘Corpus Juris’, that is being imposed top down upon us today and that will now become prime law after Brown’s signature on the European Reform Treaty.

Most importantly, The Roman State served the citizens, not the other way round. In Britain and America too, the state serves the People. The American Declaration of Independence even clearly says so. Have you ever wondered why?

It is because British and American legal and political practices are direct modern descendants of the Roman Republican system of Common Law. For example the only law that the ancient Anglo Saxons could copy in their time was the still extant Roman Law. Roman Law established that a citizen had the right to trial before a jury. So does the British and American today. The Corpus Juris system being imposed upon us today by this awful Reform Treaty is based upon Napoleonic Continental systems of law that allowed inquisitorial methods of trial, not by jury of one’s peers but professional bureaucrats or magistrates appointed by the state for the protection of the state, not the People.

Trial by jury was an important aspect of a Roman citizens liberty as it is ours today in Britain and America. Europe’s Corpus Juris submits the Citizen to the state, while Common Law submits the Subject/Citizen to the judgment of his peers but the state and its officials to the Subject/Citizen. This entire principle was reaffirmed in Magna Carta and when, the Settlements of 1689 and 1701 established the Hanoverian on the English Throne after the Golden revolution of 1688.

In the Roman system or respublica, it was motions tabled and passed in the People’s Assembly called plebiscita, that were binding on all Romans of all classes, not the ‘mandates’ of the Senate that even though it was composed of elder experienced former magistrates, was under the Roman system an advisory body only. The Senate passed a motion called a senatus consultum. The latter ‘Consultum’ speaks volumes does it not? Of course there were those that through their position and expertise, thought that the Senate should rule and that the plebs should know their place, especially in matters of foreign affairs. This area of expertise was acceded to by the largely ignorant commoners over time, so that it became part of the ancient mos maiorum or ancient traditional ways of doing things in the Roman respublica or Commonwealth. Those that went against it were guilty of nova res (new ways) and probably maiestas, that made it treason to challenge the ancient majesty of the Senate and People of Rome.

That SPQR corporate logo was no idle boast either. Let’s look at the meaning of the ‘Senate and People of Rome’ for a while shall we? This is especially important in respect of the attitude that should be taken towards the Reform Treaty and those that have signed it, the consequences for which, if I am correct will be very unpleasant in the short term for us the British People but if we should win the argument over our national future, in the long term for Messrs Brown and Miliband that signed away it and our Sovereignty with it.

The Senate and People of Rome! Senatus Popolusque Romanus! What a wonderful conception. A Commonwealth of Aristocracy and Commoners. Together they made up the State. Cicero called it the ‘Commonwealth’ in fact and more than one Greek historian praised the Roman ‘Constitution’ as a balanced entity very unlike the political affairs in their own polis or city state.

The Roman Citizen was king of his own affairs too. He was freed from arbitrary punishment by the existence of People’s Tribunes, whose persons were sanctified by the State and gods as inviolate and these men could intercede on beahalf of any citizen and even impose their veto on any legislation passed in the concilium plebis or People’s Assembly and even in the Senate, should a consultum be against the established way of doing things. The Senate discussed the motion before sending it to the Assembly and then the plebs in tribes voted for it, or against it. That was the way things were done. But remember the Senate was only an advisory body in Roman law, dating as it did as an advisory body from days of the Kings that were expelled in 509BC.

The first Consuls or rather praetors had come from the Senate and it had established its prestige over the hundreds of years of its existence, as the repository of the way things were done and religious, legal and political expertise that gave it customary authority. The Latin for prestige is dignitas but the authority based upon that ancient respect is auctoritas from whence our own word ‘authority’ stems. Even so, under Roman law, evolved over the centuries through custom, usage and legal decision in courts of law and by the Romans in tribal session, voting on Senatorial Consulta, the Roman Commoners or People were the true authority in the State. It was the Senate and People together that made up the Republic not by themselves. Laws were enacted and passed by the People in their assemblies of which there was more than one but for our case, the People’s Assembly is the most important. The Roman senior aristocracy was a closed caste called the Patriciate founded long ago in the past and these were forbidden to vote in the People’s Assembly. They married among themselves too, through a strict form of marriage in which divorce was impossible.

The Roman system then was far more like the British and American. The state served the People not the other way round. The law was also to protect the citizen from arbitrary state behaviour, not as in Europe to protect the Executive from the citizen. This is something that we share with the ancient Roman. It also, I believe explains our national outlook and attitude towards liberty and authority. Like the Roman it works exceptionally well. That is until now when our politicians tasked to serve us, have handed us over to a legal and political system that dates from the codification of Roman Law by Justinian.

Europe practices Roman late imperial totalitarian law that we archaeologists call the Dominate, that evolved after the Principate of Augustus, who as primus interpares (first citizen) rather than the despotic semi divine Justinian, ruled the Republic after the civil wars and Actium. The two systems are so far evolved apart throughout the actions and eddies of history, that today they are utterly antithetical, even anathema to British and American traditions that have also evolved in their own right over the centuries. In short the the two systems are utterly alien and opposed. And I predict when the full force of Corpus Juris hits Britain and its population next year, serious civil unrest and even worse will be the result as it was in Rome itself, when politicians went against the accepted ways and traditions of the Roman system, established over centuries through law, custom and tradition. That saw a hundred and more years of civil wars leading in time to the establishment of the Imperial Roman era. Magna Carta was established in similar conditions.

I predict that should our elite pass this awful instrument, the EU Reform Treaty into law that is nothing less than the rehashed Constitution rejected two years past, blood will flow in quantity. This is to be avoided at all costs if we can do so! But it will take a huge popular reaction bottom up. I still think that can be done peacefully.

Already Police have arrested people for seemingly ridiculous crimes like selling golliwigs, displaying pigs, criticising religion, even politicians; even our rubbish collections are subject to ridiculous almost comical laws. Cameras spy on us wherever we look, our details are demanded by officials before we travel and there are calls for ID cards: all totally foreign to Britain. These are all things that European populations have been long used to. We the British are not! We will find it hard to adjust; very hard indeed. Our psyches and attitudes based on totally different traditions will instinctively reject them involuntarily, because we are not formed and schooled by these Continental historical traditions of service to the State in a British system that does the opposite. Even worse the Reform Treaty is a far harsher version of the existing Continental system and bears a chilling resemblance to the 1936/1977 Soviet Russian Constitution, both of which I have read.

I suspect that before long Britons will be saying like the Roman ‘Civis Romanus Sum!’ I am a Roman Citizen! Civis Britannicus Sum!

As for Messrs Brown and Miliband, both have committed Maiestas and assaulted the ancient majesty of the Sovereign Queen Elizabeth, by denying she and her heirs their national demesne and title under the Treason Acts and Magna Carta but just as importantly, knowingly or at least in sublime ignorant arrogance the future of the British People, they are sworn to serve by tenure of office and the oaths of allegiance they swore to the Crown.

Common Law is superior to statute Law and Acts cannot be repealed like those that Mr Blair did in respect of Treason laws, as these are at Common Law. These are the basis of of our Sovereign’s legitimacy. Therefore those laws still exist, as do the death penalties that are the punishment for the contravention of such laws. I have researched this and sought wider expert opinion and it is confirmed.

Likewise the police and other military and public servants that obey rather the laws of the EU are guilty in like manner. Those that will swear loyalty to the new Eurostate will also guilty of Treason. Think upon that perhaps and consider your actions and their consequences if you are one of these.

Magna Carta states clearly, that the People have the right and obligation to disobey a corrupt Government that have taken to themselves privileges and authority that is not theirs to take. They are not the state but the Executive under Common Law of the People, namely us for we are the State not they. This is bad enough but to sell us over to a foreign power is worst of all!

We the British People loyal to our Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and Her heirs, command you to cease your business now or suffer the full consequences of the Common Laws of the United Kingdom.

Let Right be Done!

Ironically ‘Majesty’ comes from Latin maiestas…the dignity and majesty of the British people perhaps?


What do other communicants think?

3 February 2008 at 14:54  
Anonymous Time will Tell said...

Your Grace, Mussolini published his Doctrine of Fascism in 1935 -

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number -(liberalism implies individualism). We are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Mussolini is now seeing his dreams come true with the first being the Treat of Rome. This has led inexorably to the new Constitution which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Doctrine.

3 February 2008 at 20:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older