To be accurate – are they traitors or not?

LordStoddartIndependentLabour_portrait

The accusations have been levelled so many times and the word “traitor” used, even flung about with abandon at those members of the British parliament and in fact anyone else out there in the country, that it fails to impress the phlegmatic curmudgeon type who abounds within conservative ranks and certainly doesn’t impress any EUphile who doesn’t consider himself a traitor at all.

In short, it’s an overused word. But is it accurately used? You be the judge.   The following from Ian:

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.

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.”

Is it appropriate for a former EU Commissioner to sit in the Cabinet having sworn, when he became a Commissioner, not to allow questions of national allegiance to affect him?

Perhaps this is why they want to do away with the Privy Council, Privy Council Oath, or oath as a European Commissioner, to be unmoved by national considerations, the most damning of which being the continual support of the EU and the electorate’s misinformation by government and parliament alike regarding our continuing membership of the EU.

You have consistently chosen to evade and dismiss the following:

“I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.” – Bill of Rights 1689 which is directly linked to the monarch’s Coronation Oath.

Note to Mr Mandelson. How is it possible to acknowledge the solemn swearing of this oath while, at the very same time, breaking it?

http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/dear-corrupt-government/

EU Commissioners Oath

“I solemnly undertake:

*to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of my duties;

*to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;

*in the performance of my tasks neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution. body, office or entity;

*to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.

“I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence Members of the ‘Commission in the performance of their tasks’

I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising therefrom, and in particular to duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after I have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits

Now you know why our House of Lords is stuffed with EU pension supporters and why they continue to support the EU regardless of country of origin.

The EUphile will say the question turns on a nicety, that patriotism is an abused word which can equally apply, in my case say, to Northumbria, England, Britain, Australia and maybe even France and Russia, that it is a highly emotive word having no place in current day realities, current day politics.

Or so their defence in a court of law would go.

My question is that in any other nation, e.g. the U.S.A. or Russia, they have very clear ideas of what it means to support America and Russia and thus supporting a foreign body, albeit an umbrella body that its own ministers have legitimized, is counter to the sensibilities of the citizens of that nation. Therefore, why does our nation contain so many of these [what I would call] quislings?

Is ignorance of history a defence? Is ignorance of the plans of Germany, which have never changed since it became “Germany”, any defence? Edward Spalton and some Germans themselves have laid out quite clearly that the aim of Germany is to conquer its erstwhile Germanic outpost or at least to achieve Anschluss.

It stands to reason anyway – do you know of a major nation which has not spread its cultural influence? How about the British Council? America goes without question. And Germany does too. This is Germany and Ireland.. I mean, it’s simple logic, is it not?

Now examine the Club of Rome and the antecedents of its founding fathers [and mothers].

And which UK is easier to control and dismember – a strong Britain with defence forces second only to the USA or a series of regions funded from Brussels, in which there is no more England but a series of fragmented demi-states ruled from abroad? Which would pose more of a threat to Germany’s eternal prime directive to achieve Anschluss with other nations with wealth?

And if we were presented by the quislings in Germany with a fait accompli, a golden opportunity via this ridiculous criminal enterprise called the EU to annex Germany, would we not take it? They must be rubbing their hands with glee that we sell off our harriers and rely on French planes on our dwindling number of carriers.

Now don’t get me wrong – I have friends in Germany and have nothing against it as a nation keeping to itself and as a lovely place to visit and drink beer but unfortunately, there are these pesky people in Bavaria and elsewhere who see it differently. Merkel is a product and protege of these people.

And their greedy eyes are on the City over here, first and foremost.

But let’s not dwell on them. They are, if I may call it this – the enemy with honour, i.e. it is their bounden duty to wish to support their nation’s best interests.      There was nothing wrong with Rommel as a German – he was supporting his nation’s interests until he saw that his superiors weren’t.

No, the ones we need up on Tyburn Hill are the quislings in our own parliament, in Common Purpose and in other bodies across the nation.

These people, if one takes loyalty to one’s nation as a criterion, are truly the traitors to that nation.

[H/T IPJ]

2 comments for “To be accurate – are they traitors or not?

  1. February 18, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    James,
    As I said to you, I would prefer to think of those who have taken the EU oath have instead made themselves Stateless, as the EU is not a State and they have renounced the authority of the United Kingdom.
    As such, a Stateless person should not hold any Office of the United Kingdom.

    • mona
      February 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Want to know what treason is, borrowing 15 million pounds to solve the problem of farting cows in Columbia that our taxpayers will have to payback, drowning the Somerset levels because of some obscure regulation from Brussels and Cameron not leting a disaster go to waste by showing himself as carer not a cutter.

Comments are closed.