web analytics

LONG TO REIGN OVER US

By Pete Moore On December 14th, 2011 at 8:55 pm

FOUND: The first, ever, correct understanding of our British Constitution in the MSM.

From a priest, no less, and what a splendid sort he seems.

VE DAY 65 YEARS ON: NOTHING BUT AN INSULT

By ATWadmin On May 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm

I can’t help but look at the faces of the old boys marching past the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday and wonder at their thoughts. They didn’t suffer and see their mates die so later generations could insult their sacrifice. Today, the 65th anniversary of VE Day was the same.

With each passing year my anger grows at the sight of politicians standing there, wreaths in hand as if they give a damn, and it’s not just because they invade our most solemn civil ceremonies with their politics. A couple of weeks ago we learned that the Europhile Nick Clegg, the former Euro MEP, thinks the British people bear an “insidious cross” because of our memory of WW2. This pampered internationalista, this traitor who takes the EU coin and who represents the EU in Parliament, thinks we have an obsession with WW2 and that we ought to be put back in our place.

Yet today he stands at the Cenotaph, wreath in hand and head bowed in honour of The Glorious Dead? What a tosser.

He was in good company because he had a couple of tossers next to him. Cameron and Brown likewise went through the routine, pretending to honour our war dead after spending a month not talking of our real government in Brussels, after foisting an EU constitution on us that we plainly do not want and reneging on a “cast-iron” promise to give us a referendum on that instrument of foreign power over the British people. 

Their presence at the Cenotaph is an insult to our war dead on whose graves they might as well spit. They should stay away.

STUFF AND NONSENSE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

What with the MSM getting its knickers in a twist over Blair’s chit chat at the Iraq Inquiry today, I have to ask: who cares? It’s happened and gone. One day Blair will meet his maker and be judged on his life. If he is to be damned, his fate is sealed.

This week, as for the last eight years, the question is whether or not the war was illegal under international law. Of course it wasn’t. There is not and cannot be any such thing as international law. It has no sovereign source and no-one can claim any sovereign territory over which its writ runs. Still, it keeps the dullards entertained.

One of those dullards is the LibDem leader Nick Clegg, who writes in the Telegraph:

President Obama has made it crystal clear that the value of the United Kingdom to the United States these days lies in our ability to foster greater coherence within Europe, so that America can increasingly deal with Europe as one. This is a simple point, but one entirely lost, it seems, on the Conservative Party.

If true, and with respect to Obamses, he can sling his hook. Our fate is the business of the British people, not temporary federal gauleiters in DC. But while Clegg and his chums get the vapours over “international law” and Iraq, of course these traitors have no interest in English Law. Here’s real, actual law for which the former MEP Clegg has no respect:

And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

Quite plainly our association with the EU is unlawful because more than 300 years of constitutional law says so, yet Clegg still trousers an EU pension from his time in that foul organisation.

Stuff “international law”, it’s time we made these traitors and criminals respect our Law.

EVERYTHING THE EU WANTS – BUT NO FURTHER

By ATWadmin On November 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

DAVID CAMERON has – oh so predictably – given patriots, national sovereignty, the British Constitution and the Rule of Law the finger. In so doing he reveals his logic and constitutional knowledge to be as deep as his determination to live up to his cast-iron guarantees. Says this metropolitan sophisticate (my emph.):

We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key – a commitment very similar to that in Ireland. This is a major constitutional development.

But I believe it is now the only way to reassure the British people that powers cannot be given away without their explicit approval in a referendum. It is not politicians’ power to give away – it belongs to the people.

Absolutely fine so far chum (we’ll pass over that our useless Queen is the repository of our sovereignty and cannot give it away, even on the advice of her subordinate ministers). However, if our sovereignty today cannot be given away by politicians, they had no lawful right or authority to give it away under the European Communities Act 1972, did they?

Therefore the ECA is illegitimate and unlawful and must be struck down – mustn’t it, Our Dave?

What a pickle these duckers and divers get themselves into. As for his ‘constitutional lock’, we have such a device already; it’s perfectly good, served us well until Parliament became despotic a century ago and is contained within the Bill of Rights 1689:

And 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.

I’m afraid that not for the first time Our Dave is talking through his hat. He cannot offer a ‘constitutional lock’ because such a thing is not in Parliament’s gift. The Bill of Rights is a solemn compact between Monarch and Subject and, constitutionally, that is the only relationship that matters. 

What’s The Point Of Being Euro-‘Sceptic’?

By ATWadmin On June 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm

CONSERVATIVE PARTY MEPs have aligned themselves with a new ‘centre-right’group in the European Parliament and Tories are deluding themselves it is of the slightest significance. Since the group’s founding principles include commitments to the freedom of the individual, the family and to the sovereign integrity of nation states, one can only admire the chutzpah of the faction that has been the single most destructive force against British nationhood and civilisation. What a breath of fresh air then was Peter Hitchens’ piece in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday:

Any day now you could wake up and find that you are subject to the rule of President-of-Europe Anthony Blair. After the Irish and the Czechs have been clubbed into submission this autumn, the long-planned European Superstate will at last come into being. And Mr Blair is likely to be its Head of State. For those of a sensitive disposition, this means two horrible things happening at once.

It is bad enough that the ghastly Blair creature might rise from the political tomb, hands clasped in pious prayer, upper lip trembling with fake emotion, pockets crammed with money from the lecture circuit, drivel streaming from his mouth. That would perhaps be the only thing that might make the nation warm to Gordon Brown again.

But far worse is the awful truth, which so many have hidden from themselves, that Britain will from that moment cease to be an independent nation in any important way. The EU will take on a ‘legal personality’ of its own, become a nation in its own right, one in which we are a subject province for the first time in more than a thousand years, less independent than Texas is of Washington DC.

And this is why I hate the people in politics and the media who call themselves ‘Eurosceptics’. What are they for? What good have they done? They stand about, mainly in the Unconservative Party, claiming to be concerned about the way the EU is swallowing this country.

But they refuse to take the one step that would actually make a difference. They will not call for this country to leave the EU. You will have to ask them why not. There is no reason Britain could not exist outside the EU, which sells more to us than it buys from us, drags us into trade disputes with the USA which are not in our interest, steals our fish, chokes our small business, mucks up our farms and milks us each year of incalculably large sums of money we could spend better ourselves.

There is every reason for us to go our own way, especially if we wish to preserve our unique laws and liberties against the fast-approaching ‘Stockholm Programme’ which aims to impose continental law on this country, together with a menacing set of surveillance powers quite beyond the control of our Parliament.

So the next time a ‘Eurosceptic’ presents himself to you for election, ask him why he won’t go the extra yard (not metre), and if he won’t do so, find a man who can. The time for scepticism is long past. What is there left to have doubts about? The thing is as bad as we feared. The time for secession has arrived.

Not a word of this is contentious or arguable. Those who suggest otherwise have to argue against a thousand years of independence,self-determination, flowering liberty and growing wealth. Not only can Britain survive outside of the EU, it is a prerequisite that we leave before our liberties are gone for good, before the Common Law that protects our liberties is abolished and before we again trade freely for mutual advantage with whoever we like.

The Euro-‘sceptic’ position, for decades dominant on the Right and Centre, is simply untenable. It has failed because there is no EU offering which satisfies the “in Europe but not run by Europe” line. It is a fraud. Anyone still holding to it is delusional or lying.

The only intellectually honest positions are clear; either the total and unlawful submission to a foreign power encompassing the end of our nationhood and liberties, or we leave the EU, cast it as an aberration in our island story and live again as free, independent people.

On This Day …..

By ATWadmin On June 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

 … the 4th June 1940, Winston Churchill rose to his feet in the House of Commons and reminded Johnny Boche of the facts of life –

It sounds as if the old boy gave the Hun what for after a decent lunch. That would be no surprise …

Another Petition To The Queen

By ATWadmin On May 21st, 2009 at 7:11 pm

PATRIOTS, we are not alone. Over the decades Her Majesty has received many thousands of petitions from despaired Britons seeking redress for the loss of our nation and crimes of our Traitorous tribunes. Another speaks today. Our arguments are directed falsely at Brussels when they should be taken to the gates of Buckingham Palace.

Your Majesty,

I shall be brief. Our nation has come under attack from her enemies. In this case I refer to the present government which has reduced the nation to penury and ridicule. Already four million decent men, women and children have emigrated since this monstrosity of a socialist experiment was unleashed upon us.

Many of us who have fought for the interests of the people and who were loyal to the Crown are now so exasperated that I for one am tending to favour a Republic. It surely could not be worse than the present Constitutional Monarchy which lends itself to the idea that Your Majesty is incapable of any positive action whatever.

You promised to govern your people according to their laws and customs. Our membership of the EU has displayed this to have not been undertaken by your Majesty.

In one final effort to convince myself and many others that you are not part of this
Intended destruction of our ancient Realm I humbly petition your Majesty to dissolve Parliament forthwith and at least give your people a chance to be rid of this most vile and treacherous Yoke of criminal politicians our nation has ever experienced.

I am not a jingoistic fanatic. I have children here in school and am en route to Heathrow for another business trip to help drive some exports from the UK. But I am at my wit’s end and see no future for us here in this country unless your Majesty intervenes.

I am and remain,
Your Humble and Obedient Servant

Peter Watson

A New Beginning

By ATWadmin On December 30th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

January 1st 2009 marks a new beginning for the tiny British archipelago of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. Twenty seven years after the Argentineans launched an illegal attack on the territory in order to wrest UK sovereignty away from some of the most loyal subjects of the Crown, the Governor of the islands, Alan Huckle, has signed the new Constitution due to come into force on Thursday.

This move is not dissimilar to the process that has taken place in Gibraltar. It sets out an increased remit of self-governance for the island, whilst simultaneously providing a cast-iron reassurance that no change of sovereignty will occur without the consent of the inhabitants. As the Falklanders have a fierce allegiance to all things British, I think the chances of such consent being forthcoming are rather miniscule. They suffered an illegal occupation and fought a war to retain their Britishness. I hardly think they are going to sign it away democratically. Amazingly the laws of Argentina accord the Falklanders the right to take up citizenship if they so choose (comparable to the citizenship provisions of the Belfast Agreement). I’d love to know how many have taken up the offer over the past thirty years. Fewer than the number who would turn up to a Gary Glitter homecoming party I’d hazard a guess!

Predictably Argentina has sucked its political thumb. The British Charge d’Affairs was summoned and a statement issued by the government in Buenos Aires, which said:

‘The Argentine government will denounce this violation of Argentine sovereignty and international law before the international community. Britain is trying to perpetuate an anachronistic colonial situation.’

What violation of Argentinian sovereignty?  The Falklands – with the exception of the illegal invasion by the Argies in 1982 – have been peacefully and democratically administered under British rule since 1833. There was never any settled or indigenous Argentinian population there before British settlement.  Today over 70% of the islanders are direct British descendants, with the remainder made up largely of Scandinavian and Chilean settlers.  In 1994, an island-wide poll revealed 87% would be against ANY discussion of sovereignty with Argentina.  There are two arguments the government in Buenos Aires relies on when asserting its constitutional belligerence:

  1. That the UN continues to ask the UK and Argentina to discuss sovereignty negotiations.
  2. That the Falklands are closer to Argentina and therefore the principle of territorial contiguity should be factored.

Yes, the Committe of Twenty Four at the UN General Assembly has indeed made the request for negotiations.  However, unlike every other resolution passed by the committed, the request has not taken into account the desires of the islands’ population.  Either this anomaly would have to be righted, or the wishes of the islanders would have to arise in any hypothetical discussions.  As these are already known, the principle of self-determination alone would almost certainly embolden UK sovereignty if the UN was called upon to referee the discussions.

Secondly, the issue of territorial contiguity has no bearing whatsoever on sovereignty in international law.  If it did the territory of St Pierre and Miquelon, 15 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, would be subject to Canadian, not French, governance. 

There is no issue to be discussed with Argentina.  The population is British and wants to remains so.  As far as the EU and the Commonwealth are concerned, the Falklands are part and parcel of what remains of Britain’s Crown Colonies.  Argentina has this historical knack of claiming lands that belong to other countries in contravention of past treaties and understandings.  It claimed the Picton and Lennox islands in the Beagle Channel and continued to claim Cape Horn until the Peace and Amity Treaty of the mid-1980s granted all the aforesaid to Chile.

The Falklands are British; they are staying British!!