Treaty of Nice

Along with other treasonous deals being brokered by the Regime and faceless corporations, the Nice treaty is still today being attempted to be ratified by treasonous public officials, and by doing so it will destroy the constitutional laws of the entire Realm of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. This is an act of treason at common law and must NOT be allowed to occur. The Nice treaty was the grievance that the committee of the barons were referring to with the petition to the office of sovereign on the 7th February 2001.

It was common knowledge from the start, that the peoples sovereignty was at stake, as reported by George Jones, Political Editor  The Telegraph 12 December 2000 • 12:00am  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1377957/Blair-sold-us-short-in-Nice-says-Hague.html

Blair sold us short in Nice, says Hague THE Tories intend to make an election issue of the loss of sovereignty involved in Tony Blair’s decision to sign away at least 30 EU vetoes in the Nice Treaty agreed after a marathon five-day summit.

William Hague said yesterday that the Conservatives would not ratify the treaty as it stood if they gained power. He rejected Mr Blair’s assurances that it “advanced British interests” and said it was a “major step” towards a European superstate.

Although Mr Blair and the 14 other leaders completed the treaty in the early hours of yesterday, a final version will not be available for formal signature for at least two months. It will then have to be ratified by national parliaments throughout Europe. The timetable makes it unlikely that Parliament could approve the legislation ratifying the treaty before a general election expected in May – and it would be a matter for a new government.

Labour has tried to play down the prospects of early entry to the euro to avert a Tory “save the pound” election campaign. But the Tory leadership believes that loss of the national veto powers, coupled with the plans for a European defence force, will arouse public concerns over the pace of integration. Mr Hague said the Government should hold a referendum on the treaty and Euro force. If he came to power he would seek to renegotiate many of the elements of the treaty.

The Prime Minister, looking weary, left Nice claiming that he had “fought Britain’s corner” and preserved the veto in key areas of national interest. These included moves to harmonise tax and social security. He defended the decision to agree to more qualified majority voting, saying it was essential in an enlarged EU of 27 or 30 countries to ensure that one small state could not block decisions.

Mr Blair tried to play down the issues on which he gave up the veto. Nine of the changes dealt with freedom of movement, where Britain could decide whether or not to take part, he said. The others were primarily about the efficiency of economic management and the single market, where majority voting was in Britain’s interest. Last night, more than 12 hours after the summit finished, Downing Street did not have a comprehensive list of how many vetoes had been given up. A provisional list circulating at Westminster put it as high as 39.

The Nice deal sought to streamline EU procedures, paving the way for up to a dozen new nations, mainly former Iron Curtain states, to join from 2004. But many of the smaller states were angry at the way the bigger countries, particularly France, Germany and Britain, sought to maintain their power and influence in an enlarged community. The agreement almost foundered late on when Belgium threatened to walk out.

There was a widespread view that Nice had achieved only the minimum of reform necessary for enlargement to go ahead. Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, said the summit had achieved “only half” of what was needed. There was bitter criticism of the way President Chirac of France had handled the negotiations. with bleary-eyed delegations left without food or drink in the final hours of critical bargaining.

Mr Blair called for an end to all-night wrangling as a way of conducting community business. His official spokesman complained that the first two days of the summit had been taken up by the various delegations setting out positions, which could have been done before they reached Nice. In future Britain would like to see an end to national “grandstanding” and the rituals of formal banquets and photocalls, with future summits restricted to two or three properly equipped venues such as Brussels.

You would normally be required to respond to this Notice of lawful objection within Seven (7) days from your receipt of this document. AND, If however there is no reply in ‘substance’ or otherwise to this ‘Notice of lawful objection’ then it would have been taken to mean that you (nor any other interested parties) have no objections whatsoever to my lawful standing and, that I will not come into conflict with ANYONE from Police Constables through the Supreme Court, nor will they make ANY demands on me unless they comply with Common law. Common law is ‘of’ the laws of God (commandments) and constitutional law.

Any reply to this ‘Notice of lawful Objection’ would normally be made on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, hopefully you will have responded to in substance with regard to the very serious matter raised herein.

However, I may completely off course with how I believe the law to stand today, and therefore Your Honourable Supreme Court, I ask, please if you would be so kind to provide the law together with any and all factual evidence to show that: 
this is not the case, that Article 61 is not the law, and that the Barons committee are not the highest authority in the land and that the Barons committee do not indeed have to publicy announce that they have received redress for the grievance for which A61 MC 1215 was petition upon the Monarch. UNTIL REDRESS IS RECEIVED.

Sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity, and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. With no admission of liability whatsoever and, with all my natural, unalienable common law rights reserved.

Marc Chamberlain.

(signed)

Obviously it is my duty under the law which is A61 MC 1215 to compel you and all at the Supreme Court to also stand under law and inform you of the evidence herein.. We look forward to welcoming you to stand with the whole realm, the Barons committee, under the law TODAY, A.61 MC 1215 LAWFULLY INVOKED. God bless.

Yours faithfully, 
M Chamberlain