Treason Evidence in Detail

This draft relates to crimes committed in Britain/England but can also be used by Australians and Canadians too.
25-06-2019 by David Robinson
[This file can be used to compel the police to stop ignoring the evidence of High Treason being committed today, whilst they are themselves aiding and abetting (committing) high treason in full knowledge of the facts, which are provided herein. They cannot later claim to be unaware of the facts if they have been served this document by recorded post.

We need the police to be overwhelmed by the weight of ‘we the people’ badgering them in a reasonable, polite but assertive manner. It is after all a fundamental duty for those entrusted to defend the law to observe truth (evidential facts) themselves. Justice cannot be had nor corruption avoided within a police state that does not hold truth as sovereign.
Treason is any act adjudged to undermine or be in conflict with the People’s Absolute Sovereignty ordained by the 1215 permanent Constitution of the People. Sovereignty is specifically embodied in and exercised through implementation of the Trial by Jury in accord with the Constitutional Common Law of the Land.
Common Law and Constitution assign the Crime of High Treason to all acts which attenuate or attempt to attenuate the sovereign authority of the Juror. It is to commit High Treason against the People to be implicated in any act which undermines the juror’s sovereignty; or denies or attempts to deny (the right to) the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System for any Plaint and private prosecution (of whomsoever) through a cost-free suit-at law or, for any citizen’s defence. (See Articles 36, 39, 40, 61, of Magna Carta 1215).
PESCO and BREXIT are current acts of High Treason being committed today by the present British (and Commonwealth) administration(s). The British and Commonwealth people cannot be said to be “Policed by consent” whilst their consent over the legality of government statutes has not Practical Lawful Dissent: first been approved by the juror(s). And unanimously approved. Consequently we are being Policed with force by Corporate Policy Enforcers acting outside of the law, in ‘Outlawry’
The evidence herein provided will be difficult for any policy enforcer to accept, and we accept that. Those serving as alleged Police Constables today have not been educated as to the law, the common law constitution was removed from the curriculum in universities in the 1970’s and replaced with unconstitutional statutes, which are designed to oppress the people and to deny them their natural human rights.
The police are lied to by parliament as are the rest of us. Parliament is NOT sovereign and cannot do as it pleases without recourse. The police are brainwashed into believing that they cannot look at anything political because it’s not within their remit, that lie is easily exposed as a lie, the common law constitution makes it very clear that nobody is above the common law even the monarch, and especially ‘Her parliament’.
The evidence herein MUST be dealt with by those entrusted to defend the nation from crimes against the people, or we will ALL suffer the extremely serious consequences if they do not. They should be reminded that they won’t always be employed within the police service, and will also have to live under the despotic rules of the EU Superstate that they are allowing to come to fruition, as well as their own friends and family. And when the people en masse realize what the police, and other so called ‘pubic servants’ have done, in full knowledge of the facts, they will be despised by everyone.
The EU’s destructive rules will evidently remain superior to British common law, but this will be propagated behind a British mask of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’, and the usurped monarch will remain waving at the audience of the fictitious theatre show. Parliament will merely rubber stamp EU directives and further dismantle the infrastructure of the last remaining services we have.
Everything is now corporate anyway as it was criminally designed to be.
The theft of public services has always been ensuing, even since the welfare state was created in fact. Margaret Thatcher stole the Water and Sewage industry in 1986 for example, and also granted the EU (Ofwat) authority to regulate the industry. It is actually a crime to pay for water and sewage charges because to do so is to aid and abet the theft.

BREXIT is treasonable simply because by granting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty authority over the British Common law constitution, is to deny the office of sovereign (King or Queen) their sworn duty to govern the sovereign people under the terms and conditions laid down within the 1215 Magna Carta and 1688 Coronation Oath Act i.e., by only governing the people of the entire realm according to their ancient laws and customs.
Taken from a transcript of the 1953 Coronation of Elizabeth II.

“Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?”
Queen. “I solemnly promise so to do.”
Archbishop. “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?”
Queen. “I will.”
[Take note that; “laws and customs” refer to “their” (the peoples) LAWS and not unconstitutional Acts and statutes that only serve to undermine the common laws and customs of the people. Statutes which have been created by diverse traitors in parliament ever since ‘The Estates’ sought to undermine Magna Carta 1215 and slowly, covertly, the Coronation Oath too, which not only undermined the nations sovereignty held in trust by the crown, but which also gave the so called ‘ruling elite’ families the false power to rule us by deceit.]
PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) is High Treason because by this agreement Britain cannot remain as an independent Nation State.
Without an independent military in service to the nation state and no other state, Britain ceases to be an independent sovereign nation. PESCO will place British armed forces under the control of the EU PERMANENTLY!
The long range plan for military integration of British armed forces has been a part of the agenda for decades. The following is a summary of the more recent culminations of that agenda. As per usual they implement their ‘endgame’ plans slowly so that the people accept them more readily.
20th March 2017 Britain announces bilateral “defence pact” with Germany. Theresa May announces that

Britain and Germany will form a defence pact immediately following the formal invocation of Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty.
The Ministry of Defence says it is working with Germany “on a joint vision statement on future co-operation”.
22nd June 2017 European Council calls for the launch of a permanent
structured cooperation.

At the June European Council, EU leaders agree on the need to launch an inclusive and ambitious permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) to strengthen Europe’s security and defence.
Within three months, member states will agree a common list of criteria and commitments, together with concrete capability projects, in order to start this cooperation.
“It is a historic step, because such cooperation will allow the EU to move towards deeper integration in defence. Our aim is for it to be ambitious and inclusive, so every EU country is invited to join,” says Donald Tusk at the European Council press conference.
12th September 2017 UK Government publishes “Foreign policy, defence and development” Brexit White Paper.
Despite “Brexit”, the U.K. will continue its contribution to CSDP missions and operations if it can participate in both the mandate development and detailed operational planning stages of the process (PESCO).
12th October 2017 Boris Johnson and Michael Fallon meet Polish counterparts to progress Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnsonmeet their Polish counterparts to discuss security and defence cooperation.
Fallon and Polish Defence Minister Macierewicz discuss increasing military ties and co-operation, including working towards a “Defence Capability and Industrial Partnership” to strengthen cooperation between the UK and Polish defence industries.
They also discussed the Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty, which the Prime Minister signed at the next UK-Poland Inter-Governmental meeting in December.
15th October 2017 Boris Johnson meets Foreign Ministers at Chevening House. Boris Johnson is joined by the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia at Chevening House to discuss “shared challenges” and the UK’s “continued commitment” to EU security and defence.
19th-20th October 2017 European Council Discuss PESCO. Heads of state or government resume discussions on the permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) on defence at the European Council meeting, attended by Theresa May.
26th October 2017 Dutch Officer commands German Panzer Battalion for first time. A Dutch officer becomes commander of the German Army’s Panzerbataillon (Tank Battalion) 414 for the first time. The Bundeswehr describes his command as “historic” and the Dutch Ministry of Defence says it is “a next step” in the integration of the Dutch Army’s 43 Mechanised Brigade into the German 1st Panzer Division.
Quietly, without most people noticing, the European Commission is moving ahead with a strategy that will arguably make the EU into the first fully operational model of a centralised ‘one state’ supranational authority: ‘A New World Order’; the long standing neoconservative ambition which lies at the heart of global secret society agendas and US geopolitical hegemony. This is tied in with the United Nations who seek to be the world’s police force.
The key ingredient of this strategy is the establishment of an ‘EU Treasury’ which, according to Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, will come into effect in June 2018, under the official title: European Monetary Fund. This will result in the single point control of all EU member state finances.
The plan will involve a further leveraging of the power of the major banks, to consolidate their controlling influence over EU affairs. By combining an ‘EU Treasury’ and a consolidation of banking power, a major step will be taken in the ‘amalgamation of everything’ heist; to be brought under the single umbrella of a Totalitarian Super State.
We are talking about individual country’s monetary policies; the military; police forces and intelligence services all being run from a central control unit in Brussels. These will be followed by more of the same — covering almost all areas of administrative control, that were once the domain of individual countries. The institution at the forefront of this power grab is the Practical Lawful Dissent: Bank for International Settlements, based in Basel, Switzerland, which has global outreach and acts as a funnel for the acquisition and distribution of vast sums of globally fluid international money.
The British Government is committing the most heinous act of High Treason with regard to PESCO since the corrupt Rump Parliament, formed in 1648 to replace the purged Long Parliament, was consequently dismissed by Oliver Cromwell on the 20th April 1653.
In 1689 ‘The Estates’ (Parliament) again took control by deception after a power grab was achieved, whilst the implementation of William and Mary to the English throne created an opportunity for them to introduce more deceptive legislation, also to undermine further the Coronation Oath Act.
Statutes that are observed by H M Courts today, which are no longer common law jurisdictions where a juror is present in their full capacity according to law, to also decide upon the legality of Statutes created by parliament, are thus operating ‘ultra vires’ and in a quisling capacity whilst committing treason against we the people. These so called ‘Courts’ operate under Maritime Admiralty Rules (the rules of shipping). Common Law MUST be observed in all courts of law. Imagine if you will? that the Common Law (Constitution) is the ‘motherboard’ of a computer programme which all other programmes (juridictions) must comply with to be able to function.
The long range plan to overthrow British National Sovereignty: A long range deception strategy to create a single Federal European state with the erosion of each nation’s sovereignty, currency and the powers to
determine its own laws and affairs, was finalised by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they could continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism, and political subversion.
Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled ‘Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft ‘ (public document worldcat OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as ‘European Economic Community’ which has been herein presented as evidence. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

Since the end of the war, diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-French pro- federal European lobbying body posing as anon-Governmental grass roots pressure group.

The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

The first move towards a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly,
it was the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the ‘illegal’ thirty year rule.

The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do what we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm, injury or loss to another’s life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

England, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender, land, or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

No one (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act’s of Union succession and settlement 1701-07).

Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his (other) spouse or eldest son;
b) levying war against the sovereign in his (or her realm), which includes , any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the Government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder;
c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereign’s enemies in wartime.

Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organisation, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

The evidence presented in the ‘shoehorned into the EU’ FCO 30/1048 files, shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of British sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law by the Heath Administration.

The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath Administration.

The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain’s independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher Administration.

The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original
EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen
in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Major Administration.
With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the ‘crime and disorder Act’ of 1998, abolishing the death penalty. This including the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy. This was a further Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration

The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the EU constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair Administration.

In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution the Blair Government removed the word ‘sovereignty’ from the oath of office of constables in the ‘police Reform Act 2002 (section, 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section, 82). These were both acts of Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair Administration.

The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy making, including that related to immigration and borders. This was the crime of Treason at common law by the Brown Administration.

By denying the British people a proper referendum on remaining within the EU, and further misdirecting the British people with regard to the legality of remaining within the EU. Was an acts High Treason by the Camoren administration.

PESCO (The integration of British armed forces under the command of the EU superstate) provides the EU with the authority to direct British armed forces. A nation unable to defend its borders independently cannot be a sovereign nation. This is an Act of Treason by the May Administration.

BREXIT provides authority to Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty 2009, whilst British common law is blatantly denied and ignored by the quisling government, The electorate were deceived into voting to remain in or out of an illegally constructed regime within a criminal referendum, this was a further act of Treason by the May administration.
The above facts and evidence are all on public record. For anyone to know of an act of Treason being planned or committed, and to not report the crime is also guilty of the same (Misprision of Treason) – (1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act section 5).

In 1971, an FCO memorandum known as FCO 30/1048 was drafted. This document details how the UK would surrender sovereignty if it were to join the E.E.C/EU. However, this document was classified as Confidential, and not released into the public domain until 2002. This document is now within the public domain and provides clear, undeniable evidence that Edward Heath lied to the British electorate and committed both Sedition and High Treason at common law.
A SECRET document prepared for pro-Europe Tory Prime Minster Edward Heath shows how the Foreign Office knew EU membership would dismantle Britain as a sovereign nation. More damningly, in line after line, the faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance.
The briefing paper acknowledges that Britain would in time become little more than a puppet state of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling EU – then called the EEC. But, instead of sounding alarm bells, the authors of the paper warn ministers to hide the truth from the British public.
Bizarrely FCO 30/1048 reads more like an educated anarchists’ guide to crushing Britain’s political standing on the world stage than the sober briefing of civil service pillars of the British establishment. The language suggests repeatedly that the British people are too stupid to grasp the implications of joining the EEC (which became the EU in 1993), and that indeed this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it. Again and again they assert that
Britain’s parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, there will be a United States of Europe with a single currency. Here we read between the lines of the most damning paragraphs of the FCO 30/1048 and explain what the writers really meant: The paper starts with a academic discussion of sovereignty – arguing that sovereignty is not necessarily a good thing. By page five we are left in no
doubt as to the author’s position on sovereignty as he writes: “Sovereignty is a technical concept with, in many ways, only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy.”
And after some rambling paragraphs about the Queen having sole sovereign law making power in Britain, he cuts to the chase saying: “Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.” The first acknowledgement that Britain was about to transfer significant powers to Europe.
A few paragraphs later he confirms this saying: “we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none.”
And further the authors not only concede the handing over of power but that this is a no-going back deal: “we shall be accepting that the Commission will jointly represent the member states, who to that extent will have their individual international negotiating powers limited; and we shall in various fields be accepting a wide degree of coordination of our policy with that of the rest of the Community. All of this we shall be accepting “for an unlimited period,” with no provision for withdrawal.”
In a clumsy attempt to diminish the massive changes to the way Britain is governed the writer says: “Overall it is clear that membership of the Community in its present form would involve only limited diminution of external sovereignty in practice.” But just a page later he makes it crystal clear that it is just a matter of time before Europe starts eating away at Britain’s ability to govern itself saying: “The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome ‘to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples’.”
Paragraph 12(I) is one of the most damning – as it clearly details the way in which EU law will trample over British law. But that this must be kept from the common knowledge of the British people. He writes: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (i.e. without any further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws).
Community law operates only in the fields covered by the Treaties, viz, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour; services and capital; transport; monopolies and restrictive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal and steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this considerable range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law.”
Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past.
Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have required us to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations, the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force, as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation.
Clause III adds with shocking prescience that the seismic legal shift would in effect be creating a federal law in a United States of Europe. And this was 47 years ago, back in 1971. He writes: “The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.”
(iv) The Law Officers have emphasised that in accepting Community Law in this country we shall need to make it effective as part of a new and separate legal order, distinct from, but co-existing side by side with, the law and customs of the British people. They have referred to the basic European Communities Treaty provisions as amounting “in effect to a new body of ‘Federal’ statute law.” which is Treasonable.
Next he deals with the reality of the homogenising of British life into European life and says: “In lay terms we may say that if Britain joined the Community there would be many implications for both external and internal (particularly parliamentary) sovereignty. Some of these would be wholly novel, and the general effect particularly in the longer turn would be of more pervasive and wide-ranging change than with any earlier commitments. Largely this is because the Community treaties when drawn up were seen as arrangements not merely for collaboration but for positive integration of large parts of the economic and social life of the Member States. As a result the conventional theoretical line dividing internal from external affairs has become blurred, a process which as we have seen is already advancing with the development of transnational economic activity.”
The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”
He writes: (i) National Identity: “We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most nations.
“When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry to the Community, people may feel that it is this “Britishness” that is at stake. Hence Mr Rippon’s pointed question “are the French any less French?” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is the large measure of dislike and mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britain. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

(iii) Remoteness of the Bureaucracy:
“It is generally acknowledged that in modern industrialised society the impersonal and remote workings of the Government bureaucracy are sources of major anxiety and mistrust. The operations of democracy seem decreasingly fitted to control the all-embracing regulatory activities of the Civil Service. In entry to the Community we may seem to be opting for a system in which bureaucracy will be more remote (as well as largely foreign) and will operate in ways many of which are already determined and which are eeply strange to us. This bureaucracy is by common consent more powerful than compared with the democratic systems of the Community than is ideal. Yet the way to remedy this balance without reducing the Community to a mere standing association for negotiation between national Ministers is by strengthening the Community’s democratic processes which in turn means more change and more “loss of sovereignty.”
The following paragraph (iv) is so damningly anti-British it reads like the ramblings of some pseudo Guy Burgess type Oxbridge communist attacking, as it does, Britain’s idea she has any power on the world stage as fantasy.
(iv) National Power “As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power.
Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the form of
the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome emphasise the merging of national interests.”
In a section that could have been written 47 minutes ago rather than 47 years ago he deals with the inevitable – and welcome – single currency, and the prospect of an EU army. He writes: “…but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. This sort of grouping would bring major politico/economic advantages but would take many years to develop and to win political acceptance. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”
Towards the end the anti-British, pro-Europe rhetoric is in full flow, accepting Britain’s notion of itself as an independent state would be completely dismantled. Britain would be a European state, it’s Parliament neutered. “…then over a wide range of subjects (trade, aid, monetary affairs and most technological questions) Community policies toward the outside world would be common or closely harmonised. Although diplomatic representation would remain country by country its national role would be
much diminished since the instructions to representatives would have been oordinated among member states.
By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete. This is a far distant prospect; but as members of the Community our major interests may lie in its progressive development since it is only when the Western Europe of which we shall be a part can realise its full potential as a political as well as economic unit that we shall derive full benefits from membership.”

“…of the functions of the Community could probably only take place with concomitant development of the institutions of the Community. It is hard to envisage the necessary decisions being taken under the present organisation of the Community; more effective decision-making at Community level would either require majority voting on an increasing range of issues in the Council or stronger pressures to reach quick decisions by consensus.
In either case the role of the Commission would become more important as the Community became responsible for the regulation of wider areas of the internal affairs of the member states and this would in turn increase the need to strengthen the democratic institutions of the Community, including perhaps a directly elected Parliament. In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’.”
-Note: Parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of Treason and is a contradiction. Parliament is supposed to be operating in SERVICE to a constitutional monarchy, whom in turn is supposed to be in SERVICE to the sovereign people under the Coronation Oath Act. The many layers of the deception have come about due the longevity of the Treasonous administration(s) progression, since (at least) parliament usurped the position of the British monarchy by criminally ‘proclaiming’ parliamentary sovereignty.
FCO 30/1048 even predicts Michel Barnier’s current attempt to bully and punish Britain for having the temerity to leave the EU saying “member states would probably nominally have the ability to leave until about the year 2000, but such a move would have increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector.”
And in yet another sideswipe at the British public he says it will be important for politicians to deal with – or cover-up – “anxieties about British power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world.”
And the pressing need to cover-up the realities goes on in the next paragraph where he writes: “After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community. This counsel of perfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable if they are put in a Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms of general and Community-wide interest and, on the other, blaming membership for national problems is real and important.”
Finally, in conclusion, the writers concede openly that Parliament will be made effectively redundant saying: “To control and supervise this process it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic organisation of the Community with consequent decline of the primacy and prestige of the national parliaments.”
The evidence above can be viewed on computer disk or downloaded from the internet. The evidence was discovered within the public records office by David Barmby whom compiled the evidence and can, as far as I am aware, still be found there today. High Treason is the most serious crime that can be committed or is on a par with genocide.
It is clearly evidential that the British Establishment is committing High Treason whilst destroying British National Sovereignty. The police SERVICE is under Oath and Attestation to defend the common laws and customs of the realm, defending the sovereignty of the people is a duty that MUST be adhered to by law.
All police constables whom have been put on Notice of the Treason evidence by the people, nationwide, are blatantly and evidentially ignoring said crimes being committed, and are thus defined as TRAITORS and OUTLAWS under British constitutional law, and the people they are supposed to serve. Within a lawless state the people themselves are called upon by law, to defend the Nation and police the police.
The evidence supplied herein is all verifiable fact and, has been provided to you under duress of circumstances in defence of our common law rights and freedoms, in order to “compel” police constables to investigate the herein allegations, and to act according to law under Oath. You can use this document to educate police constables (Corporate Policy Enforcers) in order to provide proof that they are aware of the situation. Once served by recorded delivery on an individual or named constables they cannot later
state that they were unaware.
Source: Britain-to-eu-membership/
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
The Oath specifically states “ACCORDING TO LAW.”
The “Law” refers to Common law as laid down within the British/English Constitution. Evidently, whilst ignoring the variety of Treason evidence provided, many/all police constables are aiding and abetting the crime(s) and have thus deposed themselves of any legal/lawful authority by breaching the above Oath of Office, this is the opinion according to law.
This document may be used in evidence.