Lisbon and the Treaty of Velsen (Towards a Police State)
Anne Palmer's thoughts on parts of the Treaty of
1) It is a couple of months ago now since I last looked at the Web-site of the European Gendarmerie Force (mid November) round about the time I sent out an email address for a 35 page booklet with Pictures of EU Forces from the federal Government of Germany (34 pages) European Security and Defence Policy.
2) Perhaps if I had paid more attention to regular visits on the site I would have seen that a new Treaty (The Treaty of Velsen) had been signed more or less at the same time as the EU’s Reform Treaty (now known as The Lisbon Treaty) had been signed by our Prime Minister.
3) It was only when I had an e-mail from Torquil Dick-Erikson that I was I alerted to the Treaty. Treaties should be clear and precise with the meaning perfectly clear especially when dealing with a Treaty that will affect all 27
4) While the Treaty of Velson seems relatively clear to me, the Treaty of Lisbon is open to misinterpretation. It has been made so intentionally. Passages in it can mean anything the authors of the Treaties want it to mean with the real and true intention of achieving its objective hidden away from view. Numbers of the Articles have been changed three times (to confuse?) along with placing certain Articles in completely different places and sense can only be made of certain articles if put together with others. For the Reform Treaty look to the web page listed below. Jens-Peter Bonde explains this deliberately muddled treaty very well on his Web-page. (below).
5) It was only comparing the Treaty of Lisbon with the Treaty of Velson, the latter brought to my attention by Torquil, the remarkable difference to the layout of the Velsen Treaty to the Lisbon, that I realised just exactly how the people had been deliberately duped, made fools of, by a despicable underhand action by those that had a ‘say’ in the writing of this Treaty. Perhaps because of the need by politicians to try to rush through their particular Parliaments and Governments this important constitutional Treaty of Lisbon, I have decided to act on the Lisbon Treaty first, because action is needed now, at once, it is URGENT.
6) During the “Period of Reflection” after the rejection of the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” by France and The Netherlands instead of going back to the “Drawing Board” and looking to rectify the concerns of the people, the EU decided on what may well turn out to be, a “suicidal mission” in their attempt to deliberately deceive millions of people, among which may be (or are) Government Ministers and Heads of State.
7) Ours is not the only country where the people have so many grave concerns. Jens-Peter Bonde has also accumulated many points and are listed on his web-site. Many have been the comments from those in power as to the real meaning of the Treaty. “That it is the same as the Constitution, only put another way” etc, and others, particularly in this Country, “that it (the then Reform Treaty-now the
8) It is a Treaty that perhaps the Vienna Convention on Treaties would not want to be party to, particularly so in view of its ‘guide lines’ or “laws” on the subject. Perhaps the EU’s methods are distasteful to the United Nations that even the United Nations might in the end shrink away from it too, for it has its high reputation to consider. Could or would the United Nations or the Vienna Convention on Treaties accept a European Union to “Speak with its one voice for all” knowing that the EU had deliberately set out to deceive 400 million people with such a Treaty? Particularly so, now that the people are beginning to be aware that those that want power over all, have sunk to such low depths to “get their way”? Is this not the way to ‘civil unrest’ in some of the EU’s member states? That during the “Time of Reflection” the EU had brought about a muddled Treaty to be able to say it is completely different to the rejected Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe to avoid holding the promised referendum in any State except
9) Listed below is an “Editorial”, which on pages 38 and 39 headed, “Tales from inside a Blue Submarine”, gives reasons why and how the Treaty is deliberately muddled to confuse the people (and possibly MP’s) so that none would understand the true meaning of its contents. I quote; “the negotiations that preceded the
10) Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written so that all involved in the ratification of these binding Treaties can understand them fully. Where there are deliberate attempts by authors of Treaties to confuse the people, this brings only shame and more lack of trust to politicians once more. I have also found that there are wide variations on the interpretations of the Lisbon Treaty by our Members of Parliament and also in the House of Lords in recent debates on the Treaty of Lisbon already. They cannot ALL be “right” and as these Treaties alter the way of life of all the people in each Nation State seemingly forever, the people at this particular time deserve the true meaning of the European Union and its aims for the future. If EU politicians (who are mainly national politicians also, are proud of what they are doing, they should tell the people. I do not mean because they ‘have achieved an “opt out” on certain matters or “red-lines’ through another section, I mean the main goal, the ultimate end of the EU if there is ever to be an end. We read that already parts of the un-ratified Treaty are being implemented, I write of course of the EU Embassies.
11) There may also be a feeling that, because of the lack of trust among the British people for their politicians caused through their own representatives in Parliament ignoring the people en mass, they doubt, but perhaps live in the constant hope that no Member of Parliament is capable of deliberately misleading the people as happened before when a former Minister said before we joined the European Economic Community that there would be ‘no loss of essential sovereignty’ and that ‘this Country had joined a Common Market for trade’. Sadly, the action regarding this Treaty and its passage through Parliament already, the trust I have in politicians is even less ’today’ than it was ‘yesterday’.
12) This is too important a matter not to put this ‘reasoning’ to our own MP’s, ‘legal’ people, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her Heirs and I doubt very much that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would take very kindly to having such a deliberately muddled document lodged with them. I will of course be forwarding on this to Jen-Peter Bonde..
13) I am not asking for a referendum, I rather expect our own politicians to reject this Treaty outright on similar grounds and/or as portrayed above. I cannot believe that any British MP whose solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown and their own Country could possibly agree to ratification of this Treaty. Violation of that Oath is of course the gravest matter of all.
14) It is your right to question those that ‘speak’ on your behalf. It is your DUTY as a British citizen to defend and protect your Queen and Country from those that you do not elect for Governing your Country in what may be forever if this Treaty is ratified. Two Prime Ministers of this Country have indicated their agreement by signing Treaties that, if ratified, would allow foreigners to govern this Country probably, forever. It is not in their gift to do this for it is completely at odds with our own Constitution, to which ALL MP’s should follow at all times. Each and every one of us have a bound Oath of Allegiance to the Queen (Crown) and this Country and to which our total loyalty is to our Crown and our own Country. The Governing of it, the freedoms once fought for and cost this Country so much in young lives, must be preserved for following generations. This too is our duty.
15) This Treaty would bind this Country forever to an organisation we would have absolutely no control over and laws we would have to obey and never, ever be able to protect ourselves from. This I will show clearly in Part 2 through the words in the Treaty of Velson. At the very least this Treaty of Lisbon should be re-written, to be clear and precise and truthful as to what is wanted, and for those countries that want to become fully integrated and be governed from Brussels to go ahead and for those that want to be free, to say NO.
16) Members of Parliament and our Government send our troops to allegedly fight for “Democracy” for other countries while we here in “The Mother Country” obey laws by un-elected Commissioners in the EU, and our own democratically elected Politicians deny their own people a promised referendum.
I end with a paragraph taken from an Article shown on the Telegraph website before I had received the e-mail from Torquil which, when I received it found me burning “the midnight oil” long into the early morning light, such was the horror at what I was reading and what would, could, may happen to us all in this Country if we “simply trust our MP’s and ‘let it all happen’.
My contribution to the Telegraph Web page, “We no longer live in a democracy, we have not lived in a true democracy for some time now. Prime Minister Brown is in POWER in order to hand over this Country to the EU to govern BUT, and it is a very big BUT, powerful leaders become so used to POWER, they forget the people. For years leaders of this Country have re-organised our forces, Police, Counties, Parishes into REGIONS of the EU in order to "fit in" with the EU and obviously Mr Brown's plans. However, not everything goes according to plan, does it? The people obviously will not have a vote on the EU Treaty but if MP's DO have a vote on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and if ever there is indeed another general election for alleged Government of this Country, WHO will place their cross by the name of any MP that has put the EU before their own Country by voting for ratification of the EU Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty). FOR ALL, each and every one of us owes allegiance to this, our own Country and may it always be so”. (This is one point I would like to get across very, very strongly because the names of ‘who voted for what’ are printed in Hansard. It is perhaps up to us to bombard National Newspapers into getting this message across, that we will know exactly who has voted for the EU to govern us forever. If we, the people cannot vote to save our Country, we must make sure that MP's that WE have democratically elected and through our taxes, paid for -in the past- to work for and represent US, especially if they still want to get paid and handle their famously high expenses-they know without doubt that the vast majority of people want no further integration into the European Union, they should therefore and without doubt, vote against ratification of this Treaty of Lisbon.)
I see no point or a need for a British Parliament-either houses- because the EU will rule through “its Regions”. Most certainly the people of this Country cannot afford yet another layer of Government. Our MP’s will have voted them-selves out of a job if they vote to ratify the Treaty of
Should this Treaty be ratified however, the people have nothing to lose. Even our MP’s and the EU know that too. Hence no doubt what will bring me on to Part two of this Article. We can revert to our own Common Law Constitution. This is what it is there for. We all then, each and every one of us, have a duty to adhere to Magna Carta with all its implications and our Bill of Rights 1688.
http://www.europolitics_3407_special_treaty.pdf I have tried this and it seems to no longer work, however, I can send as ‘attachment’ if required.
Jens-Peter Bonde’s article of 19.12.2007 is on
or http://www.bonde.com/ or I can send in attachment.
Official Journal for the EU Reform Treaty latest.
Pictures of the Treaty signing ceremony at Velsen here
Consent to be bound by part of a treaty and choice of differing provisions
1.Without prejudice to articles 19 to 23, the consent of a State to be bound by part of a treaty is effective only if the treaty so permits or the other contracting States so agree.
2.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty which permits a choice between differing provisions is effective only if it is made clear to which of the provisions the consent relates.
SECTION 3. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND PROVISIONAL,
APPLICATION OF TREATIES
Article 24 Entry into force
1.A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.
2.Failing any such provision or agreement, a treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be bound by the treaty has been established for all the negotiating States.
3.When the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is established on a date after the treaty has come into force, the treaty enters into force for that State on that date, unless the treaty otherwise provides.
4.The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations, the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text.
Article 29 Territorial scope of treaties
Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.
Article 31 General rule of interpretation
1.A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2.The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
3.There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
4.A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.
Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Article 40 Amendment of multilateral treaties
1.Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the amendment of multilateral treaties shall be governed by the following paragraphs.
2.Any proposal to amend a multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part in:
(a) the decision as to the action to be taken in regard to such proposal;
(b) the negotiation and conclusion of any agreement for the amendment of the treaty.
3.Every State entitled to become a party to the treaty shall also be entitled to become a party to the treaty as amended.
4.The amending agreement does not bind any State already a party to the treaty which does not become a party to the amending agreement; article 30, paragraph 4 (b), applies in relation to such State.
5.Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:
(a) be considered as a party to the treaty as amended; and
(b) be considered as a party to the unamended treaty in relation to any party to the treaty not bound by the amending agreement.
Article 49 Fraud
If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Corruption of a representative of a State
If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 51 Coercion of a representative of a State
The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.
Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances
1.A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as aground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
2.A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:
(a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or
(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.
3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.