The Great European Union Referendum Debate: Should the United Kingdom Remain a Member of the European Union or Leave the European Union?

By Francis S E Codjoe Jnr.

This book is the authors contribution to the debate on Britains future relationship with the European Union. Unusual circumstances led him to spend over ten years researching the significance of European integration. He discovered that a British Secret Service Agent, who investigated Jackthe-Ripper crimes, wrote about a political alliance of European nations (how it would develop, its character and future) even before the French Founding Fathers of the European Project, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, were born in 1888 and 1886 respectively. According to the Intelligence Officer, a Confederation of European Nations would develop through a great European crisis. And this European Confederacy would become the next major political feature in history after the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. He made this forecast before Theodor Herzl, the Father of Zionism, formed the Zionist movement in 1896. The state of Israel for the Jews was created in Palestine in May 1948. Two years later, in May 1950, the European Union was born in Paris with The Schuman Plan. These events occurred exactly as the Intelligence Officer had predicted.

The author shares with the reader the important advice Schuman and Chancellor Adenauer offered to Europeans concerning the survival of the European Project.

The writer responds to David Camerons Bloomberg speech. He offers a critique of his vision for Britain and Europe. He explains whether an independent Scotland should seek EU membership or not. The writer also reveals his communication with an Archbishop concerning the Church of Englands support of Britains membership of the European Union. This volume explains the significance of the national emblem of Great Britain (The Royal Coat of Arms) and what Britishness implies. British values and identity are concealed in Britains heraldrythe symbol of the Sovereignty of the British people.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: May 12, 2016
• ISBN: 9781524631246

Francis S E Codjoe Jnr.

Francis Samuel Ewianan Codjoe was born in Ghana. He began his education at St Augustine’s College in Cape Coast, Ghana. He moved to England and continued his schooling at Chelmer Institute of Higher Education at Chelmsford in Essex. He completed his course at the London School of Accountancy. He went on to work for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and finally as a security officer with G4S. Francis is not a political activist. He is neither a businessman nor a pastor. Through unusual circumstances, he found himself researching the significance of European integration and the national emblems of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America. He shares with you his years of labour.

Book preview

© 2016 Francis S E Codjoe Jnr. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 05/09/2016

ISBN: 978-1-5246-3124-6 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

KJV

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the Holy Bible, King James Version (Authorized Version). First published in 1611. Quoted from the KJV Classic Reference Bible, Copyright © 1983 by The Zondervan Corporation.

CONTENTS

Introduction We Must be Silent No More

Chapter 1 David Cameron's Vision for Britain and Europe

Chapter 2 United States of America on Britain's Membership of the European Union

Chapter 3 European Integration Has Become a Burden on Britons

Chapter 4 Christians Must Not Be Silent About the Development of the European Union and Britain's Membership of It

Chapter 5 The Church of England Has Endorsed 'Satan'

Chapter 6 The Extraordinary Foresight of God's Barrister on European Integration

Chapter 7 God's Barrister and Lapsed Britain: He Speaks Today

Chapter 8 Should the United Kingdom Remian in the European Union or Leave the European Union?

Chapter 9 Should Scotland be an Independent Country? And Should an Independent Scotland Apply for Membership of the European Union?

Chapter 10 From Adam to Victoria:the British Throne Is the Throne of David

Bibliography

42039.png

British identity and values are concealed in Britain's national emblem -- The Royal Coat of Arms, which is the symbol of our sovereignty.

AUTHOR'S NOTE

This volume is a reissue of the author's previous work, The European Union Debate, which was published in July 2014. Only a new chapter, Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? has been included in this edition.

Chapter 9 of this book, Should Scotland be an independent country? And should an independent Scotland apply for membership of the European Union? was a chapter in the author's former work. He wrote it before the Scottish referendum on 18 September 2014. The writer has not revised this chapter. Because the subject would be relevant whenever the Scottish people decide to hold another plebiscite to break away from the United Kingdom to join the European Union as an independent nation.

Apology

The manuscript for this book was not edited. The author rushed it to the publishers because of the limited time he had. He wanted to release this edition before the British electorate vote on 23 June 2016 to decide their future relationship with the European Union. The writer bears responsibility for all the errors in this work. He has indulged in repetitions to emphasise significance points. Please accept his apology.

Francis S E Codjoe Jnr

London

18 March 2016

Dedication

This book is dedicated to the Prince of Scotland Yard and the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

42058.png

The Prince of Scotland Yard, KCB., LLD - The Anglicanised Irishman of Scotch Extraction

• He wrote about European integration (how it would develop, its character and future) decades before the EU was born. The ideal Detective of real life. He investigated Jack-the-Ripper crimes.

• Marvellous quickness in seizing on the essential points in difficult cases were at once the wonder and admiration of the men under his control. He had power of close and rapid reasoning from facts.

• Discreet, Silent and Reserved man. The terror to evil doers.

• More popular, more genuinely respected by his subordinates.

• During his reign at Scotland Yard, the CID built up a world-wide reputation for efficiency in crime-detection.

• One of the hardest-working and most brilliant heads of the Criminal Investigation Department for many years.

• Acknowledged authority on Penal System. A Deep Thinker. A Student of Science and Philosophy, Biblical Chronology, and Prophecy. A Critic of the Higher Criticism and of Science.

• The Knight 'killed' Darwin's bulldog, Prof. T Huxley, to 'rescue' Prime Minister William Gladstone from the 'jaws' of the Rottweiler,

Introduction

We Must be Silent No More

Great Britain is at a crossroad -- a crucial stage in the history of our blessed nation. Should Britain maintain its membership of the European Union to be at the 'heart of Europe'? Or, Britain should withdraw from the EU? Should Scotland become an independent country? And should an independent Scotland seek membership of the European Union? To answer these questions, we must answer the following questions: What is the true purpose of the European Union? What is the soul of Europe? Is the future of the European Project bright or dark? What is the real relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

On 2 September 2007, The Observer newspaper published an article entitled This cowardly refusal to make a political case for Europe. The editorial noted: "If the European Union didn't exist, politicians would have to invent it. It would be an epic project. The British government would have to ask voters for permission. The fundamental truth is that the European integration started out as a free-trade agreement that has evolved into a political entity. That process demands public consent. The mandate Harold Wilson won to stay in the European Economic Community in 1975 cannot be stretched to cover the union that exists now.....The argument about Britain's place in Europe has to start now. A referendum on the constitution (the Lisbon Treaty) would have been an opportunity to do just that." This commentary raises the following questions:

• Why have succeeding British governments, since 1975, denied Britons our democratic right to decide on our long-term relationship with the European Union?

• Why did Gordon Brown, the former British Prime Minister, without the consent of the British people, sign the Lisbon Treaty that has transferred more powers from the British Parliament to a foreign power in Europe?

Gordon Brown's refusal to call for a public vote on the Lisbon Treaty prompted a rebuke from Matthew d'Ancona, the then Editor of The Spectator. In his article, After this, we can't believe a word you say, Gordon, he writes: This latest betrayal will compound the question that all voters now ask about all politicians: why can't they keep a promise?"

Europe: The Meta Issue

Prior to the 2010 General Election, and before the British Government adopted the Lisbon Treaty, Melanie Phillips published an article titled If Cameron doesn't stop Blair being shoehorned in as EU President, there'll be no point in him becoming Britain's Prime Minister. Ms Phillips outlined the need for David Cameron, then the Opposition Leader, to call for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. She noted: What is the point of all his ideas about welfare reform, education or the economy. Frankly, unless the Lisbon Treaty is stopped, there is little point in Cameron or anyone else busting a gut to win the General Election, since Parliament will be reduced to the status of Westminster regional council in the empire of Euroland. The columnist concluded: "Europe is not some marginal issue that belongs to a discredited and best forgotten past. It is the meta-issue, the one that underpins all other issues. The British people know this. That is why 70 per cent want a referendum on the treaty. It's why no fewer than 40 per cent want to come out of the EU altogether. The issue of Europe requires politician to transcend short-term party considerations and act in the interests of the nation. It requires steadfast principle, absolute and unambiguous clarity of purpose and an enormous amount of courage....If he (Cameron) insists on maintaining his studied ambiguity on this of all issues, the public will conclude they can't trust him" (Daily Mail 5 October 2009).

Politicians, pundits and scholars in America, Britain, Europe and Ireland know only one side of the European Project -- the evolution of an economic and political alliance of European nations from the ashes of the Second World War. For example, the official history of the European Union published on Europa website states: "After the First and Second World Wars a number of Europeans became convinced that the only way to secure a lasting peace between European countries was to unite them economically and politically...The historic roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War...The end of World War II marked the beginning of the European Construction."

There is another side to the story of European Construction which I will share with you later. The EU phenomenon has captivated politicians and pundits to the extent that the Financial Times claims in its editorial of 2 January 2014 that, The EU [is] still a model for a volatile world. According to the leading article, The EU represents the world's most advanced experiment in interstate co-operation and in the pooling of national sovereignty. If the EU fails, the most ambitious model for international co-operation will fail with it...... Ambitious Asian, African or Latin American politicians have often looked to the EU as a successful model of regional integration that has increased peace and prosperity across a formerly war-torn continent. So, the British people who don't subscribe to the European Advanced Experiment have been ridiculed as 'backward looking', 'bigots' and xenophobic. The ingrained perception is that the elites, who support European integration, are better-informed than the public. The reality is these 'experts' are not well-informed on the subject. They prey on the ignorance of the masses with their own limited knowledge on European integration. With misinformation and deception, they seduce Britons to love the corrupt and anti-democratic and godless European Project.

Ruth Lea, an Economist, explained Britons' antipathy to the European Project. In her article, Why most British people want to pull back from Europe, she stated: Almost every aspect of our lives is influenced by the law-makers in Brussels. Our Parliament, when dealing with legislation from Brussels, can do little more than give it the nod...It is in the British people's interests to be free of the bureaucrats of Brussels (The Sun 15 March 2007). And the result of a Global Vision ICM Survey Poll, which was published in The Sunday Telegraph on 8 June 2008, indicated that 41% of Britons wanted only trade relationship with Europe. 27% wanted Britain to stay a full EU member. 26% favoured withdrawal from the EU. If trade-only options were offered in a referendum, 64% said they would vote in favour. If Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move, 57% said the U.K. should leave the EU, while 33% said it should stay in. Ms Lea summed it up: A looser relationship, based on trade and co-operation, rather than full political and economic integration, is consistently the option of the British people."

Since the above poll, countless polls have been carried out with different results. Whatever the outcomes of all the surveys conducted about Britain's relationship with the European Union, the fact remains that a section of the population think Britain has not benefited from its EU membership. We hate being ruled by aliens who are not responsible to us and cannot be removed. Unfortunately, our opposition to the European Project has incurred the wrath of political elites and pundits. Some of them have insulted us as 'racists', 'lunatics' and 'ignorant.' For example, Denis MacShane, a former Labour Minister for Europe, branded 29 million Britons who oppose an European superstate racists. According to him, Euroscepticism is misnomer. What we are talking about is hatred of Europe. We have got a dark streak of xenophobia and racism in our mentality (The Sun Wednesday 11 August 2004). Nonsense.

In February 2014, Ms Viviane Reding, the EU justice commissioner, who wants the EU to become a United States of Europe, told the Financial Times that, the political debate in Britain over immigration was emotional and populist and has very little to do with reality and it encourages extremism. Speaking at an EU-sponsored Citizens' dialogue in London, she suggested the British people have been fed with distorted information about the European project to the extent that we are ill-informed to make any informed decision in a referendum on our EU membership. And the EU employment commissioner, Laszlo Andor, who claimed Britons are nasty for raising concerns about European immigrants who want to abuse our benefit system, also accused British politicians of pandering to xenophobia.

Such crude comments from a discredited Labour Party politician, MacShane, and pompous Eurocrats, Reding and Andor, raise the following questions:

• Do politicians and political commentators have monopoly of scholarship on the significance of European integration?

• How well informed are Denis MacShane, Viviane Reding and Laszlo Andor on European integration?

• Are Viviane Reding, Laszlo Andor and eurofanatics aware it was a Briton who wrote about European integration and its future before Jean Monnet, the French architect of the European project, was born in 1888?

• Do Viviane Reding, Laszlo Andor and eurozealots know the advice Robert Schuman, the 'honest" politician who launched the European Project, offered European leaders concerning the survival of the European Enterprise?

• Are EU commissioners aware that the symbol on the European flag is a distortion of TRUTH?

Ms Reding's blind support for deeper political integration of EU member states exposed her ignorance about the European Project. Britons don't need lectures on European integration from an ill-informed politician. The debate in Britain over European immigrants is not emotional. It has everything to do with reality. Britons don't hate Europeans. We don't claim to be superior human beings than Europeans. We want to be independent people ruled by our own elected representatives not foreigners in Brussels who are not accountable to us. This is simple common sense which is not common among the elites in Europe and the eurofanatics. Britons are neither racists nor xenophobes if we want to close our doors to parasites from Europe, and withdraw from a crooked political project that was imposed on us.

Our borders remain open to genuine refugees. However, our gates should be closed to bloodsuckers who want to enter Britain to take advantage of our generous benefit system. It is neither racism nor xenophobic to shut our borders to economic tourists who have contributed nothing to our treasury. It makes sense to refuse them entry to avoid the scroungers putting unnecessary strain on our public services which have been funded by British taxpayers. This is reality and not xenophobic. And if the enlightened pundits and European commissioners describe our principled stand against benefit tourism as extremism so be it. They have lost their reason.

Freedom of movement of people in the European Union should not imply freedom not to work in your own country, but freedom to roam into Britain to live on the sweat of Britons. The Good Book says: The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth (Proverbs 10:4). The labourer is worthy of his wages (Luke 10:7). Every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labour -- it is the gift of God (Ecclesiastes 3:13).

Pundits, academics, business men, and politicians lack the foresight to convince Britons that our future lies in permanent membership of the European Union -- a project which is hostile to democratic values. The expertise of the so called experts on European integration lies in their ability to rain abuses on those of us who don't share Jean Monnet's vision of United States of Europe.

The author asks:

• Which of the EU 'experts' was able to predict with certainty, in 2000, that there would be a global financial crisis that would result in the collapse of Banks, the nationalisation of some major financial institutions in Britain and America, and a summit of 20 world leaders in America and Britain to find a global solution to a global economic crisis in a 'global society'?

• Which politician in Ireland foresaw the Irish economy would face a severe crisis in 2008 and 2009?

• Which political scientist predicted that the great Wall Street would crawl to American taxpayers for a rescue to prevent the Wall tumbling down?

• Which Economist foresaw that a barrel of oil would rise up to $150 and fall to about $40 dollar and rise again?

• Which political journalist warned that, on Christmas Day of 2009, a 23-year old man would attempt to kill innocent passengers on an American aircraft to prompt a British Prime Minister calling for an urgent global terror summit designed to prevent a new wave of terrorists emerging from Yemen? (Daily Mail 2 January 2010).

In 2009, Gordon Brown admitted he did not foresee the financial storm which resulted in his Labour Government dumping billions into the British economy to save it from collapse. He said: What we did not see, or nobody saw was the possibility of market failure.....The global financial crisis was completely new territory. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, described the global economic crisis an extraordinary international crisis (Financial Times 26 February 2009). If Brown and Merkel, and their friends in Britain, Europe and Ireland, could not foresee the global economic storm, what convinced them that the Lisbon Treaty would be beneficial to Europeans and it had to be imposed on them? Experts on European integration react to circumstances. They can neither predict future events nor prevent them. It is unreasonable for them to suggest Britain will be worse off outside the European Union.

On 23 June 2009, at the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin, Dr. Timothy Garton-Ash delivered a lecture titled The Europe We Need. The Oxford Professor told the audience: We are launched on big and stormy seas. We need a bigger and better boat, and there are also still some monsters in the deep. Yes! Monnet's European Titanic is swerving on 'stormy seas' full of 'monsters'. What is the fate of this bigger European boat? Do supporters of the EU Project know it?

It suits politicians to board Monnet's luxurious boat − to entertain themselves at the expense of the masses who subsidise the European Titanic. Peter Hitchens made the point in his essay How will we be able to look at our grandchildren in the face when they ask: What did you do to stop Britain being taken over by a foreign power? He noted: Political elites in all the parties love the EU, not because it is good for the country, but because it is good for them. They love its regular service of gravy trains, carrying failed Ministers off to a life of high salaries, big expenses and huge pensions, plus an almost total absence of responsibility. They don't mind at all that it deprives them of the power to do very much. They are for the most part, short of ideas and lazy and happy to be able to pass the buck to Brussels while enjoying their pay and perks (The Mail on Sunday 4 November 2007).

Why Should Europe Be a 'Dangerous Subject' For A Tory leader And A 'Marginal Issue' For The British Public?

On 26 July 2008, George Parker of Financial Times commented on Britons' attitude towards the European Union. In a piece titled The Sceptical Isle, he stated: Cameron understands that while most of his party dislike Brussels, and the public and press are generally sceptical, Europe remains a dangerous subject for a Tory leader. Eurosceptics like to point to polls showing headline hostility towards the EU, but deeper analysis shows that the public regard Europe as a marginal issue in their daily lives. Mr. Parker quoted Helen Coombs, deputy head of research at Ipsos Mori, the polling organisation: In June 2008, it was only the 18th most mentioned issue facing Britain... it was higher in the 1990s, when Britain was agonising over whether to join the euro....It's simply not something that people vote on in general elections. And according to another Ipsos Mori poll published in the 1 January 2014 edition of the Financial Times, Europe is well down the list of voters' concerns and features as an important issue only for the older voters? The problem is that Britons, especially the younger voters, have not been educated on the implications of Britain's EU membership.

Before George Parker's report, Ed Miliband, once a 'disciple' of Gordon Brown, had already subscribed to the notion that the British public is not interested in the European project. On a BBC Question Time, he boasted of Britons' apathy to the European Union: I don't think these issues (referring to a discussion on the Lisbon Treaty and Britain's relationship with the EU) are issues which people in my constituency want to have a referendum on. If you're interested in improving democracy in this country, having a referendum on issues that don't speak to people's lives is not the way to achieve it. It is therefore not surprising, when Ed Miliband, now the Opposition Leader who does not read British newspapers, stated in an article for the 12 March 2014 edition of the Financial Times, that if he becomes a Prime Minister he will not offer Britons a vote on our EU membership unless there is further transfer of powers from Britain to Brussels, which is unlikely.

Another FT political analyst, Philip Stephens, also suggested Europe is not a pressing issue for most Britons. In his article, Britain is hurtling along the road to a European exit, he wrote: "...While most voters do not much like Brussels, they are not obsessed by it. When they are asked to rank the EU in the list of things most salient to their daily lives, it rarely makes the top 10. Most people have more pressing concerns such as living standards and jobs, hospitals and schools" (FT 16 May 2013).

The truth is our living standards and jobs; our hospitals, housing stocks, public transport and schools have, to some extent, been affected by EU immigration and other laws initiated from Brussels. It is absurd for pundits to claim Britain's EU membership is less of a priority to the electorate who pump their billions to subsidise a project they have no control over its direction. Because of EU laws, a Briton can die at the hands of an European doctor who does not speak English. Had most voters, especially the young, understood the true purpose of the EU Project and its fate, they would have been obsessed with the EU. They would have cried daily for deliverance from 'bondage' in Brussels.

On 15 January 2014, Owen Jones of The Independent newspaper published an open letter to Ukip members. He stated: I wouldn't choose the European Union as one of the key issues facing the country, even though I agree the British people should be given a vote on our membership. Ukip leader Nigel Farage responded: I fear that you may have been reading too much into a statistical sample and haven't taken the time to get out and meet Ukip voters. That is what fundamentally unites our party. The phrasing of questions and surveys will not divert attention from the fact that we know that the issues which affect our everyday lives stem - in the majority - from the EU. So when Ukip voters talk about their main issues being immigration, energy prices, healthcare, housing or even what bulbs they will soon be allowed to purchase at their local garden centre, they all come under the umbrella of an EU issue (Source: The Unit.com).

If Britain's membership of the corrupt and godless and anti-democratic EU is not one of the key issues facing our country, then what is it? The view that Britons are not obsessed with the European Project and care less about it, should rather have surprised politicians and pundits since some of the laws that govern the British people originate from Brussels, and they take precedence over British laws. The irony is that an issue that should be on top of the political agenda is at the bottom of it. And politicians and pundits are satisfied that voters consider Europe a marginal issue in their lives. What a shame!

Eurofantics Must Do Their Homework on European Integration

Had politicians, pundits and scholars properly studied European integration, they would have learnt that, in the 19th century, God's Barrister, a British public servant, wrote about a confederation of European nations (how it would develop, its character and destiny) before the French Founding Fathers of the European Enterprise, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, were born in 1888 and 1886 respectively. According to the Victorian, this European confederacy would become a major political feature in history next to the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. He made this prediction even before Theodor Herzl, the Founding Father of Zionism, formed the Zionist Movement in 1896. The state of Israel was reborn in Palestine on 14 May 1948. Two years later, on 9 May 1950, the European Union was also born with the Schuman Plan exactly as the Victorian had predicted.

The writings of God's Barrister should have motivated politicians to put Britain's EU membership on top of their political agenda and educate the public accordingly. Unfortunately, due to their limited knowledge on the subject, they cannot teach Britons the impact the European Project would have on their lives. Consequently, the British people, who have invested their trust in politicians to educate them on Britain's EU membership, have been betrayed. As a result, Britons have become less-informed to the point that Europe -- the meta issue, has become a non-issue to most of them. Which people would prefer to be ruled by strangers in a foreign country, and for these aliens to instruct them how many hours they should work to support their families? This is a tragedy - not a situation politicians, pundits, and intellectuals should be proud of.

The elites have taken the silent majority, who resent being ruled from Brussels, for granted. Brian Sewell made the point in his article Why our voices must be heard. He explained: Deprived of any further opportunities to vote on European matters, the nation has become steadily less well-informed. Maastricht was a well-kept mystery....Without the stimulus of debate, we have been denied information; without the stimulus of a referendum at any further stage in the development of the EU, we have slipped into ignorance, indifference and mistrust. All governments since 1975 wanted it this way: Leave it for us" (Evening Standard, 3 June 2003).

It is time Britons and the Irish knew the unknown truth about European integration for this truth to set us free from 'slavery' in Brussels. Jean Monnet, the brain behind the European Project, has been described as a 'prophet' and a 'genius'. He did not merit any of these titles. Monnet had a blurred vision of a federated Europe. He did not know its future. He laboured to lay the foundation stone for the European Project to bring to pass what an Anglicised Irishman of Scotch extraction had already written about the fate of this Project before he himself was conceived. Who was a true 'prophet' and a genius: the Frenchman or the Briton?

Common Sense Is Not Always Common In The House of Commons

Great Britain belongs to Britons not the few in the House of Commons where common sense is not always common. For a politician once said he was ashamed to be a member of the British Parliament. On one occasion, Gordon Brown labelled Members of Parliament 'selfish' for demanding 10% pay rise whereas public servants were being offered less than 3%. (The Daily Telegraph 24 December 2007). Stephen Glover commented on this issue in an essay titled Bare faced lies and why we let all politicians get away with them. He explained: Politicians are addicted to lying because they believe that telling the truth in a difficult situation, or apologising involves a loss of face. They understand that we may see through their deceptions but they calculate that we will not mind very much as long as we reap the benefits of their lies. Politicians would think twice about telling lies if they feared they would be punished for it....We have entered into a dishonest contract with our rulers, tolerating a degree of deception so long as the economy continues to grow, and we are at least half competently governed.

The dishonest contract with our rulers was laid bare in May 2009. The Daily Telegraph published series of corruption in the House of Commons. Some politicians were exposed as thieves, liars and tax fiddlers. They abused their privileges and fought hard to prevent the publication of their greed and fraud that tainted the reputation of the Mother of all Parliaments. The 'expenses-fiddling cancer' continues to grow. In April 2014, a Cultural Secretary resigned for over claiming expenses. The future belongs to our children. We should not allow selfish and gluttonous politicians to condone with bureaucrats in Brussels to poison our sons and daughters with distorted information for them to love the godless EU Project. We must equip our children with sound education on European integration to enable them discern truth from falsehood to save them from deception. For example, the official explanation of the meaning of the EU symbol (a circle of 12 gold stars) is a distortion of a scriptural truth. I have dealt with this subject in Unknown Truths about the European Union: Is the future of Europe bright or dark?

The Green Politician, Cem Oezdemir, a member of the European Parliament who sat in the legislature's foreign affairs committee, argued for Turkey's membership of the European Union. In an article titled Turkish EU Entry is in Europe's interest, he noted: For me, today's Europe is a vision and a project that would not be conceivable without the catastrophe of World War II. To me, Europe and the EU symbolise the ideals of peace, democracy and freedom of opinion. The realisation of these ideals on a daily basis is meant to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again in Europe. Was this expert on 'Europe and the EU' aware that before the First and Second World Wars erupted, a Briton had already recorded that Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey would become members of an alliance of European nations that would develop from an European crisis?

Why Britons Are losing Their Freedoms And Liberties

Politicians don't owe Great Britain to sell Britons into 'slavery' in Europe. The British Constitution Group explains: It is the British people's right to govern themselves, and not to be dictated to by an unelected European elite, which has no understanding of, or sympathy for our historic customs, our way of life, our system of governance, our laws, or our British Constitution. For several decades now, behind a shield of lies and deceit, the collective political establishment in Great Britain has conspired to deny us our democratic right to decide who will govern us; they have destroyed our legal system, vandalised our constitution that protects our freedoms, and repackaged them with a new legal and political order for which we have never asked, nor do we want. Whilst politicians are rewarded for their betrayal, the British people, in stark contrast, have had their rights, freedoms and liberties tossed aside. If we do not have the courage and fortitude to stand up for our freedoms, then we surely deserve to lose them. In that unhappy case, how will we face our children, our dependents and the memory of those that have died in defence of our freedoms?

Why are Britons losing their freedoms and liberties? Dr Joseph Wild, a 19th-century British-Canadian, explained: A free religion is the parent of a free state, and a free state of a free school. A people who are not wise enough to take care of their own religion, are very poorly prepared to be the guardians of liberties. When a nation loses her religion, she loses the right arm of power and the ability to preserve freedom. And God's Barrister had this to say: Back to the Bible should be a patriotic, as well as a religious cry; for the preservation of our liberties, and our cherished institutions, depends much upon the maintenance of the Bible-taught heart-principles and stout convictions of our fathers.

Where are our Bibles? The Author of the Bible is mentioned in our national emblem -- The Royal Coat of Arms of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We will examine the meaning of our insignia and the implication of the wedding of Prince William and