0
That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO - IanPJ on Politics
I would like to URGENTLY garner an opinion from you all out there on a theory that I have as to the full measure of the plan for the ESM, and that famous Cameron meeting last Friday.
I know that many of you who visit this site have looked deeply into our constitution, and are already aware that our State, the Crown, is not the Monarchy, but the Corporation of London.
The ‘Crown’ is in trust to the Corporation of London, it owns it and has done since Cromwell hocked it in return for unrepayable loans from Dutch Bankers, loans that are still being repaid today, to finance a bankrupt England after the Civil War.
In order that the Crown never left these shores and the transaction remained unknown to a largely starving and extremely volatile population it was to be held in trust in perpetuity by a new body, which eventually became The Corporation of London.
It is this Crown that all State employees swear allegiance to, with the exception of the Royal Navy who give their allegiance to the Queen directly. It is why the Crown is housed in the Tower of London, within the bounds of the City, and only loaned to the Monarch for State occasions.
What these charlies across the Channel are trying to do is the same, and largely for the same reasons. The new revised ESM that was suggested on Friday would become the new State of Europa
In the same way that the State sits above the British Government, this planned ESM Treaty would be above the EU and its institutions
National Governments will be shareholders in the ESM, their elite given immunity, but the daily politics will still be handled by the EU political structures and the existing treaties. Transparancy is achieved by getting all the existing EU treaty members and anyone who joins the EU to automatically become a shareholder in the ESM, but it would only work if all 27 members agreed to join into it, in order to make it both transparent and invisible at the same time.
The Euro already has international status, so to create the corporation which owns the Euro and give it international, legal, diplomatic status is to effectively give it Statehood. (read the ESM carefully, you will find all those things in there)
I believe that Cameron had to say NO to the Merkozy plan on Friday, not because he didn’t want to participate, but that he couldn’t. The British Government could not agree to this new ESM without breaking their contract with the Corporation of London and would therefore forfeit the Crown.
When the ESM treaty was adopted in Council on 25 March 2011, it was that all 27 member states agreed that the 17 Eurozone members could use a vehicle in order to consolidate monetary matters, and that only the 17 Eurozone members would be members of the ESM.
I believe that what was presented to Cameron on Friday was an amendment to that treaty that would require all 27 member states to be required to be members and shareholders of the ESM, because the new plan was to set the ESM up as the European State.
If you read my article where I explained the ESM in some detail, I wondered when I was writing it why all the immunity, why all the diplomatic status, why is structures, buildings, files etc were to be inviolable, and why the automatic entry for new EU member states.
http://www.parker-jo...-mafia-at-work/
Now it makes sense.
Just as the British ‘state’ is the Corporation of London, the plan was to set up the ESM corporation to be the State of the EU. However, it would require all 27 members to agree to it in order for it to become the transparent layer above the EU institutions, just as the ‘Crown’ is here in the UK, because it would also require the total handover of financial sovereignty in order to do it.
Cameron has been told by the City of London, by the Corporation that they will not, indeed cannot, be subsumed into this new EU structure, that’s why he had to say NO.
Now that Cameron has said no, the lawyers have stepped in, saying that such a new treaty would not be able to use the existing EU institutions blah blah blah.
To give weight to this theory, I present a document written by Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex who has analysed the text of the Friday meeting. You can download it here.
http://www.statewatc...ment-dec-11.pdf
NOW I understand why Cameron said no, he had no choice, this is going to be a battle between the Corporation of London and the ESM. Not forgetting that at this level, the Corporation of London in the form of the British State also holds sway over Australia, Canada, NZ and anywhere else in the Commonwealth that has a Governor General representing ‘The Crown’.
Now whether this new structure would continue to use Euro’s or not is debatable, whilst the speculation continues that Germany is printing DMarks, it is possible that they believe that a new DMark denominated structure would satisfy the markets better.
Finally, when you have absorbed all this above, including the documents, have a read of this report from ZeroHedge. because as always, Germany has a backup plan…Remember, Germany’s finance minister has stressed the importance of a “political union,” NOT a “monetary union.”
“What we’re now doing with the fiscal union, what I’m describing here, is a short-term step for the currency,” Mr. Schäuble said. “In a larger context, naturally we need a political union.”..
[Schäuble]sees the turmoil as not an obstacle but a necessity. “We can only achieve a political union if we have a crisis,” Mr. Schäuble said.
http://www.nytimes.c...=3&pagewanted=2
Look at your passport, it says that you are a citizen of the EU. Only a State can grant citizenship, the plan for the EU has always been one of eventual statehood, that is why it has been so imperative for them to keep the people out of the decision making process.
In the minds of the colleagues it must be simple. Make the EU too big to fail. The Barosso despised credit rating agencies could no longer pick off countries one by one, as national economies simply became internal ones, part of the single market, there would in their minds be One country, One State, One economy. Too big to fail?
It goes a long way to explain the lack of detail, the obfuscation and the wall to wall PR press coverage for Cameron. But for Britain it would have meant the end of Sterling, the end of our ability to trade where we liked, the end of a nation.
In order for Merkozy to achieve their dream of Statehood for the EU it was essential for them that Britain be in the ESM, because they wanted the new State to be able to utilise the existing EU institutions turning them into departments of State. For the plan to work now Britain would have to leave the EU altogether leaving 26 members in both bodies.
If Britain fails to leave the EU they would have to set up a whole new EU structure without British input from the top down, State, ESM, institutions. which I just don’t think they would be able to do without having to explain it to the people.
Perhaps in a very round about way Cameron did as much on Friday as Churchill could have done, but I don’t think the boy is bright enough to realise it.
PJC Journal
Steve
