Mark Son of Peter the Apostle

The Apostle Peter states in his first letter that Mark is his son.

Saint Mark the Chosen Son

Saint Mark wrote his version of the Gospel based on Saint Peter's spoken testimony. Peter the disciple of Jesus did not write a version of the Gospel, but he is the author of two epistles, both of which are in the New Testament. They were written during the first century, and the first of these epistles mentions Mark. Owing to this biblical Script, it is certain that Saint Mark the Evangelist is the chosen son of Peter the Apostle.

The Man From Galilee Who Became the Stone Foundation

Simon the fisherman lived in Galilee and was dedicated to his daily work when Jesus chose him along with eleven other disciples. He spoke Aramaic, as did all the disciples of Jesus, and with them he followed Jesus everywhere. On one occasion Jesus spoke to Simon and gave him the name Rock, in the spiritual sense of stone.

The Greek translation for stone is Petros, and from the Greek comes the name Peter. It has the spiritual meaning of foundation. On giving Peter the name Rock, Jesus declared that he would build his Church upon this foundation and give him the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Peter's Successor: the Keys Contested

Around the sixth century AD a book appeared in Rome with the title liber pontificalis, meaning the book of popes. The exact date of its first publication is unknown, but it has remained until this day the book through which the Vatican claims that papal authority dates back to Saint Peter. According to the liber pontificalis, Peter’s apostolic authority passed at the time of his death to a certain Linus, who is described as Peter’s successor and second in line of the popes.

The liber pontificalis does not recognise any of the biblical apostles – including the four Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – as a successor to Saint Peter. Saint Peter’s two epistles, on the other hand, give an account of their own. Peter does not mention Linus in either of them, but in the first letter names only two men as being with him: Silvas, who helped him to write the first letter, and Mark, who Peter calls his son.

Peter’s Two Epistles Prior to the Written Gospel

In the period when Peter sent his two letters to the Church communities to whom they were addressed, the Gospel had still not been written. Peter mentions Paul’s letters, yet he does not allude to a written version of the Gospel, and so it can be reasonably assumed that the four Evangelists began their written work after Peter’s two letters were made known to the faithful.

The first three gospels, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, are known as synoptic, for they present a correlation in the description of events that took place when Jesus preached the Gospel in Galilee and Judea. It is universally accepted that one of these books formed the basis for the other two that followed.

The first synoptic gospel is traditionally considered to be Matthew’s, followed by those of Mark and Luke, but biblical research has later concluded that the first of the three synoptic gospels is that of Mark. His gospel is by far the shortest, and it is no doubt the original script which Matthew and Luke each later included in their respective presentation and built upon by presenting further information.

From the Apostle Peter’s Second Letter to the Gospel of Saint Mark

In his second letter, Peter informs the faithful that he will do his best to provide a way for them to remember the good message of Salvation. In so doing he makes known his intention concerning the future of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it would later become evident that Peter was alluding to a written Gospel.

As no further epistle from Peter appears after this, it is clear that a successor would continue the apostolic work and provide a way for the Church to remember the promise of Salvation in Jesus. The successor would accomplish this by presenting a written book in which the works and words of Jesus are recorded for all generations.

Peter had named Mark in his first letter, and although he did not use the word successor, he wrote of him as his son. The term son is used here to indicate his favourite disciple. The Apostle Paul used the expression my dear son in his two letters to Timothy with the same meaning of favoured disciple.

Saint Mark was not among the original twelve disciples, but he wrote his gospel according to the spoken testimony of Peter the Apostle. His work as Evangelist is the continuation of Peter’s apostolic mission, and so Mark son of Peter can be rightfully considered Peter’s successor.

The Gospel of Mark later became the basis for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In this way, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus had conferred upon Simon Peter were transferred – by way of the three synoptic Evangelists – into the written New Testament, to which the Evangelist John later added his gospel.

Sources:

• gospel according to Matthew
• first and second letter from Peter
• first and second letter to Timothy

Written by D. Alexander

Read also: Saint Mark the Evangelist. The great controversy between the Church of St. Peter and Rome.
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/10/saint-mark-evangelist.html

Who was Saint Peter's Successor? Is he a pope or an Apostle?
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-was-peters-successor.html

Saint Peter's Primacy from Zion: Do you know that Zion is the Mount where Jesus Christ is the eternal High Priest?
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/01/saint-peters-primacy-from-zion.html

Saint Peter's Successor: Was pope Linus an Apostle or an Evangelist? Or neither? Can he be greater than St. Mark Evangelist who the Apostle Peter called his son?
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/07/saint-peters-successor.html

The First Written Translation of the Gospel: read about the Evangelists who wrote the Gospel that Jesus taught.
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-written-translation-of-gospel.html

The Origins of the English Church

The origins of the English Church date back to the sixth century, following the marriage between a Kentish prince and a French princess.

The Royal Marriage in Kent

Christianity reached the shores of England by way of a royal marriage in the Kingdom of Kent. Prince Ethelbert, son of King Eormenric of Kent, married Princess Bertha, daughter of Charibert King of the Franks. In this marriage lay the origins of the spiritual foundation of the English Church.

The Anglo-Saxons Prior to the English Church

When the Anglo-Saxons settled in England in the fifth century, Christianity was unknown to them. They came into contact with the Britons, who had already converted to Christianity, but, owing to the hostility between the two populations, there was no immediate exchange of cultural identity between them. As a result, the Anglo-Saxons continued following their own religion, which was that known to all Germanic and Scandinavian populations prior to their conversion to the Christian faith. Traces of this ancient religion have remained intact in England over the centuries and are present in everyday language, namely in the days of the week, the most notable being Thursday, dedicated to Thor.

During the early Anglo-Saxon period, contacts of a commercial nature existed between England and the European continent, mainly with the Frisians and the Franks, yet no missionary from any Christian Church ever visited England. In this same period, the British Church of the Celtic speaking Britons had lost contact with Rome and the other Christian metropolitan centres of the Mediterranean Sea. Little is known about cultural relations between British Celts and Anglo-Saxons, but the difference between Celtic and English undoubtedly prevented missionary work on the part of the Christian Britons, as there was no translation of the Gospel in the language of the Anglo-Saxons.

The Anglo-Saxons formed independent kingdoms, each ruled by a king. Some of these became important names in English history, such as Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, but there were many others, including East Anglia, Essex, Sussex and Kent. The kingdom of Kent in south-east England was the closest to Europe, and in the latter half of the sixth century the Kentish king, Eormenric, sought to establish a matrimonial bond with the Franks by way of a marriage between his son Ethelbert, who was heir to the throne, and Bertha, daughter of King Charibert.

Kent and Christianity in the Sixth Century

Ethelbert, like all Anglo-Saxons, was not a Christian, as no missionary activity had reached the shores of England, whereas the Germanic speaking Franks living on the other side of the sea were firmly dedicated to the Christian faith, as were the Latin speaking Celts among whom they shared the same land.

A marriage between a Christian princess and a heathen prince was unusual, yet Ethelbert must have made a good impression on the Frankish royal family. The Kentish prince set sail for France, for it is stated that he received Bertha from her parents. Ethelbert returned with Bertha to Canterbury, Kent’s capital at that time, where his father ruled as king. In course of time, Bertha’s Christian faith would make Canterbury the centre of the English Church and eventually a destination for pilgrims travelling from all over England and Western Europe.

Around 590 Ethelbert succeeded his father as King of Kent. He took great interest in the faith of his consort and restored for her an ancient chapel that had been built in Canterbury by the Christian Britons. This chapel, dedicated to Saint Martin of Tours, was in fact the first English church, and it was in function before Saint Augustine’s arrival in England in 597. It preceded Canterbury Cathedral and all other churches built or restored by the Anglo-Saxons.

The English Church came into being not because the Roman Church had sent a missionary to England to make known the Gospel in a land where it was not known, but owing to the marriage between Ethelbert and Bertha. The Frankish princess brought with her the Gospel of Jesus Christ and imparted the Word to her husband. They spoke similar languages – the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks both speaking Germanic tongues – and Ethelbert believed in the faith of his wife.

When King Ethelbert took the decision to become Christian, he consulted with the noble families of Kent in order to remain king, for it meant breaking with the old religion. He succeeded owing to the persuasion of his consort’s faith, and a number of those surrounding him also chose to convert to Christianity, as did many more people among Kent’s inhabitants. When a papal envoy came from Rome to Kent to help establish ecclesiastical administration, King Ethelbert had already spiritually accepted the Christian faith and thereby set the foundations for the English Church.

The pope’s envoy came in the person of Augustine with about forty ecclesiastics accompanying him, and they set about baptising in water the people who converted. The actual arrival of the Gospel, however, and the spiritual conversion of King Ethelbert, came about prior to Augustine, namely in the heart of Bertha the new Kentish princess and in the copy of the Gospel which she brought with her, and in her ability to convert her husband.

Written by D. Alexander

 

Read also about Celtic foundations within the English Church:
http://celticbritannia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/english-church-is-built-upon-celtic.html

The English Church came about through a marriage between man and woman. Marriage is between man and woman:
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/03/british-party-marriage-is-between-man.html

Photo 1: reproduction of an ancient Kentish grail in Dover district.

Photo 2 and 3: A Kentish church in Walmer, Dover district.

The First Oral Translation of the Gospel

The Evangelist Luke recounts how the Gospel was orally translated for the first time in Jerusalem.

From the Old to the New Testament
Saint Luke the Evangelist is the author of the book of Acts of the Apostles, his second biblical book. He wrote it in the first century after having completed the version of the Gospel that bears his name (the Gospel according to Saint Luke). In his book of Acts, Luke gives apostolic testimony that is not to be found in any other book of the New Testament. He reveals how the old Temple gave way to the new Temple, how the Old Testament passed into the New Testament, how the Jewish Synagogue became the Christian Church.

Pentecost and the Old Temple in Jerusalem (Old Testament)

Pentecost is the Greek name for a Jewish biblical feast known in the Old Testament as the presentation of the first fruits. The Law of Moses prescribes that every year this feast must be celebrated forty-nine days after the offering of the sheaf of the first grain. Moses also commanded that the Israelites, in order to celebrate this holy feast, must gather at the place where the Altar of God stands.

Around the year 1000 BC King David brought the Altar of God to Mount Zion in Jerusalem, Mount Zion being located in the high part of the city, and the priests serving at the Altar of God took up residence in Jerusalem. David’s son Solomon, who succeeded him as King of Israel, later built a Temple to serve as a house for the Altar. This first Temple was destroyed in the year 587 BC prior to the Babylonian Exile, and the Altar disappeared.

When the Jews returned to Jerusalem after forty-nine years of exile in the region of Babylon, they built a second Altar in the place where the first one had stood, and after a further twenty-one years they proceeded to build the second Temple to accommodate the Altar. In the first century AD the second Temple was extensively renovated and embellished at great public expense.

Pentecost and the Foundation of the Church in Jerusalem (New Testament)

According to Luke, on the day of Pentecost the eleven faithful disciples and a number of Christ’s other adherents were gathered within one room in a house in Jerusalem. This was forty-nine days after Jesus had returned at Easter. On that day of Pentecost the Spirit from Heaven descended upon all the faithful who were present in the room. On receiving the Spirit the disciples and all those with them began to talk under divine inspiration, speaking in many languages. At that very moment they became Apostles.

Many Jews had gathered in Jerusalem from all over the Diaspora, swelling the number of the city’s inhabitants. They had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the presentation of the first fruits. They were walking the streets speaking in the languages of the regions from where they had come, while others spoke in Judaean Aramaic. Those passing near the house on which the Spirit had descended perceived voices from within, and each heard the words in their own language.

The people gathered to listen, for those inside the house talking in many tongues were speaking as though reading from the Scriptures, and they were speaking of the Messiah, who is Christ. This was unusual, as the house was not a synagogue, and when reciting from the Scriptures, a priest or rabbi would speak in one language, where-as those in the house were talking in different tongues.

The Place Where the Altar of God Stands

The location of the house to which the Spirit came is not known, but it is certain that it stood in Jerusalem and that it was not the Temple that had been built after the return from the Babylonian Exile. Luke’s testimony in the book of Acts indicates that a new Temple with a new Altar had been founded in Jerusalem among the disciples and adherents of Jesus to whom the Spirit had come, and that the Spirit spoke openly by way of these Apostles to the many Jews gathered in the streets.

The house where this came about was the first church building, and those gathered within it formed the first assembly of Christ’s Church that had been founded there. It was the place where the Altar of God was established. On that day of Pentecost, therefore, the Altar was not in the magnificent stone Temple where most Jews thought it was.

Concluding upon Luke’s description of the events, the apostolic priests of the new Altar were in the house to which the Spirit had descended, and under divine inspiration they spoke the Word of God in numerous tongues. Within course of time this oral Gospel was to become the written Gospel, and so the Word of God is to be found in the written New Testament.

In the first chapter of his version of the Gospel, John the Evangelist states that Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God. According to Saint Luke’s book of Acts, the Logos spoke the Word in many languages on the day in which the Church was founded in Jerusalem.

The Logos, the Son of God, preached the first oral translation of the Gospel in the house where his faithful apostolic assembly had gathered, speaking in many tongues through the first fruits gathered unto the Presence of the Holy Father in Jerusalem.

Sources:

• Book of Acts of the Apostles
• Gospel according to Saint John

Written by D. Alexander

 

Read also: the first written translation of the Gospel:

http://celticbritannia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/first-written-translation-of-gospel.html

The origins of the English Church: how a royal marriage brought about the foundation of the  English Church in Kent.

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/12/origins-of-english-church.html

Saint Peter's primacy comes from Zion the High City, not from Rome:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/01/saint-peters-primacy-from-zion.html

The great controversy between the Church of Saint Peter and the popes:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/10/saint-mark-evangelist.html

Prosperity Coming to Scotland

Economic prosperity is set to visit Scotland as Britain prepares to leave the EU.

Scotland Within the Union

Scotland's membership of the Union of Britain and Northern Ireland is being gradually redefined, with the Scottish Parliament striving for prosperity and greater economic freedom.

The definition of the new Union could well take shape in the form of a new Constitution. This would most likely include a charter of the British Isles, ensuring freedom of movement and trade between Scotland, England, Wales and all Ireland.

The End of the EU in Britain

The tendency of the 25 continental members of the EU to form a political and fiscal union will inevitably lead to a referendum in Britain, as guaranteed by British law, asking whether the people wish to enter into a new treaty with the European Union.

It is reasonable to assume as a foregone conclusion that the answer will be no, and that Britain will exit the European Union, maintaining however good trading relations with Europe. Rather than a block repatriation of powers to London, there will more likely be a fair distribution of administrative legislation on equal terms among the four constituent countries of Britain.

A reasonable assumption is that Britain will wish to uphold special relations with Ireland, which currently is also a member state of the European Union, and that freedom of movement and free trade and commerce will continue between Britain and Ireland, while being restricted with Europe. This would mean that millions of eastern Europeans could not simply come to Britain and have free access to employment and social benefits, whereas these privileges would be guaranteed on a reciprocal basis between Britain, including Northern Ireland, and Eire, or the Republic of Ireland.

Scotland's Move Towards Prosperity

Such an important event as would be Britain's exit from the European Union, together with the current redefining of administrative government in Britain, would effectively lead to the founding of a new Union within the British Isles.

Scotland's economic administration would require a constitutional arrangement for the distribution of fiscal income within the various regions of the Country. The Scottish Parliament would need to function in harmony with all the administrative localities of Scotland to ensure that economic prosperity is equally distributed.

The promotion of Scottish agriculture and industry and the creation of employment would be coordinated by the competent local authorities together with the managers of free enterprise.

British territorial waters would need to be governed for the benefit of all constituent countries of Britain, requiring a common law on fishing policies and the exploitation of resources such as gas and oil. However, without any EU involvement in internal British affairs, the distribution within Britain of wealth that is considered to be in common, such as that deriving from territorial waters, would be to the reciprocal benefit of all Britain's constituent countries and islands.

A common foreign affairs policy for all Britain would ensure Scotland's participation in matters concerning trade and commerce with other countries and regions of the world. A common commitment to defence would guarantee a standing British Army that includes Scottish regiments.

Scotland's Energy Policy
Scotland's Parliament is following an energy strategy for the future based on the reduction of carbon emissions and the production of clean energy from wind, wave and tidal power. There is also a ban on nuclear power plants in Scotland. A future transport strategy for increased transport of freight by rail might see a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles transiting on Britain's roads, from Skara Brae all the way to Dover by the Sea.

The Church of Scotland

The Scottish Church has had a fundamental role in the original foundations of Christianity in Britain, in participation with Ireland, Wales and England. The origins of the British Churches demonstrate that Christ, by way of the Gospel, is the founder of the Christian Faith within every corner of the British Isles.

Prosperity in Scotland must include the maintenance of church buildings and integrity of the Faith. The Christian Faith cannot be abandoned and cannot be replaced by any other teaching within a country founded upon Christ's Church. Scotland's flag is dedicated to the Christian cause, bearing the emblem of a Saint, as too the Union Flag is dedicated to three Christian Saints.

Scotland's national flag will hold true as long as its Christian identity is honoured.

By D. Alexander

Come out of Babylon: Scotland to leave Babylon
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/10/come-out-of-babylon.html

Kentigern, a Saint of Scotland:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/07/kentigern-saint-of-scotland.html

Origins of the Scottish Church:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/04/origins-of-scottish-church.html

British Party: Rail Link to Dover Port

Dover Port needs a direct rail link for freight traffic as it becomes clear that the future for freight transport in Britain is by rail.

Carrying Freight by Rail

Carbon emission laws approved in the British Parliament require a substantial reduction in the consumption of fuel used to obtain energy. A gradual increase in the transport of freight by rail would be an important step in order to achieve the commitments laid down by Britain's carbon emission laws. Carrying freight by rail is one of British Party's policies for transport.

The Rail Link to Dover Port

Dover Port holds the key to reducing carbon emissions in Britain and Europe through the introduction of a new rail link. This link would revive the previous rail terminal at Western Docks that was closed in 1994.

The Port of Dover consists of two docks, namely Eastern Docks and Western Docks. All port traffic passing through Dover is directed through the Eastern Docks, including about 8,000 heavy goods vehicles every day. As a result, an enormous quantity of carbon emission is released into the atmosphere, with endless lines of lorries steaming through the town and onwards to their destination in the UK or Europe.

The main Dover to London railway lines pass very close to Western Docks, providing a connection to all British railway stations. The original stretch of track connecting these lines to Western Docks was only several hundred yards long and can be easily reinstated.

Western Docks Train Station

The port's former train station has remained in place, and even the train ferry berth along the pier is still intact. The whole of the Western Docks area is largely unused, and consequently there is plenty of space for the storage of freight containers once the rail link were to be reinstated.

Western Docks is now used only for cruise liners, and as many as three such gigantic ships can dock there simultaneously. In fact there is enough space along the western pier for at least as many rail ferries to dock there at the same time, with only some minor technical alterations to the pier being required in order to allow ferries to unload their freight directly by rail.

When all is taken into account, it becomes clear that the Port of Dover train terminal at Western Docks is largely in place, requiring only some limited work in order to become fully functional as a modern rail link for freight transport between Britain and Europe.

Ecological Revival through Rail

The object of introducing a rail link to the Port of Dover is to spearhead ecological revival in Britain and Europe. The aim is to drastically reduce pollution obtained through carbon emissions and achieve through innovation a port that is friendly to the environment.

Department for Transport Considering Rail Link to Port of Dover

During the Public Consultation on the Dover Harbour Board transfer scheme, the Department for Transport replied to my public proposal for a rail link to the Port of Dover. In their letter to me dated 9 March 2010, the DfT wrote, among other things:

"I note that you have proposed the use of the railway line into the Western Docks for freight to reduce the impact on Dover and the level of carbon emissions and that the ownership of the Port should pass from the current board to either the Dover Town Council or Dover District Council and the introduction of a port-service toll".    

The DfT also wrote in the same letter: "Your comments have been noted and will be included among the representations taken into account when the Secretary of State considers whether, or not, to approve the scheme".

Having publicly campaigned for a rail link to Dover's Western Docks and put forward my proposal with the Department for Transport, who are taking it into consideration, I remain convinced that one day this idea will prevail, as it is in Dover's best interests, and in the best interests of Britain. 

British Party campaigns for a rail link to Dover's Port, to preserve Dover from further pollution coming from road transport. We need to increase transport of freight by rail nationwide, reducing road traffic in general. 

Written by D. Alexander

British Party: Port Toll Revenue

Prosperity in Dover should come in the name of prosperity for all Britain.

Port Toll Revenue

Dover's main economic activity is the passage of freight traffic through the Port of Dover. Some of the town's central roads have been dedicated to the constant passage of vehicles, with the result that the town suffers heavily under pollution and urban decline.

A port toll on freight and vehicles passing through all British commercial ports, including the Port of Dover, would bring deserved revenues to the towns and cities in Britain that offer commercial port service. The toll would be £5 for a car, £20 for a commercial van and £50 for each heavy goods vehicle, bus and freight container.

The revenue would be divided between the local councils and the national Treasury. The local councils of Dover are: Dover Town Council, Dover District Council and Kent County Council. The amount of port toll set apart for the national Treasury would be 30%, the remaining part to be divided among the local councils.

A port toll in all British ports would be similar to motorway and tunnel tolls that can be found in many European countries, and which usually exceed the figures proposed for British ports.

Dover's income from a port revenue would be the financial basis for economic prosperity and regeneration in the town and district. The same port revenues on traffic passing through the Channel Tunnel would bring equal prosperity to the neighbouring district of Shepway, and Kent's county treasury would receive incomes from both the Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel to the benefit of the whole of Kent.

Benefits to the National Treasury

Apart from receiving a 30% share in the port revenues, the national Treasury would further gain from the port tolls through not having to allocate funds to the local councils that base their income on their share of revenue from port traffic.

Adding to this, economic regeneration in Dover district and Shepway would provide work for local people, thus reducing the amount paid by the State on out-of-work related benefits. More local employment would also increase the amount of income-tax paid into the Treasury.

Written by D. Alexander

British Party campaigns for port toll revenues in order to reduce public spending, tax and national debt, on the grounds that those who use British ports should pay for their upkeep and contribute to the revenues of local councils which offer their territory for port services.

British Party: celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/09/british-party.html

To put it plainly, the Government has not accepted my Port toll proposal for local County, District and Town funding.
On 19th February 2013, after I requested a specific reply as to whether my proposals had been accepted, the Department for Transport specifically replied informing me that they had been rejected.  

The Department for Transport's concluding phrase was: "The position for ports is slightly different as port users already pay harbour dues whenever they use a port, therefore the Government is not considering an additional toll on harbour users."

Therefore, local community revenues from ports have been rejected by the Government, about three years after I made the proposal. It took the Government three years to tell me that!

There is only one party that campaigns for Prosperity over Britain, this is British Party, and there is no other!
The Government chose to impose Austerity over Britain.
Prosperity has been rejected by the Government!

http://youtu.be/PEq9Qhx1bGI

Referendum on Immigration to the UK

Will there be a petition for a referendum on immigration to the UK?

Migration Watch Petition

Starting 1 November 2011, Migration Watch has launched an e-petition on immigration to Britain, with the aim of collecting at least 100,000 signatures to be presented to Parliament. The object of the petition, which is presented under the title no to 70 million, is to call on the Government to take necessary measures to reduce immigration to Britain.

The Coalition Divided

Many people question the will and ability of the Coalition Government to take any decisive measures to reduce the numbers of people moving to the United Kingdom. There are a number of reasons supporting these doubts, the most notable being that the Liberal Democrats, who are part of the Coalition, are fully dedicated to immigration, as they believe this is essential for the British economy.

The Conservatives, who form the larger part of the Coalition, could not remain in government without the support of their Liberal Democrat partners. As a result, they are obliged to make compromises that stifle any real debate on important popular issues, such as EU membership and immigration, so as not to lose the support of their coalition partners.

Another reason why the petition may be doomed to failure is the fact that Britain is a member of the European Union, and EU laws oblige all member states to allow unrestricted access into their country to citizens of any EU country, be it to find work, claim benefits or have access to services such as health care.

Petition for a Referendum on Immigration

Considering the circumstances, it is unlikely that the British Government will initiate any serious debate on immigration into the UK. This would leave open one option: a new petition, but this time round asking for a referendum on immigration, effectively taking the decision away from Parliament and placing it directly in the hands of the British People.

Of-course this would lead to a constitutional crisis, as the EU laws would not allow a referendum which proposed limiting immigration from other countries including those of the European Union. So the obvious conclusion would be to have a referendum on EU membership first, and then sign a petition for a referendum on immigration.

General Election in 2012

According to British law, a petition presented to Parliament with at least 100,000 signatures must be debated in Parliament, although the petition is not binding. On 24 October 2011, Parliament voted on a petition calling for a referendum on EU membership which had over 100,000 signatures, and the majority of MPs voted against the referendum proposal.

The official reason given by the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron was that the Coalition government had an agreement obliging both parties to remain dedicated to the European Union, the Liberal Democrats being strongly in favour of continued EU membership.

Considering that the present Coalition would likely reject the terms of the Migration Watch petition that – to all effect – asks the Government to consider a significant reduction in immigration, and taking into account that any future petition calling for a referendum on immigration to Britain might be voted against by the majority of MPs in Parliament on the grounds that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour opposition are both in favour of further uncontrolled immigration, the only other likely alternative would be for the Conservatives to call for an early General Election in 2012. This decision would come about owing to the evident incompatibility between the two Coalition partners, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

In order for this to happen, it may well be necessary for the present Migration Watch petition to be handed to Parliament, and for a future petition calling for a referendum on immigration to be consigned to Parliament. If the Coalition continues ignoring the people, it is likely that many Tory MPs will rebel against the Prime Minister David Cameron and withdraw their confidence from the Government. In so doing, they would bring to an end the partnership between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and open the way to an early General Election. This may in fact be the only way for them not to lose once and for all the support of their electorate.

Article written by D. Alexander

Petition on Immigration

A petition on immigration has started on 1 November 2011.

No to 70 Million

The petition, launched by Migration Watch under the title No to 70 million, can be signed online, and calls on the Government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise the British population as close to the present level as possible and certainly well below 70 million.

The petition explains that over the past 10 years the government has permitted mass immigration into the UK notwithstanding very strong public opposition.

Mass Immigration

Mass immigration brings with it massive burdens on Britain's services and expenses, including health, education, benefits and pensions, and is undoubtedly the main cause for high costs in accommodation, as rent and the prices of houses have dramatically increased over the years.

Jobs to Immigrants Only

In Britain, a situation has been reached whereby 89% of jobs go to immigrants, and in many factories where the minimum wage is paid, jobs go exclusively to non-British workers as a matter of principle. In a large number of British factories English is not spoken at all among the workers, thus making it impossible for British people to so much as contemplate working there even if their job application were accepted.

Non-English Speaking Line Leaders

It is common to find job offers for line leaders who speak a language that is not English, but that of the workers who they would be responsible for. Ethnic discrimination is common place in British factories, and as a result, millions of British people are consigned to sheer poverty, to signing on at the job centre, while the private sector employers exercise their uncontrolled powers over the employment market.

Article written by D. Alexander.

David Cameron Challenges the EU

The Prime Minister David Cameron is set to defend the City from European Law.

The Eurozone Attempts to Paralyse Britain's Financial Nerve Centre

Sky News has reported on 28 October 2011 that "the Prime Minister David Cameron has said London's financial sector is under assault from European Union rules and regulations."

The Prime Minister has warned that the 17 eurozone nations are doing a lot of things together, that they are having meetings alone and are establishing common machinery indicating economic integration, and asks whether this is leading to caucusing within the EU, with the ultimate aim of the 17 eurozone countries ganging up on Britain's centre of financial services.

Dave to Fight for Britain

This latest drift in events will certainly do a lot to salvage the PM's public image after his recent debacle in Parliament, where the eurosceptics put up a staunch resistance on 24 October 2011 by voting in favour of a referendum on the EU despite a three-line party whip to vote against it.

If the Prime Minister's latest move on the chess board is deciphered rightly, David Cameron has realised that, as far as the British public opinion is concerned, he either stays with the EU and goes, or he fights the EU and stays on.

So if the “block of 17” has decided to paralyse the City in order to knock Britain out financially, then the Prime Minister has chosen the most appropriate battle cry to redeem himself in the public eye.

Article written by D. Alexander

Celtic Britannia: Eurozone Debt Rescue Deal

Celtic Britannia: Eurozone Debt Rescue Deal: Who controls the banks in Britain and most of Europe? A select committee of EU officials. The EU Controls the Banks A debt rescue deal anno...

Eurozone Debt Rescue Deal

Who controls the banks in Britain and most of Europe? A select committee of EU officials.

The EU Controls the Banks

A debt rescue deal announced in Brussels on 27 October 2011 reveals that the European Union can make decisions over the savings of hundreds of millions of people in Britain and Europe, effectively writing off 50 billion euro of people's investments in banks.

According to Sky News 27 October 2011, the German chancellor and French president “insisted that the (banking) sector had got off relatively lightly in the crisis so far, with taxpayers bearing the brunt of bailouts.”

The idea that the leaders of EU member states and EU officials can decide to take enormous sums of taxpayers' money and people's savings, and pump it into the broken economies of many eurozone countries in need of a financial bailout, is proof that the European Union controls the banks and even the taxpayers' money to whichever extent they choose.

According to Sky News, officials in Brussels said, after the emergency summit to address the financial crisis in the eurozone countries, “an accord had been reached with banks on a 50% write-off of 100bn euro of Greek debt.”

The BBC reported the following decree made in Brussels on 27 October 2011:

• Banks holding Greek debt would accept a 50% loss
• A mechanism to boost the eurozone's main bailout fund to about 1tn euros (£880bn; $1.4tn)
• Banks must also raise more capital to protect them against losses resulting from any future government defaults

The framework for the additional 1 trillion euro in the bailout fund (European Financial Stability Facility) is to be put in place in November 2011, and will undoubtedly consist in the printing of an enormous quantity of money so as to fix the EU economy.

Fixed Economy and Communist Dictatorship

The decision to wipe 50 billion euro of owed money from the accounts of western banks, and to print 1 trillion euro to finance future bailouts, could easily lead to unsustainable fixed economies in the European Union falling into the spiral of inflation that hit Germany in 1921, when paper money with no economic guarantee was printed in large amounts.

The idea of fair trade and commerce and accountability for public spending has no place in the EU economic system, which effectively makes it into a failed communist system by definition.

The banks are the pillar that sustain modern free trade and commerce. With enormous amounts of their money being taken away by decree of a governing body run by state leaders and officials, the banks risk falling into sheer bankruptcy. This would lead to the whole private sector becoming bankrupt, as the money that is in the banks does in fact belong to the people, firms and companies that have invested their savings in the banks.

Communist Super-Commissioner

The EU crisis summit has established the introduction of a new office, that of super-commissioner, who would make almighty-like decisions on the euro and confer extra powers on the EU Economic Commissioner, effectively centralising economic power in the hands of two persons.

This revised dictatorial structure will overrule the decision-making mechanism of the wider European Union, and this, according to BBC, brings with it “the implication that the eurozone will more closely resemble a super-state.”

With regards to the decision obliging the banks to raise more capital to protect them against losses resulting from any future government defaults, the BBC reports that the banks “will now be required to raise about 106 billion euros in new capital by June 2012, and governments may have to step in, despite the unpopularity of further bank bail-outs.”

EU Communist Contradiction in Accountability

The decision to force the banks to raise 106 billion euros in new capital by the middle of 2012 contradicts all logic, as the same EU body that gave this order has just cancelled from their accounts 50 billion euro that the Greek treasury owes them.

The report of the BBC clearly states that this could lead to governments having to step in to bail out the banks once they go into bankruptcy due to the new EU decree of 27 October.

There is no way the battered free market of Britain and Western Europe can survive this interference in the banking system, and together with democracy and sovereignty, free trade and commerce will fall to the governing body of a Communist dictatorship that is intent on destroying freedom and fair trade through the imposing of sheer bankruptcy in order to create a European super-state.

Article written by D. Alexander.

Britain and the EU Referendum

The Coalition Government Refuses a Referendum on the EU

Calls for Referendum on the EU

Many people in Britain are asking for an EU referendum, and opinion polls show that the number of people who would vote for Britain leaving the European Union is a lot higher than those who would vote in favour of staying in. A Sky News opinion poll on 24 October 2011 shows that 84% of people believe that it is time for a referendum on the EU.

This is in stark contrast with the stance taken by the majority of the British Parliament, which on 24 October 2011 voted overwhelmingly against a referendum, with 483 votes contrary to a referendum and 111 votes in favour. The Commons debate was in response to a petition signed by more than 100,000 people asking for a referendum on the EU.

David Cameron and the EU

The British Prime Minister has claimed on a number of occasions to be open to debate on British membership of the European Union, while at the same time suffocating any debate on the issue.

Mr. Cameron has been dedicating full support to EU expansion, as can be seen in a joint declaration which he released on 7 June 2011 together with Romania's President Traian Basescu: “We have agreed today on a programme of joint work between our two countries to promote economic growth in the European Union, to enlarge it to the Western Balkans, Turkey and the Republic of Moldova...”

Leading up to the vote in Parliament whether to have a referendum - the vote is due on the 24 October 2011 - David Cameron said: “I think this is the right time to sort out Europe's problems, sort out the Eurozone problem, defend your national interest and look to the opportunities in the future to repatriate powers back to Britain.”

Britain Solving Europe's Problems

According to the British Prime Minister David Cameron, the calls for a democratic vote concerning Britain's future should not be taken into account. He would rather sacrifice British democracy and prosperity in order to sort out Europe's problems and the problems of the Eurozone, of which Britain is not a member. He intends doing this by sacrificing British sovereignty and using massive amounts of the taxpayers' money, while the British people at home are forced into ever greater poverty.

At the same time, Mr. Cameron is involved in expanding the EU to eight more countries: Moldova, Turkey and six countries in the western Balkans. It seems that the Prime Minister is irrevocably dedicated to a great European state and is prepared to bleed Britain to death in order to achieve his aim.