So going back to German MEP, Christine Anderson and what I'm getting at, I have no idea if the clip I put up is actually her or an actor pretending to be her for that interview. It just struck me that I was watching someone caricaturing Christine Anderson rather than it being Christine Anderson herself.
Part of the reason I throw these hunches up here is it gets us thinking in different directions rather than going with what is being palmed off on us. If someone is trying to convince us of something, that is 'NUDGE THEORY' in action. In saying that, you should also take anything I put up with similar scepticism, because we all have a bias. What I would say, my worldview does a lot to explain the reality we find ourselves in as opposed to the babble of MSM.
So this is the full interview of that X clip:
ARE THE ROOTS OF TYRANNY TAKING HOLD IN THE EU?
- 15 Sep 2023
And here is an interview of Christine Anderson in the EU Parliament:
UNSEEN FOOTAGE - CHRISTINE ANDERSON INTERVIEW
- 20 Jul 2023
Firstly, from my watching of the European Parliament generally, particularly after Brexit, there is little evidence it functions in the way it is portrayed. MEPs, we are led to believe, are legally elected for five year terms, and this is what they get paid for from domestic taxes being sent to the EU. A legal contract, terms and conditions and all that jazz. So what happened when Britain voted to leave the EU and David Cameron failed to trigger Article 50? The European Parliament continued functioning as it did the day before the vote, the UK still had the same legal status as it did the day before the vote, the terms and conditions of the UK MEPs and their five year contracts still continued as they did the day before the vote...and yet the UK cancelled its turn as being EU President and the UK's MEP delegate pissed off home as if it was a show that had been cancelled. How does that work exactly in a real functioning democratic body, rather than a massive piss-take of a collective having a hissy-fit?
Let's take Anneliese Dodds MP
as an example, but she's not the only politician this applies to. It happened across the board for UK MEPs, and I would suggest the real reason Theresa May called the 2017 General Election. Even though because of the UK's Fixed Term Parliament Act
which David Cameron's Coalition Government put in place to allegedly protect all members of a coalition, she had no legal authority to do. But here's the get-out clause she used to bypass the law...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-ter ... s_Act_2011
The 2015 general election held on 7 May 2015 was the only use of the FTPA to dictate the date of a general election.
On 18 April 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May announced her intention to call a general election for 8 June 2017, bringing the United Kingdom's 56th Parliament to an end after two years and 32 days. The FTPA permitted this, but required two-thirds of the Commons (at least 434 MPs) to support the motion to allow it to be passed. Jeremy Corbyn, then the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party indicated that he was in support of an election. The motion was passed the following day by 522 votes to 13 votes.
As the FTPA required that general elections take place on the first Thursday in May, the date of the next general election after the 2017 election (assuming that no earlier elections were called) would have been 5 May 2022, meaning that the term would have been one month short of five years.
It's a given that all opposition MPs would vote for an early general election and the incumbents would blindly follow the whip, SO THE ARGUMENT GOES. Therefore we had a result of 522 FOR THE MOTION, 13 AGAINST, which meant the "two-thirds Commons majority for dissolution" was met, and May got her General Election. But back in the real world if we assume MPs are ordinary people who put themselves forward to do a real job to represent their constituents under a fixed term contract, DOES THIS ASSUMPTION STACK UP?
I would suggest, NO, NOT ONE BIT. The people making up this shit can't have it both ways. Once an MP is elected, their work contract has nothing to do with the political party or its leader. The party has no legal power to compel an MP to do anything, because it's the named person that is elected, not the party. This is why somebody like Andrew Bridgen can stand for election under the Conservative party banner, leave the Conservatives while being a sitting MP, and then join the Reclaim party without needing to call a bi-election. He's personally on a fix-term contract, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 enshrined the security of MP's 5 year contracts in law no matter what a leader of a political party fancied doing on a whim.
So again, I'm an MP with a five year contract, an then some woman who pretends she's the leader of me says for no good reason, "I want to cancel your five year contract at the two year point, and you might get your contract renewed, or you might lose it altogether and be up shit creek without a paddle. But what I need you to do, is to vote to suspend your legal protection so I can end your contract three years early". Does anyone think that would fly anywhere except in the bullshit place that calls itself Westminster? ...And don't forget a standard MP's salary is in the top 3% of earners in Britain, and that's without all the benefits of a gold-plated pension, second home furnished, and the other paid expenses like energy usage allowance, internet, computer equipment, smartphone, iPad, etc... and quirks like no tax on drinks in the Houses of Parliament restaurants...and these are just some of the things we are told UK taxpayer money goes to fund off the top of my head.
So back to Anneliese Dodds MP, she was a Labour Member of the European Parliament for South East England from 1 July 2014 to 8 June 2017. ...But wait a minute, the European elections were not until 23 May 2019, what gives when these contracts are meant to be legally binding? How come she's supposed to be representing people in the EU, but she can fuck off at the drop of a hat to pick up a post in Westminster? Because that's what happened on 8 June 2017, she became Member of Parliament for Oxford East. Because clearly even though we have a country of 67 million, there is only one person in the South East of England that is capable of being an MEP, MP, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chair of the Labour Party, Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities.
Once you actually take in all this stuff, you can't unsee it. So then it's just about working out how the trick is performed... Because of the constraints of UK politics, they couldn't just have these people appear in the UK Parliament, Anneliese wasn't the only MEP suddenly converted to MP overnight, they had to have a General Election, and the Fixed Term Parliament Act meant this election wasn't due to take place until the first Thursday in May 2020, a whole year after the 2019 European Parliamentary Elections. If politics was real, there is no way MPs would vote themselves out of a job by agreeing to a General Election three years early. Like normal people, they would have planned the next five years on that fixed term income. But when it's a fairy story, you can make anything up to get the result you want no matter what the consequences for everyone else. They wanted to move all the actors who were apparently UK MEPs in the different parties into Westminster, so that is why the 2017 General Election was called, and that's why all the sitting MPs apparently voted yes to it. But what does that mean for the European Union Parliament? Clearly it suggests it is as fake as the UK Parliament, but some of the problems the UK Parliament has with Representative Democracy they did away with, because like any good COMMUNIST structure, YOU VOTE FOR THE PARTY, not the individual.
The upshot is, I've always reserved judgement on whether Christine Anderson MEP and her chums were the real deal, or is she just another dead end created to circle people back into the control grid? Her ignoring the Australian lawyers trying to lay criminal charges regarding GMOs in the vaccines speaks volumes for me. And I don't know if they are the real deal or just another layer of the onion, but the fact she's ignoring them is a gauge on how serious she actually is about freedom.