The Treaty of Rome
The Final Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire
In the words of Winston Churchill and in reference to Stanley Baldwin who was Prime Minister at the time (exporting Rolls Royce aero engines to Germany) prior to the outbreak of World War II he spoke the following words:
“Whose in charge of the clattering train? The axels creak and the couplings strain; the pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s ear and the signals flash through the night in vain for death is in charge of the clattering train”
The Take-Over of Britain
On 1st January 1973, Conservative British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the European Common Market. Heath reassured Parliament and the British people at the time that British sovereignty would not be affected and that we were just joining a trading partnership. His 1971 government White Paper stated the following:
“There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty… The British safeguards of habeus corpus and trial by jury will remain intact. So will the principle that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty.”
Subsequent papers came to light, which unequivocally show that Edward Heath recognised that he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal Europe.
In a 1975 public referendum, reassured by their politicians and a politically biased media that all was well, the British voted 67% to 33% to remain inside the Common Market. Later, it emerged that many sections of the British media were involved with promoting only favourable stories about the common Market. Few opposing views were given an airing.
The post-war move towards European integration was to strengthen a devastated Europe as rapidly as possible and prevent any Soviet incursion.
The first form of collective integration among nations in Europe occurred in March 1951 with the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community, which established a single market for steel, iron, coke and coal among the six participating nations: France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Holland and Belgium.
This union was later expanded by the Treaty of Rome into the European Economic Community, which set up a ‘Common Market’. This treaty’s subtitle has always been ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. Politicians have always understood this to mean the destruction of their nations’ sovereignty and the eventual formation of a United States of Europe. Even their populations are clear on this issue.
British politicians, both Labour and Conservative, have not been so forthcoming. They have consistently misled the British people by repeatedly claiming that our involvement was trade-based only, and would never lead to the destruction of Britain as a sovereign nation.
Today, the UK’s three leading political parties are all in support of dismantling Great Britain. At no general elections in the past 25 years have the British people ever been given a clear choice on Britain’s European membership, with all the options, including withdrawing from the EU altogether.
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Greenland are not members of the EU and are doing very well on their own today.
Later amendments to the Treaty of Rome gradually stepped up the transfer of power and control of Britain from Westminster to Brussels. These further treaty amendments were:
The Single European Act -1986
The Treaty on European Union (‘Maastricht’) – 1992
The Amsterdam (Consolidated) Treaty – 1997
The Treaty of Nice – 2000
Through these further treaties, the original Common Market has gradually been changed into the European Union of today. The British people have never given their consent, nor have properly understood the implications of the European Union.
Today, Britain has been part of the European Union and its forerunner structures for a little over 30 years, yet there are few realistic benefits we have enjoyed for the massive expense and damage our membership has cost us.
The burdensome value-added tax was set up in Britain in anticipation for our forthcoming membership to the Common Market. Most don’t know that VAT is an EU levy and not a national tax.
Upon signing the Maastrict Treaty, John Major declared that there would be “…no further surrender of sovereignty.” However, as soon as his ink was dry, millions of us ceased being British and became citizens of the European Union.
With this came all the rights and privileges of being a European citizen (not explained to the British people) as well as the duties and obligations of European citizenry according to the laws of Brussels.
In the blink of an eye, the British lost the right to do anything they please, as long as it was not forbidden by British law, and henceforth are only able to do those things specifically allowed by European directive and regulation.
While it is true that these laws are not currently being stringently enforced by Brussels, who’s prepared to wager that after the cooling-off period, the screws won’t be tightened slowly but progressively as time passes? This is the way the European Union has historically operated.
Maastricht also articulated the EU’s desire to forma a common European Army. Once more, the wording was weasely and circumlocutory and talked of a ‘common defence policy’. Then we see the formation of something called a ‘Rapid Reaction Force’, supposedly only for operations outside the European Union. Today, this has morphed into the ‘European Army’. With the command restructuring of British troops under foreign officers underway, this will also mean foreign troops and police on British soil.
Maastricht introduced far-reaching changes to our judicial system. After Maastricht, Britain’s supreme court ceased to be the House of Lords and became the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Once again, the transfer of power and visible jurisdiction has been slow and non-threatening, but today, European law has 100% legal supremacy over British law and Burssels holds almost all the law-making powers applicable to our nation.
Single Currency – Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)
Maastrickt also laid out a schedule for complete European economic integration (known as Economic and Monetary Union – EMU) using a single currency, formerly known as the European Currency Unit (ECU), now known as ‘the euro’. The increased drive towards establishing a single currency across the Euro zone is perhaps one of the most significant factors to emerge from Maastricht. Since 1992, the pound’s days have been numbered. Yet Harold Wilson had sought to reassure the British public in a 1975 pamphlet that…
“There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union [EMU]. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.”
Britain joining the euro will be the final step towards the destruction of our country as an independent, sovereign nation. All the while Britain remains this side of EMU, she is still able to recover full independence should a majority of the country desire it and compel their politicians to act in accordance with the wishes of this majority. If Britain adopts the euro however, the final three bricks drop out of the crumbling wall of British independence, and we will ultimately and at this time:
Surrender the remainder of our gold, silver and dollar reserves to
Surrender the last of our economic control over our own nation;
And surrender the last of our independent political power to govern
After this, there will be no turning back, short of war.
Joining the euro will be irreversible.
The much touted ‘devolution’ process, which gave Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland their own assemblies, is simply the Maastricht regionalisation policy being implemented by stealth. Today, the EU’s full title is ‘The European Union of the Regions’. Planners in Brussels have divided the current EU land-mass into 111 regions, with Britain having 12. Each region across the Euro zone will henceforth be run from Brussels.
Regionalisation is an effective way to destroy the concept of a nation with national boundaries. The EU has been very active for years in forging links at the local government level throughout the UK to bring this about.
One method Brussels has used to get co-operation from local councils has been the promise of funds for development projects in their local communities. There’s nothing like EU cash (which British taxpayers provided in the first place) to build useful things in the community to enhance a local or even a European politician’s popularity with their public.
Another forerunner program implemented to soften up the British to the idea of accepting closer ties with their Continental neighbours is the town and village twinning scheme.
The EU Parliament has been directly elected by the citizens of the European Union since 1979, which all sounds democratic, but there are some fundamental problems. Unlike the British Parliament, the EU Parliament cannot introduce, modify or initiate new laws. It cannot elect a government. The functions of EU government are performed not by the EU Parliament, but by three powerful EU forums (the EU Commission, the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers), in conjunction with the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. The EU Parliament is widely recognised as toothless – rubber-stamping legislation that is put before it with no informed debate on these new laws.
There are currently 626 seats in the EU Parliament with the following breakdown: Belgium 25; Denmark 16; France 87; Germany 99; Greece 25; Ireland 15; Italy 87; Luxembourg 6; Netherlands 31; Portugal 25; Spain 64; United Kingdom 87; Austria 21; Sweden 22 and Finland 16.
Under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty, the number of MEPs is not to exceed 700. The European Union is due to be enlarged by another 10 members, mostly East European, ex-Soviet satellite states, on 1st May 2004.
Voting is performed by MEPs at tremendous speed. One session saw MEPs vote on 187 pieces of legislation in just one hour.
The EU Parliament has the appearance of democracy, but upon closer inspection, the truth is very different. It is a beard for another type of regime that really calls the shots from Brussels: one that is fundamentally unaccountable, undemocratic, unelectable and corrupt.
Qualified Majority Voting
In 1975, the public was reassured by Harold Wilson that Britain would always be able to use her national veto in Brussels to reject or vote down any measure that was perceived to be a threat to her national interests. Under the Single European Act however, a new system, known as Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), was introduced which effectively put the clock on Britain’s right to exercise her veto option.
Since Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1985, QMV has gradually taken over and pushed the national veto out. It takes 62 votes under QMV to pass a law and 26 votes to block one. Britain has 10 votes under QMV, which means, given the current allegiances between countries in the EU, that Britain is powerless to refuse in many major areas of policy today, since almost everything the EU implements is decided by qualified majority voting. Britain has a problem mustering sufficient votes from any EU allies to gain the number required to overturn any damaging legislation.
With Britain’s current EU voting powers in European elections, the British people can only vote out 14% of MEPs (unlike 100% of them at Westminster). This will dwindle to less than 10% once the EU is enlarged further on 1st May 2004 to admit ten further member states. Later, there could be no British Members of the European Parliament representing our country, as future MEPs need not be British. At this point, our national government at Westminster will be redundant, since Britain has already been divided into 12 Euro-Regions, each of which is increasingly ruled directly from Brussels. Soon there will be no further need for any national political candidates.
Immunity from Prosecution
All members of the EU’s governing structure, together with the tens of thousands of bureaucrats and civil servants who run the union, have been granted a lifetime immunity from prosecution. This also goes for the new European police force, Europol, and the commanders and soldiers of the new European Army. All buildings, offices, records, archives and minutes belonging to the EU and its institutions are inviolate. They cannot be entered or inspected. All personnel serving the EU are above the law, as declared in treaties which our successive politicians have signed on our behalf.
Funding of Political Parties
Under article 191 of the Treaty of Nice, the EU has been granted the power by its member states to withdraw funding for any European political party it deems inappropriate or unsuitable for Europe, which, of course, raises the spectre of the banning of political parties that criticise the European Union.
Perhaps most disturbingly, we see a continuation of the erosion of human rights under Article 52, which states:
“the EU may limit all rights and freedoms enumerated in that charter where necessary in order to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.”
This means that the state can limit/withdraw (abuse) the human rights of the individual at whim and is not answerable to anyone for doing so. This is about as alien to the British way of life as it gets.
When coupled with the frightening powers now being bestowed upon upon Europol and the European prosecutor, perhaps the first the British will truly learn of what their country has become is when summary arrests of citizens are made in our country and those detainees are then shunted out of Britain to be held without charge on the Continent, if necessary for up to nine months, before being tried, not by a jury of the accused’s peers, but by a tribunal of professional, politically appointed foreign judges.
There will be no presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no prima facie evidence presented to a court within 24 hours. The full weight of the state’s prosecutory apparatus will be brought to bear against the prisoner, who is burdened with the hopeless task of having to prove he is not guilty. There will be little hope of an effective appeal.
Why Britain Does Not Belong to Europe
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” - Jean Monnet, one of the EU’s founders
Britain was the first maritime power, so historically she has always traded globally, especially with her erstwhile colonies and international allies, whilst her trade with Europe has been secondary. For this reason, Britain’s economy is more in step with those of America, Canada and her other allies, than it is with Europe. For example, Britain conducts more trade with the USA than she does with France and Germany combined.
The intention to bring Britain’s economy under control of Brussels and somehow ‘harmonise it’ with those of the Continent will be a disastrous move for us and, as we shall see, is a strategy deliberately designed to break the United Kingdom as a historical, economic world power. The priceless spoils of Britain’s wealth are to go to other European nations under control of Brussels.
“But Britain is a part of Europe geographically! So why wouldn’t we want to be a part of Europe politically in order to keep the peace?”
Peace has been kept in Europe for the past fifty years, not through attempts at creating a unified Europe, but through the willingness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to act as a universal European military watchdog. NATO is a military alliance of nations dominated by the two leading powers formerly comprising ‘the Allies’ during World War II – the United States of American and Great Britain.
The Americans spend more on the defence of Europe than all the eurozone nations put together.
The European Union is planning a new European arm capable of taking strategic action independently of NATO. This new European army will threaten the balance and stability NATO has given to the Continent and hand over military jurisdiction in Europe once again to the two nations who have historically abused it and gone to war for their own economic interests.
Wars chiefly happen over issues of economics. By creating a single currency throughout Europe and hamstringing less fortunate member states to join at unfavourable exchange rates, the EU is creating an alarming new climate of inflexibility and impending European instability. The expected problems of the weak new single currency – the euro – are already becoming apparent.
Britain is an economic powerhouse, is the fourth largest economy in the world by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has the greatest financial trading centre in the world centred in London. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that Britain somehow needs the European Union to survive.
Britain is the European Union’s biggest customer.
The Terminal Power-Play for Britain
Is the real agenda being worked out against Britain by Brussels designed to dismantle the UK, plunder her of her historic wealth and resources, and then politically chain her so she can never again be free to operate in her traditional role as a world trading power?
There are a number of reasons, in the eyes of those running the EU, why Britain must cease to be a major world player and be dismantled for the future good of Europe. Today, as we shall see, every effort by the EU towards Britain is undertaken with this eventual goal in mind. From the destruction of the UK’s once proud fishing industry to the victimisation of her farming communities to render the UK dependent on EU food, the pressure is on for European bureaucrats and politicians to expedite this baleful agenda before the British people full awaken to what is happening.
So Why is it Happening?
History reveals that Continental politics have always spelled trouble for Britain. We have always had a different destiny from the rest of our Continental neighbours for one simple and straightforward reason. Britain was the nation which became the first industrial and maritime world power.
Britain was the first to develop and use her huge merchant and military navies to annexe foreign territories and then open trade with them around the world.
While nations in Europe still pursued parochial trade with their immediate neighbours, the cutters of the British East India Company carved their wake through the oceans, bring all manner of exotic materials to British shores.
Britain extended her Anglo-Saxon heritage into the Americas, Canada, India, South Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, as well as building strategic military bastions in Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other areas to protect her interests. During the 18th and 19th centuries, her economic and military influence grew exponentially.
Magna Carta (1215) and subsequently the Declaration of Rights (1689) recognised our rights and freedoms and are contracts between the sovereign and the people which cannot be abrogated even by an elected parliament.
In Britain, we have enjoyed the freedom to engage in any activity so long as it isn’t prohibited by law. In Europe, a citizen is only allowed to do those thing expressly permitted by the state. Hence the need for a blizzard of directives to tell the citizen what he can and cannot do.
The EU is protectionist. The British, on the other hand, positively encourage free enterprise, sensible risk-taking, and actively nurture individual spontaneity and entrepreneurial endeavour. These are “freedom ‘ traits, which reaped the Empire and her citizens an enormous collective wealth in their day, and which even still entice a huge amount of inward investment capital and foreign corporate endeavour today. The famous British eccentricity, celebrated and loved in countless movies, is the hallmark of this individuality.
Britain – an Economic Threat to the Continent
Nazi economist Professor Horst Jecht, of Berlin University, firmly believed that Britain was the single greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe economically as well as militarily. Jecht puts his case in his 1942 essay, “Developments towards the European Economic Community”:
“The foundation for this remarkable development of England was laid back in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries where maritime superiority was gained and a global, colonial empire acquired. By the end of this period, countries outside Europe accounted for 40% of England’s export trade. This development continued until World War 1. In 1913, these countries accounted for 56% and 65% of her imports and exports respectively. Foreign capital investment levels in these countries also started to grow significantly.
Since modern times, England’s economy has developed more and more away from Europe and not only during the period of English free trade. It became even more pronounced when there was protection and closer economic and political union with the nations of the empire, particularly at the time of the Ottawa agreements of 1932. British trade became even more concentrated overseas and, like the figure of 1913, in 1937 British exports outside Europe reached 64%.
In this essay and subsequent address to the Berlin economic conference during the Second World War, Dr Jecht concludes by explaining that Germany’s true role is to lead the future new economic order of Europe after the Second World War hostilities end. Germany’s eventual defeat in 1945 however changer her immediate destiny, but not her post-World War II desire eventually to dominate Europe, a role she is well on the way to achieving today.
The European government now has its own parliament, flag, supreme court, currency and anthem and is currently setting up its own written constitution, foreign policy, armed forces, federal police force and legal system.
The new European Army is headed up by a German general.
Europol is headed up by a German police officer.
The EU treaties which bind Britain to Europe take precedence over Acts of Parliament and are binding ab initio. This means that if we are outvoted in Brussels on a proposed piece of legislation, that new law must nevertheless be implemented in Britain, no matter the cost or damage involved, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court.
Our national veto, once held out as the carrot, giving Britons the impression that they could always say no, has now been withdrawn in almost every area. In plain English, if Britain doesn’t like any encroaching Brussels legislation which she believes will harm British interests, economy and culture, there is nothing she can do about it.
Under the current EU voting system, 62 out of 87 votes are required to pass a law, 26 votes are required to block one. The UK only has 10 votes under the Qualified Majority Voting System (QMV), and can rarely must the support needed to increase her votes over 26 to block legislation that can be harmful to Britain. This is one of the main tools of the acquis communautaire – ‘the ratchet’ – the mechanism that decrees that once Brussels has acquired power from the nation states, that power can never be given back. This is the method by which Britain has already been extensively damaged by our European ‘partners’ who do not share our cultural or global trading perspectives.
The EU treaties do not contain any exit clause and so do not provide for any member state to reject any law, or even their entire European membership AT ANY TIME. The idea that Britain can somehow ‘renegotiate’ her terms of membership, or pick and choose which parts she goes along with and which she rejects, is completely false.
John Major discovered this when he believed he had renegotiated a measure of national independence for Britain at Maastricht in 1992. He later found that his wishes were cynically ignored through a technical loophole in the third line of the agreement had had signed.
The question of whether Britain should remain in the EU has scarcely featured in any general election campaign during the past 25 years. This option is avoided at all costs by almost all politicians and simply not made available by any of the three major political parties in Britain.
SELLING BRITIAN BY THE POUND
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.” – Thomas Jefferson, at the Constitutional Convention, 1787.
“Monetary union is a path of no return. No subsequent revision or withdrawal of any kind is either legally or politically provided for.” - Hans Tietmeyer, the German Buindesbank
“If the House of Commons by any possibility loses the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.” W.E. Gladstone, 1891
“By a continuous process of inflation, government can confiscate secretly and unobserved an important part of the wealth of their citizens… The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does so in such a manner that only one man in a million is able to diagnose it.” John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of Peace
Smoke and Mirrors
Today, Britain is being lured into joining the European single currency with lies, false promises and deceit. Politicians attempting to pass this off as an economic issue to the public know full well that the euro is about nothing less than the complete surrender of the Uks economic and political sovereignty to a foreign power. Which is why the debate on the euro is almost never entered into publicly by those who push it. Greg Lance-Watkins of Silent Majority tells us why:
“It follows that by joining the single currency, member states hand over total control of their economy to Brussels. Individual policies are subsumed within the (one size fits all) system of the EU. This will apply even where the overall EU policy is disadvantageous to a particular or number of individual states. In other words, the economic control of a country is taken out of the hands of the national government and given to unelected officials in Brussels. At the same time, all gold and dollar reserves, apart from a small ‘working balance’, are given up and handed to the European Central Bank.”
How many British pro-euro politicians have told the British people that one of the first ignominous acts we would have to commit as a nation in joining the euro would be to hand over $48 billion-worth of our total gold and dollar reserves to the European Central Bank, along with our control over setting interest and exchange rates that suit us? In fact, the great gold transfer got underway when British Chancellor Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s holdings in gold to prop up the euro. Who in Britain cared anyway? Notice that these moves behind the scenes would also prevent Britain from backing out of the euro at some future point and having sufficient gold and dollar assets to underpin a re-launch of the pound.
How accountable is the European Central Bank with all this money of ours? As with other EU institutions, the ECB is famously about as scrutable as a battalion of Mongol horsemen. The Financial Times advises: “ECB intends to make decisions in secret, using forecasts it will not reveal, to achieve objectives it does not need to justify.”
No Turning Back
Sir Edward George, former governor of the Bank of England, reminds us, the euro has less to do with economics as it does with politics. Britain ditching its traditional, strong, independent sterling currency may rightly be viewed, in the yes of her old enemies, Franc and Germany, as her final defeat.
Article 109L.4 of the Maastrich Treat declares that the process of monetary integration with Europe is ‘irrevocable’. This means that if the British people don’t like the euro or the interest rates compelled upon us during the integration process, too bad – we’re stuck with them. This would be a very costly mistake for the British people to make. Only a successful war of disassociation/secession would enable Britain once again to re-establish her national independence from Europe.
To fight a war, you need troops, equipment, money and people willing to sacrifice their lives for the independence ideal. Perhaps the British won’t lack the desire to regain their independence once they have been a part of the EU’s version of an integrated Europe for a few years. Getting some serious fighting kit together however would be an entirely different matter. By this time, Brussels would own our country’s army, navy air force and law enforcement, lock, stock and gun barrel.
Even if Britain succeeded in forcefully breaking away from the EU after it had integrated (a doubtful prospect), how could Britain then re-launch her old currency if her gold, silver and dollar reserves have been seized?
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
The Economic and Monetary Union concept (EMU) is vitally important to the european federal architects, for the euro IS federal Europe. Having control of the one currency means that the EU Commission and its central bank control everything. This is a frightening prospect when considering the corruption and lack of accountability within the EU, and secondly, that Britain would have only a marginal say in how she would be governed in the future.
The idea of running one centrally controlled, Soviet-style economy throughout Europe is not a new idea… but it IS a disastrous one. What similarity does the humble economy of Portugal have with the mighty colossus of German? How does Britain’s global monster economy in any way compare with the parochial tailings of Greece? One economy throughout Europe means one set of interest rates, uniformly high tax rates, VAT on everything and a deluge of laws and directives controlling the lives of the Euro-citizen down to the finest detail from birth until death. Socialism indeed. Then there will be the tax hikes to pay for it all.
Tax Increases for all, Especially Britain
For Britain to join the continental monetary union, her income tax rates would need to be significantly raised in order to harmonise with those of the remainder of the Eurozone. Estimates say the UK tax rise could be as much as 20%. Big socialist government is always hungry for cash to run its endless departments, so VAT in Britain is expected to be expanded to include everything from books to food and could be hiked to a standard rate of 25%.
If these rises are put forward as Single Market legislation, Britain will almost certainly be outvoted, as Europe desperately needs our cash. We can, of course, appeal to the Luxembourg Court and try to have the measures overturned. But we know what the outcome of that will be, don’t we?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has been tracking the downside to Britain’s existing membership of the European Union, states in his briefing document ‘Better Off Out’ that areas tremendously hit with increased costs, restrictive and asinine Euro directives and meddling from Brussels include our air space, armed forces, boat building industry, cheese-makers, civil service, chocolate, dairy farmers, duty-free shopping, freedom of religion, hedgerows, alternative/natural medicines, legal system, the trucking industry, market gardeners, oak trees, pheasant shooting and the rights of countryside dwellers, ponies, postal service, sexual discrimination, taxis, waste disposal, water, whisky, the working week, the roast beef of Old England and the London bus.
The British Support the Euro?
Michael Howard declared:
“Tony Blair, Jack Straw and their colleagues repeatedly said during the general election campaigns of 1997 and 2001 that those elections were not about the euro. The euro would put at risk jobs, homes and livelihoods. It has never been endorsed by the British people.”
In 1997 Tony Blair vowed: “The final say will be with the British people in a referendum.”
Speaking in Edinburgh in 2001 during his election campaign, he stated: “It is you, the British people, who will have the decision in your hands in a referendum.”
Eurosceptic Labour MP Ian Davidson declared that Mr Straw was trying to Breathe life into a corpse.”
He asked: “Why do we, with low unemployment and high growth, want to join an economic zone that is a disaster, that is not working collectively?”
Europe adopts a highly regulated and restrictive, zero free-market approach with inflexible movements of labour, no doubt hampered by the diversity of language and culture.
Enlarging the Union
Following the Copenhagen Summit, the EU will admit 10 more economically weak candidates as of 1st May 2004: Malta, Cyprus, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
The sordid, penny-market haggling over the subsidies and cash hand-outs to be made available to the new members was typical of the economics of the EU madhouse, the same amateur economics ordinary citizens around the Euro zone have been waking up to since the euro went solo on the streets at the beginning of 2002.
Mr Blair is intent on proving himself one of the Euro-faithful by rebutting euro-dissenters with all the spin and duplicity of a medieval Italian town:
“Britain turning its back on Europe would be an error of vast proportions. Be under no doubt: if the economic tests are met, Britain should join the single currency. For Britain to be marginalised in Europe when soon the EU will have 25 members stretching from Portugal to Poland and the largest commercial market in the world, would not just be economically unwise, it would betray a total misunderstanding of the concept of national interest in the 21st century.”
Yet as a junior minister in 1982 Mr Blair declared:
“Above all, the EEC takes away Britain’s freedom to follow the economic policies we need. ~We will negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed our jobs.”
Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, explained that Tony Blair’s personal eminence and influence in Europe has only been secured by trading off a staggering amount of EU integration over the past five years.
“…The abolition of sterling, in principle; the EU-wide arrest warrants for felonies, including thought crimes such as xenophobia [a dislike of foreigner]); a proto FBI/CIA rolled into one at Europol; the Social Chapter, which has subtly overturned our trade union laws and forced Britain to adopt a disturbingly large number of Germany’s labour-market rigidities; anti-discrimination laws that force employers to prove their innocence in court, contravening a core principle of our common law [that a person is innocent until proven guilty]; the Charter of Fundamental Rights – an insidious misnomer – containing a clause authorising suspension of all civic rights, if necessary, in the ‘general interest of the Union’; and now a European constitution, switching our final jurisdiction from the House of Lords to the European Court.”
Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)
In October 1990, the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher committed Britain to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), a forerunner experiment to the euro and monetary union, which effectively locked the pound into other EU currencies.
During the 23 months of chaos that followed:
· British business suffered its worst recession in 60 years.
· 100,000 UK businesses went to the wall.
· Unemployment doubled from 1.5 to 3 millions.
· More bankruptcies were filed than in any previous 2-year period EVER.
· Repossessions of property increased seven times to 32,000.
· By 1993, 511,000 were at least three months in arrears on their mortgages.
· Britain lost estimated reserves of £68 billion.
To avoid total economic collapse and national bankruptcy, Britain was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16th September 1992, Black Wednesday. Although the damaged caused by the ERM was not permanent, this will not be true for Britain joining the euro. There will be no ability to exit the arrangement, whatever the damage caused.
Joining the euro will be irreversible. If something goes wrong there will be no provision available for Britain to re-launch the pound. To launch a currency requires considerable gold, silver and dollar reserves – the very reserves our politicians have been talked into handing over to the European Central Bank.
Europe has amassed unfunded pensions liabilities amounting to a staggering $1.2 trillion. If Britain joins the euro and full monetary union with the Continent, our share of this huge debt could be £30,000 for every British man, woman and child, according to media financial reports issued in October 1996.
Abolishing the pound is about abolishing Britain’s independence and control over her own affairs. Adopting the euro could be the worst and perhaps final mistake Britain would make as an independent nation. It could amount to permanent fiscal damnation and cause us to inherit all liabilities and debts of Europe while handing over all our assets and reserves.
Britain – A Sterling Place to do Business
The Bank of England’s governor, Sir Edward George, stated in early September 2002 that interest rates could be set at the wrong level for Britain if we joined the euro, resulting in a potential and permanent disaster for our economy.
Britain has been thriving outside the single currency, which only demonstrates that the whole euro issue is not about generating wealth which we already enjoy, but about scrapping our national sovereignty.
It is political as distinct from economic incompetence that has fouled up our economy within the past 50 years. The evidence for this is overwhelming.
If the euro is supposed to stabilise the spending of the member states of the Eurozone, as well as offer a credible currency to rival the dollar, then supporters of the single currency need to explain the observable reality of a euro that is struggling to stay afloat ever since its inauspicious birth, and why Britain even needs to change at all.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch advises in his ‘Better Off Out’ pamphlet:
“Brussels’ dictates are inflicted upon the whole of our economy, so the real point is that only some 10% of our Gross Domestic Product are involved in trade with the EU (declining and in deficit). Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the rest of the world (growing and in surplus). The remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic economy. So the insignificant 10% tail is wagging our healthy 90% dog.”
Brussels Moves the Goal Posts … Again
Germany, France, Italy and Portugal have not been punished for contravening the deficit limit, as the Pact dictates, but instead have been given an extra two years and told to balance their books, something not even the EU has been able to do with its own accounts.
This leniency has been shown despite the fact that other EU member governments have dutifully tried to carry out measures to conform to the Pact which have been politically damaging for them at home.
Some analysts see this caving-in by Brussels as an unmistakable sign that the amount of debt accruing within the Union is becoming critical and the currency is in danger of losing its credibility and could eventually collapse. Brussels is seen to be frantically avoiding a confrontation which could alienate her two leading players, France and Germany.
What About all those EU Rebates?
Most in Britain think the EU is handing Britons large sums of Eurocash in return for its membership. Some people reason that the aggravation Britain gets from Brussels is worth tolerating if we are supposed to be getting the cash.
The idea that the EU gives Britain anything beneficial is ridiculous. Figures show that we paid the EU £8.96 billion in 2000, and received back around £5 billion through EU spending in the UK and our ‘rebate’.
So here’s the real situation. We give Brussels around £9 billion of our own hard-earned money, only to have them give £5 billion of it back and tell us how to spend it – this, based on the pretzel-twisting logic that the EU somehow knows better than we do how to spend our own money – of course, with all the EU restrictions on what we can and can’t do with our own wealth!
Meanwhile, the other £4 billion goes towards:
· Enriching Frech farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP);
· Decommissioning British fishing boats so that Spain and other nations can fish our waters instead;
· Baling out the poorer EU countries;
· Paying bureaucrats to draft an insane quantity of regulations that routinely damage Britain’s economic and strategic interests…
That is, if the money doesn’t take a one-way dive into the £6 billion part of the EU’s annual budget that disappears in fraud and corruption every year.
Conversion to the New Currency
Parking meters, cigarette vending machines, tills, the entire banking system, credit card systems – all will have to be dismantled, modified or reprogrammed.
Predictably, we have been told by Europe that these costs must be borne by the British taxpayer. Tony Blair announced that he would earmark some £3.5 billion to fund the changeover of currencies in the public sector. The ultimate cost of converting the entire country however has been estimated at a staggering £30 billion-plus – that is hundreds of pounds for every man woman and child in the UK – all to be borne by the business sector and their customers.
Corruption and Fraud
At least 10% of the European Union’s £60-plus billion budget disappears in fraud and mismanagement every year! The corruption and double-dealing going on in Brussels alone should be enough to compel Britain to leave the EU immediately. But who is speaking up?
Paul van Buitenen did. He was the EU-appointed auditor who brought down Jacques Santer’s Europ0ean government on fraud charges by highlighting the worst financial scandal in Euroland’s history. Van Buitenen was able to show that billions of euros had been ‘misappropriated’ by members of the EU elite, such as French commissioner, Edith Cresson, whose live-in dentist became an unlikely beneficiary.
Because of his revelations, the EU swung ponderously but predictably into action. Van Buitenen was subsequently suspended without pay by the EU Commission, the very target of his corruption investigations, for doing his job, while the officials he had accused of serious crimes were themselves suspened on full pay. Van Buitenen was later vindicated when a further panel upheld his accusations, resulting in the resignation of Santer’s entire EU Commission in 1999.
Yet, such is the extent of the corruption, mediocrity and incompetence going on within the EU that the fraud has continued without check under Mr Prodi’s successive regime. Later, van Buitenen published his best-seller, ‘Blowing the Whistle’ but Europe’s citiz43ns remained, as always, apathetic and careless at the revelations.
The last straw for van Buitenen was the Gestapo-like treatment of the Eus chief accountant, marta Andreasen, who had the temerity to declare that the EU’s £60 billion-plus budget was simply ‘out of control’ and ‘massively open to fraud’. Figures could be altered ‘without leaving any trace’, she reported, and the EU’s accounting system didn’t even used double entry book-keeping, the basic standard of accounting accuracy throughout the world.
Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock is a good example of how the lure of Brussels can tempt politicians wishing to avoid the professional wilderness in their own country to extend their shelf life. Neil Kinnock never gained the confidence of the British people and so was never elected to office in the UK. Neil Kinnock was one of the Brussels commissioners for Britain, appointed by Conservative opponent John Major. Tony Blair would do the same to rival Chris Patten, no doubt to get them off the opposing benches at Westminster.
Mr Kinnock, in his role as the officially appointed EU sleaze-buster, offered any whistleblowers protection from ‘adverse consequences’ if they came clean, then promptly reneged on his offer of ‘protection’ in the case of Ms Andreasen, and even stood by and approved her sacking by the Commission, which again was the very target of Ms Andreasen’s corruption concerns. Mr Kinnock was thus able to give the public another opportunity to see for themselves how much his word is really worth.
Mr Kinnock knows full well that financial irregularities in the EU’s accounts have prevented accountants at the Court of Auditors from signing them off for eight years in a row. In fact, in a report issued a few weeks prior to Andreasen’s professional execution, the Court waqrned of massive failings in the system which could not even record how many billions of pounds were being wasted through fraud each year. Even Britain’s own National Audit Office found ‘persistent weaknesses’ in fraud checks by EU states earlier in 2002.
Shadow Deputy Prime Minister David Davis was outraged: “Is there or isn’t there a double-entry accounting system? Because if there isn’t, then it is unlike any other accounting system in the world that anyone respects.”
But why should any of this concern Neil Kinnock? His own professional shortcomings haven’t prevented him from being very comfortable today. At the time of writing, the EU earns his family up to £500,000 a year, taking into account his salary as the Commission’s vice-president, his luxury three-storey home in Belgium’s capital, all the perks, expense accounts and the salaries of his wife Glenys, his son Stephen, and Stephen’s wife, Helle, a Danish MEP. All paid for, courtesy of the Euro-taxpayer.
Above the Law
Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, a blanket, life-time immunity has been extended to all officials like Neil Kinnock and their servants of the institutions, which reads as follows:
“In the territory of each member state and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall… be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words (spoken or written). They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office.”
So, in 1999, when the entire EU Commission was found to have been involved in fraud, not one individual could be prosecuted. How’s that for accountability?
Article 1, Chapter 1, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EC) states that “…premises and buildings of the Communities shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation, and their archives shall be inviolable…” Thus no buildings or offices, filing cabinets, archives or bottom drawers belonging to the EU, wherever they are located, can be searched or inspected… ever. These two exemptions alone place the people and premises of the EU completely above the law, which flies in the face of the basic principle of British or any decent democracy that ‘no-one is above the law’.
Drawn and Quartered
(Art. 198a Maastricht) The full title of the European Union is “The European Union of the Regions’. Within the EU there are, at present, 111 separate regions, due to be expanded with enlargement due on 1st May 2004. In many of the continental countries, a form of regional government has been common for decades, especially in France, Germany, Spain and Italy.
The British Government has, for the past few years, encouraged so-called ‘devolution’ within the UK, transferring regional power from Westminster to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. How coincidental is it then that the ‘devolved’ regions in Britain exactly match the map of the regions of the European Union?
EU Document 501 PC0083 “sets up the nomenclature of statistical units as a single, coherent system for dividing up the EU’s territory…” All twelve EU regions in the UK are classified by the letters ‘UK’ plus a further letter to identify the individual region, thus:
North Eastern (UKC)
North West (UKD)
Yorks & Humberside (UKE)
East Midlands (UKF)
West Midlands (UKG)
South East (UKJ)
South West (UKK)
Northern Ireland (UKN)
‘devolution’ process which saw Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland setting up their own parliaments was, in reality, merely the EU’s usual way of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. The landmasses of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Irish Republic, are already established regions of the European Union, now increasingly ruled directly from Brussels.
England must be broken up into 9 regions. The United Kingdom, as a sovereign union, will officially cease to exist perhaps as early as 2008.
This is all going to lead to a nightmare of control, corruption and cynical unaccountability fostered by national governments and their comfortable politicians who care not one jot about the citizens of Europe, let alone the people of Britain?
Justice for All
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is located in Luxembourg and is based on the American Supreme Court blueprint. It was largely the inspiration of one of the founders of the EU, Jean Monnet, and his friend and confidante, US Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.
· No appeal is available in the ECJ. Its decisions are absolute.
· The all-male judge teams are both unelected and unaccountable under EU law. They are free to do whatever they please and there is no legal comeback. Further, the judges are not required to have any judicial experience whatsoever. Most do not.
· The kernel of the ECJ’s power is derived from the Treaty of Rome, Article 249. The wording is deliberately generalised, enabling Brussels to extend the widest possible interpretations to these, and other clauses of the Treaty: “A regulation shall have general application [what does ‘general’ mean?] It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States…”
· Thus the European Court of Justice has been given powers ‘with no restriction’ over the member states. This effectively places British citizens under the control of a foreign power and is intended to remove forever Britain’s right to govern herself. This represents the abandonment of our nation. Any British politician currently allowing this, or who has participated in orchestrating these efforts in the past, has committed treason under the Treason Act of 1795 and the Treason Felony Act of 1848.
· National parliaments are now mere rubber stamps for all the legislation pouring out of Brussels. Legally elected British MPs can turn back none of it.
· The EU is abolishing trial by jury under the new European corpus juris system being introduced in Britain. Once the system is in place, an indicted individual will have to prove his innocence against the combined machinery of the state.
· The European Union is abolishing havaeas corpus, the supreme British legal safeguard which declares ‘no imprisonment without fair trial’, instituted under Article 39 of Magna Carta, 1215.
· Under British law, a law enforcement officer or the public prosecutor must place evidence before a court within 24 hours of a citizen’s arrest, detailing the charges being brought against them.
· Unpaid lay magistrates, representing the people and drawn from the people themselves, are being replaced after more than 600 years. They currently hear over 90% of criminal cases. The new EU-wide justice system will be enforced by inquisitorial courts (no injury).
· British judges are already imposing European law upon British citizens. Take the ‘metric martyr’ episode in 2001, when a market trader was convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed using British imperial measures (pounds and ounces). British District Judge Morgan, in passing judgment upon the unfortunate grocer, stated that the British were now living under ‘new constitutional powers’.
· Compare this with Edward Heath’s comment on the same treaty which gave Judge Morgan these powers: “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty…”
· British police will henceforth report to Brussels and be immune from prosecution.
· The ECJ has already granted powers to Europol to intercept mail and e-mails with the excuse that it is fighting the drug menace, money laundering and the ‘War on Terror’. The latter can naturally be extended to include actions against those who do not support the EU. Under new legislation, actions pursued by those who disagree with the EU can be labelled seditious, treasonous and even blasphemous.
· The ECJ is removing the ‘double jeopardy’ safeguard. For centuries, British law has held that if a person is found not guilty of committing a crime, he cannot be tried again for the same offence. Henceforth, under corpus juris law, the ECJ has given itself the ‘right’ to come back at an individual time and again with the same charge, using all its considerable ‘legal’ apparati, until it secures the required conviction. Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, has already given prosecutors the right to appeal against not-guilty verdicts handed down by jurors.
· A British citizen will henceforth be liable to summary arrest and extradition to a foreign country without any evidence being presented to a court. No prima facie evidence will be presented either to the court or its victim to support such charges.
· In the EU’s apparent attempt to combat football hooliganism, the legal framework already exists to arrest a person even on suspicion that they may have committed, or might in the future commit a crime.
· Under ECJ law, past offences committed by the accused will be raked up against him and used to justify why he committed the crime for which he is accused. Under British law, this is illegal. Such information on prior convictions is only made available to the court after the verdict, in order to secure a fair trial.
· Under Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, members of the new federal ‘Europol’ are “immune from legal process of any kind for acts performed…in the exercise of their official functions.” Thus, no Europol officer can be charged or brought to trial for false imprisonment, violence against a suspect, the destruction or seizure of private property, or harassment of any individual.
· Europol has been given powers to operate anywhere within the Eurozone, including Britain, with complete impunity. They have the power of summary arrest and extradition, in spite of current British laws, which specifically prohibit such actions. Under the power of international treaty, British law is superseded by European law.
· Ironically, or perhaps not, Europol’s centre of operations, housing 300-400 officers at present, is located in the old Gestapo headquarters building in the Hague. Plans are well underway to expand this force to many thousands more, all to be armed and granted unfettered access to all regions of the EU. Europol has been run by a former German police officer, Jorgen Storbeck, since its inception in 1994.
· Britain’s representation of Europol is quartered with the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) at its HQ London.
· Europol has been amassing computer records on hundreds of thousands of European citizens. None of this information is ever made public. Europol has the power, under EU law, to instruct British police authorities to investigate anyone in Britain the EU deems a danger to law and order.
EU Justice – No Checks and Balances
Any British government endorsing the above measures, as successive British administrations have done, is signing away freedoms guaranteed to the British people in perpetuity. Such actions have paved the way for a once democratic Britain to be handed over to a new European-wide, potentially totalitarian regime run by Britain’s former enemies. The Blair government has been instrumental, via Home Secretary Jack Straw, in accelerating this process, and then convincing the public it is all being done in their best interests.
An entity like the European Union, which has gone to great lengths to remove all public scrutiny of its affairs, all media reporting of its forum meetings and which has expeditiously granted lifetime immunity from prosecution to all its personnel and officers for their future actions, what can any government possibly want with such powers? Can such an entity not reasonably be expected in the future to exercise this awesome might and do bad things to its citizens knowing it will be able to get away with it? History repeatedly shows that these are the same powers all totalitarian regimes grant themselves before going to war with their own people and those of other countries.
This process may still be reversed by a unified and angry response from millions of Britons, clamouring for Britain to reject her EU membership and regain her independence, and compelling her government to take the appropriate, official action. Time is running out as more statutory instruments are prepared in order to force Britain to remain in the EU.
By Greg Lance-Watkins - www.SilentMajority.co.uk
Two examples of the way the European Union has dealt disastrously with Britain will illustrate the methods used to destroy countless British lives. In this chapter, researcher Greg Lance-Watkins summaries the EU assault on the British fishing industry:
· Unbeknown to the British electorate, Prime Minister Edward Heath made a deal with the EEC and gave away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters. Up to that point ‘fishing’ had not been included in any treaties (it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Rome) but was later added at Maastricht (Articles 38-47). EU officials were astounded when Heath unilaterally gave British fishing away with no preconditions.
· British territorial waters are now ‘a shared European Union’ resource, and that means everything in them too. This has given Brussels the right to allocate quotas to different member states who can now fish in British waters.
· Due to the predictably harsh EU quotas imposed upon Britain’s fishing industry, millions of tons of fish, all dead but accidentally caught, are required (under EU law) to be thrown back into the sea. EU law means that more fish are thrown back by British boats than are actually landed, for fear of incurring fines for over-fishing. This is the result of the European Union’s conservation policy, which can cost lobster fishermen also, if they land a creature that is even one millimetre too small. Fines of up to £50,000 can be levied against larger trawlers landing even one box over quota.
· Thousands of boat boardings and inspections are carried out each year by EU representatives to ensure that the law on fishing is being upheld.
· By 2004, the fishing fleets of other nations within the EU will be able to work right up to the shore, with Britain’s traditional 6- mile and 12-mile limits due to be abolished. The quotas allocated by the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU mean that Spanish trawlers are allowed to fish cod in the Irish Sea while British trawlers are forbidden from putting to sea at all.
· Although Maastricht was not signed until 1992 (in which Britain’s surrender of her fishing waters was formally acknowledged), foreign fishing fleets were using Britain’s waters for many years prior to that time.
· Britain was allowed to fish only between 10% and 15% of her own stocks until 1st January 2003, when even this was cut back further. The whole British fishing industry, on land and sea, has thus been effectively destroyed. The quota system was brought into effect to accommodate the Spanish fishing fleet which had more boats than all the rest of the EU put together, but no good fishing grounds.
· This law is being rigidly enforced with British waters, and is fast becoming a major pollution factor as well as helping to destroy remaining fishing stocks. The previous EU arrangement gives Britain control up to six miles offshore and part control up to twelve miles. This arrangement ended in 2002, and from 1st January 2003, EU boats have been able to fish right up to Britain’s shores. (EU Regulation 3760/92).
· The British government was forced to pay over £100 million in damages to Spain for preventing their fishermen from fishing British territorial waters. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1988, passed by legally elected Members of the British Parliament to protect British fisheries, was illegal and contrary to EU law.
· EU fisheries policy has been such a success that as of November 2002, British waters have become so depleted of cod fishing grounds in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the north coast of Scotland.
· Total number of British fishing livelihoods wrecked as a result of EU interference: 1 million.
By Greg Lance-Watkins
How the European Union has destroyed British farming:
· Britain came under the EEC’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome. Under the CAP’s ‘Community Preference’, Britain must purchase any goods from EU countries first, and not from her former trading partners or Commonwealth. Thus Britain is forced at inflated prices to purchase, for example, some of France’s huge surpluses, while French farmers are compensated through the Common Agricultural Policy, a part of which Britain funds, to grow food no-one wants.
· The CAP’s agricultural interference and draconian regulation has thus deliberately despaired and wrecked the British farming industry. Food prices have been drastically affected as the more expensive food Britain is compelled to buy from Europe, rather than from her cheaper Commonwealth sources, finds its way into the supermarket and corner store. UK Government estimates in 1998 put the unnecessary and unjustified increase in British food prices at over £6.5 billion.
· Britain keeps pouring billions of good money after bad by continuing to fund her share of the CAP, knowing full well that nothing but more British agricultural hardship will come from it. The CAP represents European cronyism and protectionism of the worst order.
· Today some British farmers are bing paid to do nothing with their own land. Those who are still farming actively in Britain are compelled to conform to asinine EU regulation that has drastically driven up their operating costs. Little wonder that British farming has taken such a beating in the past twenty years as the full terms of the CAP have begun to cut in.
· Other colossal increases in costs affecting farming include EU inspections of meat facilities and withdrawal of previous subsidies to British farmers which are then given to farmers in France, Spain and Greece for farming tobacco.
· The Common Agricultural Policy currently consumes over half the EU’s total income. It is also responsible for a major part of the legislation flowing out of Europe. Even by the end of 1996, 8,956 farming laws had already been passed.
· By signing up to the CAP in 1972, the British effectively lost control of up to 90% of their land mass (the area currently related to agriculture), as well as handing over total control of all our farming practices to Brussels. As with fishing, this has resulted in the downfall of the farming industry due to the following:
1. Over-production within the EU brought about by liberal subsidies.
2. Britain being flooded with food imports, against which the British government finds itself powerless to protect the British farmers, due to EU rules.
3. Prices (to farmers, not consumers) have tumbled and thousands of farmers are now facing ruin. Again (because of EU regulations) there is nothing the British government can do in the way of financial help or a policy of protection.
4. Milk quotas were brought in to level out production across the EU. British farmers were more efficient and productive than their Continental counterparts and so had to be restricted. Britain is now forced to import 20% of its milk needs from France, whilst British farmers pour milk down the drain and steadily go bankrupt.
5. An over-abundance of EU legislation is stifling whole sections of the industry into extinction. Pig, sheep and cattle farmers, as well as the industries that depend on them (packaging, slaughtering, etc.) are all being forced to close. For example:
6. Since 1990, slaughterhouses in Britain have diminished in number from 1,400 to 400 due to EU regulations on ‘cleanliness’.
7. Farmers have been, and are continuing to be paid for doing nothing with their land (the policy of ‘set-aside’). The richer the land, the more subsidy the farmer receives for not farming it. This policy is the land-based version of the de-commissioning of Britain’s fishing fleets.
· The deliberate run-down of the British farming industry is taking place and, because of it, British farmers can no longer feed the citizens of these islands. This places the country at the mercy of the EU and foreign imports.
· The following is an indication of government (EU) policy: On 3rd May 2000, the Government Rural White Paper – 7th report of the Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Vol. 1 – contained the following opening paragraph: “The role of rural England as the food provider for the nation is no longer an essential one.”
· Beef: In a typical move which openly flouted EU law, the French government maintained an illegal 3-year ban on British beef, even though Brussels had ruled that the product was safe. The continued blockade was imposed by France’s previous, beleaguered socialist government in an attempt to appease the powerful French farming lobby and its consumers. The illegal ban is thought to have cost British farmers a staggering £600 million in lost exports, not to mention tainting the reputation of British beef globally, resulting in 40 other countries currently maintaining blockades of their own against us. Under EU law, France could have amassed a potential fine of up to £100 million for disobeying a direct order from the EU to lift her illegal ban. France is unlikely to pay a cent however as she is one of the two tails that wags the EU dog.
The Great Deception Behind the Rebate Row
By Christopher Booker (January 2006)
Tony Blair was quite right to point out that, without the UK rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 15 times more than France. It was precisely this imbalance which prompted Margaret Thatcher to fight for the rebate. It was never properly explained, however, why this ridiculous anomaly arose in the first place.
One of many remarkable episodes which Richard North and I were able to bring to light in our book, The Great deception, just republished in a new updated edition, was the bizarre story behind the setting up of the Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960’s. This was triggered off by the crisis facing France, through the runaway bill she was paying to subsidise French farmers for producing food nobody wanted.
President de Gaulle was terrified that this would bankrupt the French state, provoking social collapse. The French therefore cunningly devised a CAP to get other countries to buy their surplus food and foot their subsidy bill. The real reason why de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry was that it was vital first to get these arrangements agreed. Otherwise Britain could have sabotaged a system deliberately designed to benefit France, from which Britain, because she imported, but with a smaller farming sector, she would also get fewer subsidies.
Only in 1969 did France get her way, at which point she needed Britain in and Edward Heath accepted the absurd arrangement. Within a decade, with the CAP then taking up 90 per cent of the entire budget, Britain would become the biggest contributor.
Hence Mrs Thatcher’s fight for her rebate. But even this was only a partial solution, because Britain’s farmers have continued to receive dramatically small subsidies than their competitors, contributing to the crisis which in recent years has brought much of British agriculture to its knees.
Thus are we still living with the problems created by that French stitch-up of 40 years ago, for reasons now almost lost in the mists of time. For the full story refer to The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive?, published by Continuum at £9.99.
The Sunday Telegraph, 4th December 2005
Blair Will Pay for his Betrayal in Brussels
When it comes to international negotiations, possession is nine tenths of the law. A country may be under any amount of pressure, but as long as it is profiting from the status quo, it has nothing to fear from a breakdown. It is instructive then to compare the behaviour of the EU at the Hong Kong trade talks with that of the United Kingdom at the Brussels summit.
In Hong Kong, the EU represented by its Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, was determined not to open its markets to developing countries. Its stance was wrong-headed and ethically indefensible.
Euro-protectionism drives up prices, erodes Europe’s competitiveness and causes much poverty in the Third World. But despite the pleas of the southern hemisphere nations, and despite a general American initiative to cut tariffs, Brussels remained intransigent, secure in the knowledge that no deal would mean a default to the existing situation.
Britain’s position in Brussels was even stronger. No mechanism existed to reduce the British rebate without Tony Blair’s agreement. Here, a failure to reach terms would mean not a continuation of the status quo, but something even more attractive: a drying up of the budget.
Britain – which, for almost the entire period of its membership, has been one of only two countries to make any net payment to the EU – would thus have been spared its annual tribute of £12 billion, and might have used these savings to (for example) give us all a two thirds cut in council tax.
Why, then, was Mr Blair so determined to find an accommodation? Why did he climb down from his own position that there would be no reduction in the rebate without a commensurate dismantling of the CAP? Because his Europeanism has never really been based on a computation of Britain’s national interest.
For him, being pro-EU is about being a modern internationalist, not about securing specific gains for his country. This is, of course, the worst possible frame of mind in which to enter negotiations.
More to the point, though, Mr Blair has failed in his own terms. A generous internationalist might indeed believe that Britain ought to give money to needier countries. But the EU budget is not a mechanism for doing so. Its largest per capita beneficiary is Luxembourg. By failing to secure CAP reform, Mr Blair has, in fact, done immense damage to the world’s truly deserving states.
Make no mistake: the sums of money involved are immense - £7 billion, the amount Mr Blair has handed away, is roughly the entire police budget for England and Wales. At the last election, Mr Blair claimed Tory plans for a £4 billion tax reduction would mean savage cuts in public services. Never again will he be able to level such an accusation.
From now on, every time they are asked where they would find the money for tax cuts, the Tories can reasonably reply: from Brussels. Mr Blair has betrayed his word and his electorate. His budget surrender will be hung, albatross-like, around his neck and invoked every time he raises taxes.
The Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2005
There is a mass-migration of income from the medicine and pharmaceutical industries into the huge diversity of companies comprising what is known as the ‘alternative health industry’ has not gone unnoticed by the powers-that-be. Today, British and Continental citizens are finding that new legislation from Brussels is seeking either to ban or strictly limit the availability of a wide range of traditional remedies and supplements that have been used by the public for decades, and in some cases centuries, for their well-being. Something sinister called Codex Alimentarius is casting its Big Brother shadow across the Eurozone. Americans and other world populations are looking on with apprehension as they know they are next!
The EU Supplements Directives
There is a European move to regulate the alternative health industry’s supplements.
On 12th March 2002, the European Parliament voted and passed regulations which limit the public availability and upper intakes of hundreds of nutrients to ridiculously low levels – in certain cases, 1/50th or even less of what many nutritional doctors recommend as therapeutic doses.
Like Germany and France, many are now facing the prospect of not just severe censure in the amounts of these nutrients they can take, but what they can buy at all. For, hidden within the Trojan Horse ‘harmonisation’ proposals used to justify entering the launch codes against the alternative health industry, the realisation is dawning that anything not on the EU positive list of ‘accepted’ supplements is now in for an outright ban. Manufacturers who wished to field anything ‘new’ will be required to spend millions proving benefit through exhaustive ‘drug testing’ – a state of affairs guaranteed to bankrupt even the most stalwart of the green corporations.
For 13 years, European pharmaceutical conglomerates have been contemplating a standardised market for vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements. Various attempts to harmonise the industry have met with a huge and sustained opposition, not least from the UK and its vitamin consumers. In January 2000, the Brussels Commission, during one of those rare, brief periods in which it was not being found guilty of fraud and accounting corruption, table a White Paper on Food Safety. A later document, 500PC0222 (what monster invents that kind of archiving system?), concluded that a wide disparity existed on alternative medicine dosages, and proposed legislation to correct the imbalance. In France and Germany, for instance, no products containing more than one times the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) may be sold without a drug licence.
And this is a problem. Vitamin C’s RDA is 40-60mg. Yet the therapeutic dosage of C begins at 500mg and goes up beyond 10,000mg. So if you wish to treat yourself with mega doses of C complex for your cancer, best visit B & Q and buy up a wheelbarrow in readiness to haul all those expensive, tiny vitamin pills back to base-camp.
Opposition is to No Avail
Most UK Members of the Euro Parliament (MEPs) voted against the food supplements and herbal initiatives, which nevertheless passed. In spite of some 400 million pieces of mail, e-mails, faxes and sky writings thrown at Brussels vociferously protesting this attack on human rights, along with the predictable media black-out, the legislation was approved with no House debate at the usual tornado velocity, with 383 MEPs in favour and 139 against. Considerable resources had been expended by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby members for their vote. The public’s outrage was ignored.
Where are we Now?
There is an intervening period currently occurring which is designed to allow member states to pass laws aligning themselves with the new directives, which also strictly limit the availability of herbal medicines. Products formulated with ingredients not on the EU’s parsimonious list of approved substances will not comply with the directives and will be banned after 1st June 2005. Upper safe limits have been arbitrarily allocated to such a conservative list of nutrients, over which supplement dosage will be regulated, that the vast majority of other, more specialised nutrients not included on the list will be effectively cleared from the shelves of most UK, Dutch and Irish health stores, along with even the common stuff, such as vitamins C and B6, which are always sold in potencies exceeding the EU mandate.
Unless a concerted effort is made en masse by the affronted citizenry to pull Britain out of the European Union, the Euro juggernaut will have its way again. A few short years from now, the Darth Vader vitamin police will screech up outside your vitamin shack and clear your shelves of the designated ‘contraband’ nutrients. And there won’t be a thing you will be able to do about it.
Many alternative health organisations are blanching at the thought of losing significant revenues over this new legislation to the drug industry and their huge retail conglomerates, and have formed alliances to ‘fight the Food Supplements Directive’. However, they do so in woeful ignorance of the simple fat that, with the European Union, they are no longer operating on a democratic, accountable field. Their mistake, and this is the crucial point being missed, is that they are confusing Brussels with people who actually care about what the public think.
Brussels do not care about your supplements! Brussels are closing loopholes, working to standardise everything across Europe, and responding to corporate lobbying and plain paper envelopes from the drug industry in their usual way, all the while ruling their new fiefdom from behind closed doors. The public are not considered.
Brussels do not recognise that you even have a right to complain. This is the new system taking over Europe as well as Britain. There is nothing you can do about any of this through what you perceive as traditional parliamentary channels. They simply don’t exist any more. Your politicians have been too cowardly to tell you that this is now the state of affairs governing Britain.
Uneasy Bedfellows – The Great Immigration Disaster
Today, Britain is being successfully invaded for the third time in its 1,000 year history. The first time, it was William of Normandy who invaded our southern shores and ended up running the country after King Harold was struck in the eye with a French arrow at the ill-fated Battle of Hastings in 1066. The second occasion was when the Americans invaded us in a friendly way prior to the Allies launching Operation Overlord (D-Day) against the Nazis on 6th June 1944.
These days, Britain is being invaded with ‘asylum seekers’, most of which are not political refugees fleeing tyranny in their own countries at all, but economic migrants seeking to better their lives by choosing a new country in which to live. And guess which is their first country of choice? Not Germany, not France, nor Italy or Greece but Britain!
The United states has the Mexican immigrant problem in her south west corner. Australians are trying to hold the Indonesians at bay to the north. New Zealanders have the Pacific Islanders and citizens of other south-east Asian nations trying to get in. This is economic migration.
Into this mix we stir the concerted plan by global socialism striving for its New World Order to homogenise national populations in order to dilute the hated national identity and thus marginalise the appeal of the nation state. Mass, unchecked immigration is the perfect weapon to accomplish this. The nation, like the family, is believed by the socialist today to be the root cause of all wars and woes respectively, which is why socialism is always working tirelessly to kill off both. Actually, while nationalism has certainly been one of the reasons war has broken out in the past, it is not the main reason. The chief motivation that triggers a country to go to war is actually the belief that it can get away with it.
Nations provide a check and balance system against government abuse and tyranny. Truly democratic nations are the largest social unit that can still be directly controlled by the majority of their inhabitants. When one nation gets too big for its boots, others can band together and sort out the renegade country. Refugees fleeing the tyranny can also hope to find sanctuary in another land. Nazi Germany and Japan were brought to account during the last war by this check and balance system, although the cost was ugly and extremely high. A world containing a democracy of independent nations still provides for this control system to operate effectively if someone gets out of line.
But set up a global government structure not answerable to its peoples, or even a continental federation like the EU, place all the power into the hands of a few, unelected, unaccountable committees, and the check and balance system is lost. One of course lives in the hope that such a mega-government will be benevolent. But it it isn’t? What can you do about it now? Where will you flee? Who will bring the tyranny to account?
Our neighbours on the mainland have suffered enough at the hands of their extremists and ideologists. No countries deserve peace and a chance to rid themselves of their power-hungry political cliques more than France, Austria, Germany and Italy. It is for this reason that the European Union poses the greatest danger to European and hence world peace, not just because it is run by a group of fifth-rate, financially corrupt nest-featherers, but because there is no accountability to the public. This is especially true with Britain, where the safety net has been removed just as we are about to be persuaded to take our own one-way, high-wire walk into European integration. The European Union has already shown itself capable of:
· Corruption on a Herculean scale.
· Removing its citizens’ human rights if it so chooses.
· Ignoring mass protests of its citizens over the measures it introduces.
· Imprisoning people for periods without fair trial.
· Equipping the state with all the instruments of repression.
· Rendering immunity from prosecution to all its officials.
From 1950 to 1990, the total population of Caribbean and Asian immigrants in Britain went from around 80,000 to a little over 3 million, mostly concentrated in the south-east of the country and the major cities. Since the early 1990’s, the immigrant population, comprising both legal entrants and those sneaking in, has exploded exponentially. Figures released by the Home Office show that just under 30,000 illegal immigrants claimed asylum in a three-month period in the summer of 2002. Nine out of ten had their cases thrown out, yet only 3,565 were subsequently deported.
The mass, unchecked immigration sanctioned by the present and past British governments has deeply offended the British. Needless to say, the immigration issue is hardly about ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, or ‘populism’, except when these labels justifiably apply to politically correct liberalists who seek to stifle the honest outrage of the majority. Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be any immigrants. The reason the British are so upset is because they were simply never asked who they wanted to come to live with them….and how many.
Immigration is ever the hot issue it always was. Even to discuss the problem is to invite a torrent of hate-filled abuse and cries of ‘racist!’ and ‘Nazi!’ from the socialist nation-wreckers. This of course is their intention: to keep free speech suppressed, all the while allowing their damaging, dangerous policies to proceed unimpugned. One such shameful issue has been the catastrophic failure of our political class to admit the disaster of Britain’s immigration policy.
· According to government sources, genuine asylum seekers fleeing political persecution make up a mere 3% of those attempting to get into Britain. The vast majority are illegal economic immigrants. People are attempting to enter Britain in such numbers because they see the real chance of a prosperous future for themselves here.
· The government mechanism for curbing immigration and ensuring only valid cases are passed appears to have completely broken down. Very few asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down at the time of writing are actually being deported. Many are either just released into the community or disappear into British society.
· British taxpayers are having to foot the expense of providing camps, healthcare, social security, education and housing for tens of thousands of economic migrants every month!
· Under new government guidelines, four-star hotels and holiday camps are being set aside to house illegal immigrants.
· Asylum seekers have also been benefiting from hand-outs from the politically correct National Lottery Community Fund. In 2001, illegal immigrants received a staggering £20 million to the outrage of other groups, such as the Victims of Crime Trust, who were passed over. Clive Elliott of the VCT called for a boycott of the Lottery, remonstrating: “I accuse the Community Fund of being biased and prejudiced and even exhibiting institutionalised racism when choosing its priorities.”
· Today, one in 20 of London’s population is either an ‘asylum seeker’ or a refugee.
· Asylum applications can involve long and expensive legal processes, again paid for by the British taxpayer.
· Unchecked illegal immigration provides easy opportunity for terrorists to enter Britain undetected. One refugee leader, Dr Mohammed Sekkoum, believes that at least 100 Algerians who are known terrorists in their own country have entered and are living secretly in Britain.
· Communities in south-eastern England have found themselves literally overrun by illegal immigrants.
· It appears that Britain has lost control of her own borders.
· The white population of Britain is reproducing itself far more slowly than the immigrant populations, with the inevitable effect of changing the racial mix of the country.
· Illegal immigration allows a nation state’s identify to be diluted as other cultures homogenise with the domestic population.
· Illegal immigration provides more justification for EU state interference and control.
· Publicising illegal immigration will more likely cause the acceptance by the public of EU security measures, such as the introduction of a continent-wide ID card, which the citizenry normally would not tolerate. Will Europe once again hear: “Your papers, please”?
· Cultural diversity has historically caused deep-seated and long-term problems with stability and control, as we have seen with Northern Ireland, Africa, Yugoslavia and Britain and many other examples throughout history. Yet ‘multiculturalism’ still remains the weapon of choice for EU socialists for four main reasons:
1. It wrecks a nation’s national identity and customs;
2. It improves socialism’s standing with the immigrants who will henceforth vote for their benefactors;
3. It creates problems which can only be solved with the state taking on more powers, e.g. the issuance of ID cards and other security measures;
4. No indigenous citizen is able to complain about the effects of this ‘unchecked’ immigration for fear of being labelled a ‘racist’.
· In ancient times, when the Assyrian empire invaded a nation, it would deport the indigenous population and settle foreign peoples into the conquered land, such as with the Samaritans into northern Israel. This sweeping measure prevented the germination of nationalist resistance movements among the conquered race.
· In 1998, the EU set up a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna. Neither ‘crime’ was defined, leaving each open to wide interpretation, one of the EU’s favourite tactics.
· While unacceptable ‘racist’ views are deplored by most, a free society must allow freedom of speech, however objectionable. Otherwise, who determines what is acceptable to think about and say, and what isn’t? The EU?
Are the British Racist?
A cataclysmic weapon has been deployed against Britain in the form of mass, unchecked immigration, coupled with the drafting of new legislation which will actually make it illegal to voice your opposition to EU policies of the day.
But are the British who speak up about such matters ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’, or are they not justified in feeling apprehensive and nervous about what is going on around them? The future may yet see Islamic fundamentalism take to the streets in Britain to propagate its own violence, since radical Islam, by its own admission, refuses to assimilate into Britain’s new secular society, let alone the previous Christian one. This may already have begun to happen.
Logging on to You
After the forthcoming ‘enlargement’ of the EU in May 2004, the aim is eventually to have all 450 million inhabitants registered on the central Europol database with an ‘entitlement’ (read ‘identity’) card, fingerprints, DNA-typing and dozens of fields of information on political and sexual preferences, arrest records, tax data, religious beliefs and other demographic denominators. Misbehaviour by any individual will incur a withdrawal of ‘entitlements’ (privileges granted by the state) and the full machinery of the state’s oppressive law enforcement apparatus being arrayed against them.
Another problem is that terrorists can gain access to Britain relatively easily in order to wreak havoc on soft targets, as we almost saw with the ricin episode in North London. Such terrorist events, while grotesque and macabre to the public, in fact greatly serve the ends of the socialist architects. Another high-profile terrorism shooting, for instance, provokes the usual round of gun-control legislation, further disarming law-abiding citizens, while at the same time ensuring that the police become more heavily armed and the serious weaponry is left in the hands of hardened criminals and troublemakers.
Anatoly Golytsin, a Kremlin staffer, defected from the USSR in 1984 and published his book, New Lies for Old. In it, Golytsin described how, a few years into the future, a series of political events would occur in Russia which would lead the world to believe that Communism had collapsed. This in fact happened with the breaking up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The West was indeed lulled to sleep, according to Golytsin, trusting that the Cold War was over. Meanwhile, was a more powerful and better organised regime forming beneath Western nations in Europe after decades of careful planning and execution?
The political left in Britain endorses any move that contributes towards the break-up of the state and its acceleration into their utopia of either a pan-European super state or global federation. Reckless immigration, along the lines we are seeing today, appears to be deliberately encourage, through inaction, by the government of the day, even as it was by previous administrations, regardless of party politics.
Britain – a Cultural War-Zone
The woman in the street and the man on the Clapham omnibus, born during the 1920’s into a Britain of deference, respect and long-established British values, have both received a rude awakening. The Britain they once admired and loved has ceased to exist.
There was once a Britain where citizens regarded themselves as having the highest ideals of decency and justice. But the character of today’s Britons, occupying the same place on the globe as their empirical predecessors, would be as alien to those old adversaries Gladstone and Disraeli as the dark side of the moon.
To the old soldiers, sailors and airmen of World War II, the country they loved and fought for is unrecognisable to them today, and so are the inhabitants. Forbidden by law to say anything about what is going on around them, they choke on the ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cultural diversity’ gags that have been stuffed in their mouths. Bitter resentment and anger seethe in their hearts that no one asked them whether they wanted all the changes the socialists forced upon them anyway. They came from an era when everyone seemed to care. Today, how shocked they are to find that it is they are viewed as the enemies of ‘tolerance’ and ‘progress’.
While millions of the silent majority resent what has happened and seek a lawful, political solution from one of their major political parties, not one speaks for them. The Big Three, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, are all pushing for the death of Britain. New Labour waved the Union Jack at the Queen’s Jubilee, while chortling inwardly at its coming demise. The soft and vacillating Conservative right rubberstamps a multiculturalism it secretly hates, grinning sheepishly up at the British Tower of Babel which hideously offends it, just to appear relevant with the trendy modernizers of Blair’s Third Way’.
Are the British institutionally racist? Well if we are, you’d be hard put to explain why British army and civilian personnel went native in India. Africa and a hundred places in between during the empire years, even as they do today. Millions of Brits over the centuries have married foreign spouses, incorporated foreign cuisine and adopted foreign ways and brought all those great foreign words into our tremendously versatile language.
Today the huge contributions the British have made to the world are still venerated in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand and a hundred other countries. Certainly not much of an indication that the British culture is at war with the natives. In fact, name another empire that has ever withdrawn from its power and still enjoys the kind of relationship we do with most of our former colonies today?
So Britain is to get the destiny she deserves. Lenin is to have his day. The state is God. Multiculturalism and political correctness became the new faith and morality for Britain round about the time the nation realised it had lost God in the mud somewhere between the guilt of Passchendaele and the shame of the Anglican Lambeth Conferences.