It goes without saying that the terrorist atrocities that occurred in the United States on 11th September last year are to be condemned without reservation. While the question of how to respond to such acts may not be directly linked to our anti-EU campaign, the way in which some others have responded should give us food for thought all the same.
Most media attention focused on Jo Moore, special adviser to Cabinet Minister Stephen Byers, who infamously suggested that the atrocities presented an opportunity to "bury" bad news. Appalling though this was, others have been exploiting the situation in equally cynical but far more threatening ways.
In particular, the EU Commission has seized on the chance to try to extend its powers, this time in the terrorist-related fields of international law and policing, calling for more powers for Europol, a European arrest warrant and further encroachments of EU jurisdiction into the fields of criminal justice. Needless to say, none of these would have done anything to prevent the events of 11th September, but each would amount to large steps in the supplanting of English and Scottish Law by a European jurisdiction. In addition to the threats to our liberties which all this would involve, it also calls to mind Jacques Delors' chilling claim that a European Army will be needed to fight the resource wars of the twenty-first century: so much for the fatuous claim that the European Union is a catalyst for peace.
* * *
It was predictable that the introduction of Euro notes and coins into general usage on 1st January would bring forth a propaganda offensive for the new currency, although public opposition to Britain giving up the Pound remains strong.
The essence of the changeover is not the introduction of a new currency - the Euro (that happened on 1st January, 1999) but the suppression of old ones - the Franc, the Deutschmark and so on. Many commentators miscall the Euro a common currency (circulating alongside others), whereas it is actually a single currency, operating in an economy in which the other currencies have been suppressed and outlawed. This is one of the many points on which the pro-Euro lobby will seek to confuse people over the coming months, and we will have to remain on our guard.
* * *
One of the features of each New Year is the release under the 30 year rule of previously classified government papers. Lionel Bell made good use of these in compiling his book The Throw That Failed*, about the first British application to join the EEC.
Over the last two New Years, many of the papers released have related to the negotiations in the early 1970s to join the EEC, conducted of course under the premiership of Edward Heath. These reveal how the EEC - seeing Mr. Heath on the horizon - decided that fish stocks were to be made a community resource.
The result, of course, has been that Britain lost control of her fishing waters, and the vast majority of the fish they contain have been allocated to fleets of other countries under the Common Fisheries Policy. Stocks have dwindled owing to the inevitable overfishing, and Britain does not have the authority to implement effective conservation measures.
The 30 year rule papers now show that all this was illegal under the Treaty of Rome in the first place, and that the truth of it was covered up at the time. Had the truth been known, the Heath administration might well not have obtained its majority on Second Reading - by just eight votes - for the European Communities Bill. Furthermore, it was in large part through an unwillingness to accept this condition that Norway had the good sense to remain outside the EEC.
If British fishing - thriving until 1973 - is to survive, let alone recover in the future, Britain must recover control of her home waters, up to the internationally recognised 200 mile limit.
* * *
The League was saddened by the death since our last issue of Lord Shore of Stepney. From the beginning, Peter Shore had been among the staunchest opponents of British absorption into a European superstate; he was among the most effective presenters of the anti-Common Market case from a moderate socialist viewpoint, and it was a cause of considerable regret to many that the Labour Party did not elect him Leader when it had the opportunity to do so. Less well-known was his assistance to the Polish Solidarity movement in the early 1980s.
Many were inspired by his eloquent and passionate speeches at public meetings all around the country in recent years, which he was determined to undertake despite age and frailty. In his writing, speeches and analysis he has left behind a powerful intellectual armoury which the rest of us can - and should continue to employ.
* * *
As the case of the Metric Martyrs grinds its way through the courts, those who stay up late enough to watch Despatch Box, the BBC's late-night political programme, were entertained recently by the sight of Nigel Farage, the United Kingdom Independence Party MEP, going to a market stall in Strasbourg and asking for, and receiving, "une livre de bananes, s'il vous plait". Is a pound of bananas illegal in Sunderland but legal in Strasbourg? Or are the Euro-zealous authorities in this country again making us "the mugs of Europe"?
* * *
* * *
Some supporters of the European Union have started to argue that the League's concentration on the European issue might lose the Conservatives electoral support because the public as a whole - or a large majority of the public - are mainly interested in local issues, particularly Health and Education.
The League has, I think, always been representative of the majority opinion in the Conservative Party, from the days of the late Lord Hinchingbrooke who risked his career to take a leading anti-Market line to the days of Sir Richard Body whose retirement from Parliament is such a loss to the country.
Our national independence is of primary importance to a majority of Conservative voters, and to a very large number of Labour and Liberal voters also. But it is probably true that this issue has not been in the front of voters' minds because people think, probably rightly, that there is little immediate risk of further surrenders to Europe now when they would be so electorally unpopular.
We can, however, and should, remind voters that the issues in which people are, and should be, highly interested, particularly the shocking state of the Health Service, and the far from impressive state of Education, are largely due to the waste of money and administrators' time and energy on European policies, when we should have concentrated on our own affairs.
It is a strange and unexpected fact that the Health Services of many continental countries are more generously fmanced, and better managed than our own because the people of those countries have made their politicians attend to those subjects. We have been more easy-going and tolerant of lack of serious thought and absence of efficient planning by politicians wasting their time and energy, and our money, by striving to become prominent in the European Union (EU) and "leaders of Europe." Meanwhile the natural leaders of the Continent were able quietly to laugh at our pro-Marketeers.
For us it is no laughing matter that so much money, our money, has been wasted. We ought at the next Election no doubt, and certainly now, to concentrate on the lamentable state of the Health Service, shortage of trained staff and money, and deficiencies in the Education Service. But we cannot make much change till we have reduced our losses and expenditure on the EU. To read up and quote all the figures might seem to be a life's work. But the broad facts have been faithfully recorded in anti- Common Market literature for years.
For instance the CIB's Issue 24 of Independence in Autumn 1995 quoted an adverse balance of £26,622 million from 1973 to 1994 in our payments to and receipts from the European Community Budget, on the authority of our own Central Statistical Office.
We need not go as far back as 1973, or stop at 1994. The general picture is clear. Britain has consistently suffered heavy financial loss through its large payments to and limited receipts from the EU. Indeed during the month this article is being written (November 2001) the Audit Board of the European Community, according to the Radio, has been reporting yet again the unsatisfactory results of its checks into what has happened to the payments made by the European Community.
We certainly ought to refer before and during the next General Election to such figures which are at the heart of the way our Health and Education Services have been deprived of resources. Reference to Health and Education, and the likelihood perhaps of tax increases being needed to pay for them, are by no means remote from the fundamental question of the effect of the Common Market on everything in our national life.
* * *
Sir,
I have just received your Autumn issue and read your Editorial. As a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party 1 was sickened to read your apologia for the Conservative Party. Not only did the Conservative Party (admittedly under Edward Heath - whom the Conservative Party elected as Leader) take us into the Common Market and all the subsequent treaties except Amsterdam, but it spent many years even before Heath was leader applying to go in. While in Government it did nothing (barring obtaining a few 'concessions') to save us from this nightmare and it is only in opposition that it is now making "anti" noises (just as Labour did in the eighties). There is no point in looking at what they say, we should look at what they do, what they have done, and what they are not prepared to say that they will do - unequivocally take us out.
To say that trying to save the Pound was a "tactical error" shows that you are more concerned about getting the Conservatives into power, by any means, rather than getting us out of the European Union. What they should have done was tell the truth, which is that saving the Pound in the short term makes little difference. Unless we get out we shall lose the Pound no matter what we may vote in a referendum. While the Pound is the most potent symbol of loss, we are losing more than that every day
Yours faithfully,
KATHLEEN GARNER, South Croydon, Surrey.
The Editor writes:
The Editorial in question was not so much a defence of the Conservative Party as an acknowledgement that in recent years and in particular with the election of its new Leader - the Conservative Party has started to adopt a more sensible European policy.
The Anti-Common Market League, while containing a significant Tory strand in its ethos, is not affiliated to any particular party, and seeks to encourage opposition to the European Union in all democratic parties.
* * *
What is it for - the Euro that is? The P.M.. Mr. Anthony Blair, still tries to pretend that it has no constitutional significance. The President of the European Commission, Signor Romano Prodi stated categorically on December 3rd 2001, "This is not an economic process; it is a political process."
The senior economic adviser at the Treasury, Mr. Gus O'Donnell, admitted recently there could never be a clear economic case for adopting the euro (and abolishing the £) and that the "five tests" for joining the euro were meaningless. The government likes to pretend its "five tests" are the only criteria. However Mr. O'Donnell's predecessor (who was the architect of the "five tests") Sir Alan Budd then added that the final decision on whether to abolish the £ would be based on politics not economics.
The government's mendacity regarding the euro is merely the latest example of deceit practised on the British people.
In 1970 Edward Heath was told of the Werner Report under which the Common Market was to move to full economic and monetary union. Heath was advised this would lead to the creation of a European federal state and that fiscal. monetary and regional policies would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The plan was that this would be accomplished by 1980 leaving member states with less control over their own affairs than that enjoyed by the states of the USA. Heath's chief negotiator for the UK in her membership application to join the EEC congratulated Monsieur Wemer on October 27th 1970 saying the report, "well stated our common objectives", thus making it quite clear in private that HM Government had no objection to the political union being proposed.
Heath's only fear was this would become public knowledge, which indeed had been his attitude concerning the constitutional implications of adherence to the Treaty of Rome, when he was chief negotiator for Harold Macmillan in the application to join the then EEC in 1961. He can have been in no doubt that the eventual goal was political and economic union.
How can this be squared with Heath's White Paper of 1971 which promised. "There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty"'? Assurances were given to Parliament that any plan for monetary union had been dropped, yet shortly after Parliament had approved British entry France proposed member states make a solenm commitment to "move irrevocably to economic and monetary union by 1980."
At every stage of its development since then British governments have quite deliberately set out to deceive the electorate as to what was really happening. The EU now has its own government, its own executive, parliament, supreme court, citizenship, passport, flag and anthem. It has complete control 'over Member States' food resources (through the CAP and CFP). It has its own currency and economic policy, its own foreign and defence policies backed by its own armed forces (the so-called Rapid Reaction Force) and its own, (albeit embryonic) federal police force, Europol. It has begun the process of creating its own common legal and judicial system. In short it has almost all the attributes of a fully sovereign state. (It presently lacks a constitution but this is now being drafted and it is being planned this will be adopted at the next treaty conference scheduled for 2004.) Only the British government tries dishonestly to pretend otherwise.
As Herr Herzog, the former President of Gennany, remarked, "Our aim is the end of the nation state." Lenin made a similar remark and the N.S.D.A.P.(Nazis) considered the nation state to be an artificial liberal construct.
Why is it that policies emanating from Brussels are never acknowledged as such? For example, when did you hear it mentioned by a British politician or the BBC that the handling or rather mishandling of the Foot and Mouth Disease crisis was being done not under British law (all the major recommendations following the 1967 outbreak were completely ignored) but in accordance with EU directives? Time and again it is pretended that a particular policy is a British government policy when it is nothing of the sort. Is it simply the giant egos of the politicians which lead them to hide from the electorate the fact that such huge transfers of power and law-making have been made to Brussels as to render them, in effect, impotent and redundant? Perhaps it is no accident that another person, who created a 'United States of Europe' also remarked, "The great masses of the people ..... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than a small one." (Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf)
Europhiles are anxious to justify membership of the EU perhaps this is the explanation for the distortions of truth they purvey. They claim the EU preserved the peace of Europe since World War Two whereas it is patently obvious the NATO alliance and the engagement of the USA in Europe did this. It is also put forward that somehow Britain derives special benefits from trade with other EU members, which we could not have enjoyed without membership. The reality is we have had a huge cumulative trade deficit with the EU of £170 billion at historic prices, which has been balanced by continuing surpluses with the rest of the world. In any event Mexico has a free trade agreement with the EU without having to pay, as we do, £1.4 million per hour to Brussels, and without its industry and commerce being burdened with an ever-increasing mass of red tape, as ours is. If an independent Mexico can have a free trade agreement with the EU, so can an independent Britain with the fourth biggest economy in the world.
Not for the first time a Continental figure has now stated that tax harmonisation must now come. Hans Eichel, German Finance Minister, stated at the end of last year: "The currency union will fall apart if we don't follow through with the consequences of such a union. 1 am convinced we will need a common tax system". The opportunity to push this through and grab other economic policy weapons will arise as a result of the euro causing a crisis. The EU Commission's "EU Economy 2001 Review" accepts a single interest rate is causing major problems for several EU members.
At regular intervals there is a Franco-German summit following which a joint "declaration" is made. These summits take place under the bilateral Treaty of the Elysee (1963) and the "declarations" made after these summits set out a list of instructions to the Brussels bureaucracy, which are then imposed on the members of the EU. (The combined votes of France and Germany in the Council of Ministers virtually assures this.)
The "declaration" following the summit at Nantes on 23rd November, 2001 (the 78th) dealt with strengthening Europol, reinforcing judicial co-operation with a view to setting up a European Prosecution Service, Common Defence, tax harmonisation (particularly corporate tax), and a Single EU Constitution which the "declarations' stated will be an essential stage in the historic process of European integration.
We can be sure from past experience that these will come to pass and, since the Elysee is a bilateral treaty, Mr. Blair and the British government do not and will not take part in the deliberations and decisions emanating from such summits - so much for British "influence" in the Council of Ministers much touted by our Foreign Office as a reason for EU membership.
Although Britain has not abolished the £ and adopted the Euro the process of integrating her into a federal EU is accelerating and in most areas she can no longer be properly regarded as an independent self-goveming nation state. How can a "country pretend it is independent when at least 60 per cent of its laws are made by an alien, external authority? Indeed the Conservative MEP Nirj Deva has calculated that if we had abolished the £ more than 70 per cent of the laws affecting Britain would originate from the EU. The acquis communautaire means that such areas as are already matters of EU competence remain so with no mechanism for repatriating them.
The burden of a tidal wave of EU regulations continues to damage the competitive position of British business, reducing its output and productivity and damaging job prospects and yet at the most 10 per cent of British business trades with the EU. The Working Time regulations alone will cost British businesses £2.3 billion per year according to the Government's own figures.
The collectivist Common Agricultural Policy featherbeds the farmers of France and Germany and results in our food prices being 70 per cent above the world level (at least £20 per week more per week per household). And just wait until VAT is imposed on food as is planned - this will cost the UK an extra £7 billion per year.
As Lord Rees-Mogg remarked in a recent article: "They (the European Federalists) do not consult the public; they do not behave like democrats; they do not have sufficient public support, in most countries, for their ruthless enterprise. They are not building a European house, but something that looks much more like a European prison. I do not want us to face the choice between losing our liberty or leaving Europe, but if we have to make it, liberty comes first."
Inside the EU it is bureaucrats not MPs who make the law by statutory instrument under powers delegated by Parliament under "enabling Acts". The Act most often used is the European Communities Act 1972 under which EU directives automatically pass into British law. Tens of thousands of such regulations make up the suffocating burden of the acquis communautaire.
Outside the EU our government, our Parliament and our Supreme Court would all operate again, no longer subservient to and subject to the restrictions imposed by the EU institutions and European Court of Human Rights. Our leaders could spend their time running our own country instead of obeying commands from Brussels. Our civil servants could work full time on UK business instead of spending 70 per cent of their time enforcing EU diktats. We should be able to re-establish and improve our former links and friendships with those free-trading independent countries who were Dominions and Colonies, and to do our best to erase their feelings of betrayal by Heath's shameful disloyalty in 1972.
We should continue to play our part in international institutions such as the UN Security Council, G7, etc., without our position in them being threatened by the EU. We should be able to continue to run our economy including setting our own interest rates for our benefit; and seek increased trade with the rest of the world running our own trade policy and not subject to the EU's common external tariff system, and could sweep away thousands of burdensome regulations thus revitalising businesses.
It is time to reject defeatism and the fifth column of Eurofederalists and embrace self-belief, pride and independence. Time to reject the centralised, collectivist bureaucracy of the outdated EU yesterday's system based on French dirigiste protectionism and on proportional representation on the German model, which produces only party hacks. Mahatma Gandhi was not an extremist right wing xenophobe for wanting a democratic self-goveming India, and neither are we for wanting the same thing for the UK. Time instead to adopt the policy of Thomas Jefferson, who said in his inaugural address, March 1801, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
Under instructions from his masters in Brussels it appears Mr. Blair is planning to transfer joint sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain. A referendum resulting in Gibraltarians' voting NO to this arrangement will merely suspend such arrangement. Doubtless, as with other referendums involving the EU, referendum after referendum will take place until the 'right' result is obtained with relentless pressure on tiny Gibraltar in place until this happens. Mr. Blair evidently believes bully boy tactics will do the trick. It is plain that the democratic will of the people of Gibraltar is simply an inconvenience so far as Mr. Blair and the EU are concerned. We should surely get the same sort of treatment in the event a referendum is called on whether or not to abolish the £.
by Rodney Atkinson
Price £13.00 including packing and postage.
The author sets out to demonstrate the corporatist anti-democratic nature of the EU, i.e. its fascist nature. Hitler created his 'United States of Europe' and it is no surprise that the first, but by no means the last British political leader to espouse the cause of European Union after World War Two was Oswald Mosley.
Compuprint Publishing, 1 Sands Road, Swalwell, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE 16 3DJ