Anti Common Market League - Autumn 1999

The ACML held a well attended meeting in a Committee Room at Westminster thanks to Mr. Lawrence Robertson, the Conservative MP for Tewkesbury. A second speaker was Mr. James Lewis, a lively Travel Writer as well as a businessman, who cast a vivid light on Communist states in Eastern Europe which he had visited. The speakers had been asked to consider the possibility of the development of the EU into a Soviet Union of Western Europe. Both speakers have kindly sent us detailed notes of their speeches, which provide two articles further on in this number of Britain. There were also present at the meeting Lord Stoddart, the well-known Chairman of CIB, and Lord Belham and Stenton, another stalwart defender of British liberty.

After the Division Bell rang, and Mr. Robertson had to depart in order to vote, a useful and interesting general discussion developed in which all present had an opportunity to express their views. This was of great value for the encouragement of one another, and showed the unchanged determination of our membership. Naturally members criticized the shortage of publicity on Radio and Television for anti-Market views, and the disappointing attitudes of some MPs who are prepared to sacrifice the Pound.

But when we remember the much greater difficulties when the League started in 1961, and how hard it was then to get any publicity at all, the situation in Parliament, in the newspapers, and in the organization of local Groups has vastly changed for the better. The European Election result this summer was a notable success, and good omen for the future. If our members continue their vigorous activities, talking to and persuading their friends and neighbours; writing to local papers, and to MPs particularly those of their own Parties, the prospect of victory should continue steadily to improve.

At the beginning of September the Foreign Secretary. Mr. Cook, produced a bland restatement of the Government's policy to join the euro currency. In The Times of 7th September Mr. Anatole Kaletsky has written a devastating criticism of Mr. Cook's arguments, which seem typical of the misunderstanding of the economic issues which is characteristic of most of the politicians who want us to join the euro.

Mr. Kaletsky deals first with Mr. Cook's claim that we send a great majority of our exports to other members of the European Union. In fact little more than half of the "goods" in the strict sense go to the EU, and only 43% of goods and services which are so important, go to the EU. The figure which matters even more is the total figure of goods and services produced in the UK of which less than 20% goes to Europe to be exposed to the fluctuations of the euro. It should not be forgotten how much of our production is bought and consumed in this country.

Secondly Mr. Cook declared that the vast issuance of international debt denominated in euros since January was a great vote of confidence in the euro from financial markets. The truth is the opposite. Companies round the world flocked to borrow in euros because they expected the euro to weaken, as it did. The borrowing drained savings out of the EU to support investment in the rest of the world.

Thirdly Mr. Cook asserted that borrowers and mortgage payers in the rest of Europe benefit from interest rates that are half the level of Britain's. The reason for the gulf is that Europe is only just emerging from recession, while Britain's economy is near full employment. Mr. Cook's statement completely misrepresents the reason for the gulf.

The Annual Party took place on Friday 2nd July at Kensington thanks to the generosity of Cllr. Miss Elizabeth Christmas MBE. Members from London and neighbouring parts enjoyed meeting one another- and talking together. Speeches by the Chairman, and by Miss Christmas herself, were much appreciated.

Mr. Robertson kindly sent us notes of the speech he made at our meeting in a Committee Room at Westminster on 22nd July on the question "Is the EU the Potential Soviet Union of Western Europe?"

What was the Soviet Union ? An "Evil Empire", a collection of states dictated to by the centre; powerful; growing in dimension; undemocratic; unaccountable; run by a small group of people; sinister and secret; pretending to be something it wasn't; a military force; a bullying state with poor economic performance.

Is the European Union similar? Does the comparison qualify? EU is a Union. It has citizens; institutions; a parliament; a law court; a civil service; a flag; and now, a currency. It doesn't have many of the characteristics which hold a nation state together, such as one language or one predominant religion, nor the indefinable, the intangibles, such as one culture, one way of life, mobility of labour, trust, the enthusiasm of its peoples, one race.

These are what hold a nation state together, and the Soviet Union didn't hold together. It was an artificial state, just as Yugoslavia was. So the EU is a replacement of the SU in that sense -it is artificial, and it lacks the essential ingredients which hold a nation state together. So like the SU, it is probably doomed to failure.

Similarities are there generally, so too are they there in detail. In terms of physical growth - at the time of Peter the Great in 17th century, Russia was comparatively small. Its growth was through aggression and the expansion was carried on by Catherine the Great.

Expansion

So too the EU. It's grown from six states to now fifteen, and it plans to grow further. Unlike the SU, the EU might benefit from that enlargement IF it becomes impossible for it to be deeper, and IF it becomes impossible for it to do as much as it does now. In other words, if it becomes a looser Association of States. But the similarity is there as regards physical growth.

Power of the Centre

The similarity is also there as regards the growth of the power of the centre. The EU's competence now extends far and wide - even to driving licence applications. Amsterdam extended its competence to justice and home affairs. The range of QMV has been extended. Thousands of regulations and directives emanate from Brussels. EU law takes precedence over national law.

Furthermore, the EU is gaining a competence for defence and a European Army cannot be far away. Already, there is a Common Foreign and Security Policy, as established at Maastricht, which, according to the Treaty, "might in time lead to a common defence". And Amsterdam takes this further, saying that the armaments used by the armies in the EU will be common.

So, shared security policies, shared foreign policies, shared armaments, all lead to a shared defence and a shared army. The Red Army marched through the centre of Moscow regularly, and through the centre of a number of Eastern European countries. Are we to see the Army of Europe on show? Certainly, defence is another area in which the EU is extending its competence.

What about control of its own people and its own borders? Many people wanted to leave the SU but couldn't. Many people wanted to get into the UK but couldn't, and still can't. But through the Shengen Agreement, the control over immigration, for those participating countries, passes to the centre. A further example of how the EU is extending its competence.

All these examples demonstrate that the centre is taking more and more power under its wing, and it's the amount of power which it is assuming, together with the areas which it is extending its competence, which make it similar to the SU. But it is similar for other reasons too.

Control by a Small Group

SU was run by a small group of people - the politbureau. So too it seems that a small group of people, unknown people, have influence over the EU's policy and direction, against the will of the people. In 1994, the European Legislation Select Committee said that European legislation appears "to be made in a private club". Similarities here.

Undemocratic

And the SU was undemocratic. So too is the EU. The unelected Commission is effectively super powerful. The Parliament is powerless. Problem is that giving power to the Parliament reduces the right to the veto, reduces the sovereignty in each individual state. So EU becoming democratic would reduce the democratic sovereignty in each state, So a massive dilemma exists. If the nation state is to remain, the EU must remain undemocratic.

Economic Failure and Socialism

Another similarity is the relatively poor economic performance of the SU and the EU. The SU had many talented people, but its system didn't work. In agriculture, for example, the very few small farms which existed outside the grasps of the government, were productive way beyond their contemporaries which were run by the Communist system. But unlike China, the SU didn't allow economic development whilst keeping control of the politics. As a result, the economic performance of the SU was very poor, relatively speaking. The results of this are still there for all to see, and the rusting nuclear submarines, and the ageing and dangerous nuclear plants, are a chilling reminder of the economic failure of the SU.

The EU also under-performs. In the EU, unemployment is around 10%, which equates to something like 18 million people. In the US, Switzerland and Japan, unemployment is around 4%. This is a terrible economic failure, and, like the SU, the blame must rest with attempting to force countries with very different economies together, over-regulation, bureaucracy, centralisation and, of course, socialism.

Socialism.

Another defining characteristic of both the EU and SU. Socialism, Communism, Marxism - is there a lot of difference? It depends on how one defines each. But they are essentially branches of the same tree. And they all result in oppression and failure. They did in the SU. They will in the EU.

Failure to learn

The problem is that people who perpetuate these regimes never learn. The masters in the SU didn't learn, until Gorbachev, backed by Thatcher and Reagan, had the courage to free up the economy. This meant that, once the freedom of the west was tasted by those in the east, the SU broke apart. And in the EU, people never learn.

They never learnt from the ERM episode - quite the reverse, as they now want to build Economic and Monetary Union, or the single currency, as it is inadequately called. They didn't understand what went wrong with the ERM. Some people in this country say that we went in at the wrong rate. But we have been at the 2.95 rate many times since, so it wasn't the wrong RATE but the wrong system.

But they never learn, because they don't want to learn. Their political dogma and ideals, and their hunger for power, take precedence over their desire to see democracy and freedom extended.

Single Currency

The building of EMU is a defining moment for the EU. Make no mistake, entering EMU would spell the beginning of the end of the UK as an independent nation state. If we give up our currency, we give up the right to set our own interest rates. Shortly after that, taxation will be controlled from Brussels, then, inevitably, so too will government spending, because a government can only spend what it receives. So if we can't control our own money supply, our own interest rates, our own taxation and our own spending, then are we really a country? Not at all.

People say, we are not giving up sovereignty but sharing it. Greece, for example, has a say in how we are run and we have a say in how the Greeks are run. But I have no desire to tell the Greeks how to run their country, any more than the average Russian would have any desire to tell the Hungarians how to run theirs.

Loss of Sovereignty: 'False Denials.

And then there's the propaganda which is shared by the SU and the EU. Secrets abounded in the SU. They never admitted anything. Never publicised anything, except their military might. And things were never as people thought, they said. Just like the EU.

We're not giving up sovereignty, they tell us. Edward Heath, in 1972, in the White Paper, said that "there will be no loss of essential national sovereignty, I hardly need say."

And the publication circulated to every house in the UK by the then government at the referendum in 1975, made two false claims in order to persuade people to vote Yes to stay in what was then called the Common Market. It claimed that the British Minister would always have a veto. And that the threat of EMU had now been removed. Both were asserted. Both were persuasive. And both were wrong.

And because of this, the British people have never consented to belonging to the kind of EU which now exists. They have never even been asked. Neither were the citizens of the SU. Another similarity.

Out of Date

As William Hague has said, the EU is out of date. It was designed in the 1950s, built in the 1906s, and developed in the 1970s and 1980s, centralised in the 1990s, all to tackle problems which existed in the 1940s. The SU was similarly out of date when it was built. Surely the war proved that the nation state and democracy had triumphed. But the SU was built on the principle of dogma, control, Communism and expansion.

Summary

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the kind of evil which caused Stalin to massacre 20 million of his own people, or Brezhnev to crush the Afghans, exists in the EU. But, to summarise, what I am saying is that there are similarities in the way both Unions allowed dogma to overcome reality, similarities in muddled thinking, in trying to build empires which are out of date before they are even started, in control, in poor performance, in a lack of democracy, in a lack of accountability, and in a belief that the centre knows best. We in the UK have come to realise that the man in Whitehall doesn't know best, and in order to avoid some of the tragedies which befell the SU, and which have the potential to cause us all to suffer, the peoples of Europe must wake up to the fact that the Commissioner in Brussels really doesn't know best either.

The Anti-Common Market League has always welcomed, and rightly still does welcome supporters of all political parties and of none. However, every member was surely heartened by the success of the United Kingdom Independence Party in the recent European elections and would wish to congratulate it on its achievement.

That achievement goes beyond the election of three MEPs, considerable though that was, especially in the light of the media's decision to ignore or denigrate the UKIP during the campaign. Who can doubt that the challenge from UKIP has helped to shift the position of the Conservative Party and its leader, and will in time help to shift the Labour Party - even perhaps the Liberal Democrats? The Party's newly elected MEPs have already made 'Euro' history by announcing that they will claim travel expenses only for what they actually spend on travel, not the maximum available. That ought to give them both credibility and publicity in their exposure of the waste and fraud that is endemic in Brussels, and ought also to make many other MEPs grow a little hot under the collar. It ought also - though it almost certainly will not - win them some praise from other parties even from staunch supporters of the EU - for it will help to lessen the growing contempt for politicians, which can only be harmful to democratic government.

What the UKIP MEPs will receive from the pro-EU establishment is likely to be not even grudging praise but misrepresentation and further denigration. Indeed this began on the morrow of their victory: references to 'extremists' by people who should take seriously their responsibility to use words carefully and accurately.

We all doubtless wish to point out that if believing your country should govern itself makes one an extremist, most people in the world are probably extremists. However we should in one way be pleased by this development as additional proof that we have won all the arguments. People do not resort to insults if they can refute what is being said by reason. No longer are our arguments countered by a list of the economic 'benefits' of staying in the EU, or the political 'benefits', or the peace 'benefits', or even because it would be worse outside or impossible to leave. Now the reason to stay in is that anyone who wants to leave is an extremist. That should give us the satisfaction of realising the extent to which we have rattled our opponents and trounced them in rational argument.

The irony - which doubtless escapes the Europhiles - is that the standard tactic used by extremists of the Right or Left has always been to brand their opponents with a hate word as a way of justifying not answering what they say, not even listening to them. It is then a very small step to make it almost a duty not to listen to them. That way lies the destruction not only of democratic or Parliamentary government, but of a free and even a rational society. We must be alert to counter any and every step in that direction.

It has long been clear, and becomes daily clearer, that while our main objection to the EU is that it takes sovereignty away from Parliament (and thereby from us all), it also changes for the worse the way in which government and justice are carried on, and the political and civic culture in which they are carried on. It is not just financial corruption that needs to be exposed - though that certainly does, and it will be interesting to see if the new EU Commission and Parliament do any better than their predecessors - but the corruption of free and rational debate. This latter has surely been part of the essence of Western civilisation since Classical times. There have been many assaults on it, which this country has often taken a lead in resisting. If leading members of Government and Parliament have forgotten that, we need to keep reminding them of it and of why they hold their posts in the first place.

Old nationalism, historic nationalism, has long suffered a terrible press and worse treatment politically. Britannia was being 'cooled' down into the (cold) melting pot of a federal Europe even in the days of my youth, thirty years ago. I stood for Parliament, spoke until I was hoarse in the referendum campaign, wrote articles and joined groups to oppose this trend. Nought availed, and I had become soul sick by 1975. Then I found a balm, I went on a visit to Poland.

It was the height of the cold war. Yet on this, and many subsequent trips, I discovered that the Poles were not thinking what they were supposed to think. They were intensely patriotic and nationalistic, though not in a beastly sense. Sentiment was expressed in music, dance and conversation. No one minded what she or he said, and heavy irony abounded in a wealth of dissident jokes. Sample: "What is the difference between capitalism and communism? answer: "Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism ... it's the other way round." They seemed to have an emotional attachment to the best and most conservative instincts, and to my country as their embodiment.

And now I am extremely sorry that such an ancient and famous State, with all its rich history, and with all the unfortunate experience of the last fifty years. of the Soviet domination, that Poland should want to join the European Union and experience once again supranational government.

Communism not tried

We should always keep in mind what communism and Marxism is all about. All writers and commentators on Marx make the same mistake. They analyse his pronouncements on socialism without considering the very different aspect of communism. It is not that they confuse the two. They just never get beyond the merits or demerits of state industry and collective land ownership, and the consequences of those socialistic (but not communistic) enterprises.

Socialism has been tried, but communism hasn't. There have been communist parties in government, but not communism. There have been Lenin, Stalin, Soviets and Soviet satellite countries; ancient and famous states whose sojourn under the Pax Sovietica amounted to a fraction of their existence. None produced communism. Brezhnev spoke of communism as a "shining goal". The process he was engaged in was "building socialism".

Socialism prefers nationalised or co-operative industries to joint stock companies. It advocates the vesting of the means of production, distribution and exchange in state hands rather than private hands. Communism goes beyond the money system to an exchange of goods and services "from each according to his means, to each according to his need." Socialism can be, and has been, nationalistic: but communism means mass race mixing and the redundancy of the family and nation. "All Nation States are artificial and temporary," said Lenin.

Alienated from Conservative Party

I must say I am beginning to warm to the Conservative Party again. The last time I warmed to them was right back in the 1950s, when I was still a boy. But soon after that I and a number of like minded people became alienated from them because of the drive towards Europe. Even four decades ago we could see that Europe meant supra-National government. I must say that the Conservative Party have attracted some very queer folk. I use the word queer in its pristine sense, not its perverted sense. Didn't Thorneycroft say "The British people must be slowly and unconsciously robbed of their traditional economic defences": and then there are Heath, Heseltine, Clarke and Patten? When you think of these men and what they stand for you come to the conclusion that the Conservative Party has suffered entryism.

I was privileged to know in the last year of his life the late and great Nick Budgen, one of the whipless rebels, and a leader of the Anti Maastricht Alliance in the House of Commons. I am Chairman of a charity called WISE, which stands for The Global Association of the Welsh, Irish, Scots and English and Nick Budgen was a consultant to us. I came to know him well and often went to stay with him. It is extremely sad that he died so suddenly and so young. The late, great Nicholas Budgen was a phrase used by a columnist at the time of his death.

Trade is not the issue

We are right to oppose the treaties which have dragged us into the European mess. Rome, Maastricht, and Amsterdam are not trade treaties, although they drag trade in their wake. A leaflet entitled "Joining the Common Market or What the Treaty of Rome Means" stated all those years ago "EEC is not just a matter of trade and tariffs as many people like to think. It covers a wide range of social and economic matters - in fact, only defence and foreign policy are, FOR THE TIME BEING, really outside it."

Walter Hallstein, who was President of the EEC Commission from 1958 to 1967, said: "We are not in business to promote tariff preferences, to establish a discriminatory club, to form a larger market to make us richer, or a trading bloc to further our commercial interests. We are not in business at all: we are in politics. Any Nation which comes into the Common Market is accepting a far-reaching political commitment."

"These institutions naturally deal with politics. They make agricultural policy, customs and commercial policy, economic and monetary policy Unification is not confined to individual sectors of the public life of Europeans - but aims at a new ordering of all political power in Europe ...."

Mr. Blair, appearing on Question Time on July 8th, in addition to announcing his intention of abolishing fox hunting, about which he knows nothing and cares even less, stated that Europe was all about trade. One has to suppose he knows a little about this subject but really, how can he say it's about trade? We have an accumulated trading deficit with the other members of the Union in excess of £100 Billion, while our trade with the rest of the world is in surplus. And then of course we have to pay about £12 Billion annually just to belong; out of which we get some rebates for capital projects in our country. If trade was the issue, then what was wrong with the EFTA structure? The European Free Trade Association, which was one of Harold Wilson's successes, did not need a Commission or Council of Ministers or Parliament: it did not need an 18,000 man bureaucracy. Yet the member countries increased their trade one with another by a 100% - even Greece, which was also a member. Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam are not trade treaties.

The Queen reduced to status of citizen

We get laws made for us by Brussels. That is a breach of the Coronation Oath. The Monarch's Coronation Oath is short, simple and leaves no room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. On 2 June 1953, at Westminster Abbey the Archbishop of Canterbury asked, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs?" and the Queen replied, "I solemnly promise so to do." But subsequently she has given the Royal Assent to several Acts culminating in the Single European Act, totally destroying that very promise, with the result that, far from being governed by their laws and customs, Her subjects are governed by the laws and customs enacted by some unelected body of foreigners called the Council of Ministers where HM's subjects only have a small minority vote and of which they have no knowledge until these become legally effective.

Edward Heath inserted Clause 2 (1) in the European Communities Bill (1972). This states categorically that all 'regulations' and 'directives' "... in accordance with the treaties are, WITHOUT FURTHER ENACTMENT, to be given legal effect or used in the UK, shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly...."

Only recently the Home Office put a pamphlet through my letter box to ask the question "What do MEPs do?" And this was the answer: "MEPs have an important say in a wide range of laws affecting people who live in EU countries. This includes laws on the environment, trade, transport, agriculture, energy, consumer protection, equal opportunities, education and culture."

Also Her Majesty the Queen is now a CITIZEN of a union of whom the most senior citizen is Signor Prodi.

This is a constitutional impossibility, and yet it has happened.

Remember our kith and kin beyond the seas

As to our involvement and increasing integration with Europe, all the major areas of our national and international life have become distorted. Law and tax, trade and industry, fishing and farming, and our relations with kith and kin have to a greater or lesser degree become mangled. Don't let's forget our kith and kin beyond the seas. Never let anyone tell you that the peoples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are no longer interested in us. That is not true. They seek British manufactured goods, even if they find them a bit expensive, and they long for the old trading relations where they sent us raw materials and food and received manufactured goods in return.

We don't want supra-National government and all our traditional relationships trampled on. The single currency is just another political step. The test of single currency is not some vague yearning for "influence", but a stern faced test of national interest. The City will trade in the new Euro, just as it has always traded in dollars, yen and other major currencies, and even minor currencies like the Argentine peso. The City will issue paper, medium term notes and Eurobonds and will make its living alongside the Euro and other currencies as long as it is left without too much regulation and interference.

Do we really need the Euro? 70% of what we produce we consume ourselves and, of the other 30%, roughly half goes to Europe and the other half to markets overseas. Great Britain is at the ocean crossroads of five continents. That is where Empire came from, our maritime strength and our power in world trade. That fact of geography still remains, even though history moves on. We must not allow the apathy and wide eyed wonder of the inexperienced traveller who hopes that if we only hang on in there, then somehow German wealth, French cooking and Italian sunshine will devolve on us.

The sovietisation of Europe proceeds apace - in silence, by stealth, by evasions, by lies: short only of armed force the process goes on ruthlessly, relentlessly and remorselessly.

About 200 years ago the political philosopher Edmund Burke remarked, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that the good men do nothing."

The small but influential minority who espouse the Europhile cause continually refer to those who place their trust in their own nation state, their own democracy as extremists. It is they who are the extremists. It is they who wish to risk our prosperity on the experiment of a single currency and who want to place power in the hands of supra-national unelected bankers and bureaucrats at the expense of our self-governing democracy.

Mr. Blair has promised he would "never allow Britain to be isolated in Europe". However if the £ is abolished and the Euro takes its place, although thereafter there may be elected British MPs there cannot be a British Government able to make economic policy. 'Britain" will be merely a geographical description. There will no longer be any point in the Right and the Left (in the UK) arguing about tax levels or public spending since the country that could make the decision will have been abolished together with the £.

Europhiles accuse us of being xenophobes. But we do not fear or hate foreigners - we just do not wish to be ruled by them.

The fact is that to try to pretend, as the Europhiles do, that the fourth biggest economy in the world - ours - cannot exist as a self governing nation state is arrant nonsense.

The reality is that our trade with the EU is on a long-term downward trend.

Declining Trade with EU

British exports to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries are growing more quickly (9.2% per year since 1992) than our exports to the EU (7.1%). At the same time our exports to the rest of the world have been growing at 8.5%. In cumulative terms these are large differences.

The greater growth in exports to NAFTA than the EU has come about despite the removal of tariff barriers by the Single Market and the creation of tariff barriers by the EU with respect to our trade outside the EU. This EU tariff is especially damaging to Britain since it will cut it off from traditional markets in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

It is curious that despite having one hand tied behind our backs with respect to trade with non-EU countries (because of the EU common external tariff) our exports to the rest of the world are increasing faster than to the EU. Imagine how much better placed we should be without having one hand tied behind our backs! At 1998 prices Britain has accumulated a £350 billion trade deficit with the EU since joining. [Source: Global Britain (IMF)1

The fact is that the improvement in Britain's overall trading position has come about since 1992 precisely because we were freed from the straitjacket of the ERM in 1992.

The steadily worsening position of Euroland's economy has been caused by the torrent of Single Market and other regulations and by the deflationary policies adopted by the EURO participants to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria.

There is no real sign that this prolonged recession in Euroland will go into reverse because deflation is now structurally and legally entrenched in the European Central Bank Stability Pact framework. The weakness in the value of the Euro has been the result, and planned harmonisation of tax and social policy will only make matters worse.

Prosperity lies outside EU

Only by steering clear, by retaining a floating £ and by setting interest rates appropriate to the British economy will we avoid the same fate.

Whilst our exports to the EU are falling; exports to the rest of the world are rising. Couple this with the direct cost of membership, our budget contributions, and the economic case for membership of the EU collapses. At 1998 prices the cumulative net contribution to the EU budget was over £56 billion. [1,000 for every man, woman and child] In gross terms the 1998 contribution was over £11 billion, equivalent to £211 million every week

A Single State

If it was ever unclear our 'partners' in the EU have made it abundantly clear that a United States of Europe is their aim.

A former Spanish Prime Minister said a few months ago: "The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community ... It is a decision of an essentially political nature. We need this United Europe."

There is no doubt that Economic and Monetary Union would mean the complete emasculation of Parliament. Without the power over supply - money, taxation rates in short the economy Westminster would become the catspaw, the rubber stamp of an alien power the EU, its Central Bank and inevitably a European Treasury with fully harmonised rates of taxation (upwards for us, of course).

The only solution - Independence

We must bring it home to people that the nineteenth century saw Britain rise to unprecedented wealth and power precisely because of freedom from European entanglements - "Looking to the open seas" of global trade as Churchill put it, and not "inward to a narrow Western Europe"

Full authority must reside once again with our own Parliament (which is what sovereignty means). We must demand our country back, our democracy back before Mr. Blair and the EU Committee of the Regions succeeds in splintering what was once the United Kingdom into 12 statelets owing allegiance to Brussels.