Our name 'The Anti-Common Market League' has remained the same from when we were founded in 1961. Your Committee now feels that the time has come to change our name, as circumstances have changed considerably since 1961.
As many of you will know the League was founded at the time Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was making his first (unsuccessful) application to join what was referred to in 1961 as the Common Market. Although the founders of the League, having read the Treaty of Rome, realized political union was the ultimate objective and tried hard to put this to the British people, the media ignored them and were happy to pass on the misleading utterances of the politicians that it was simply a trading organization.
Edward Heath, who had undertaken the first unsuccessful entry attempt, took Britain into the then European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market on 1st January 1973. He may fairly be described as the dissembler in chief, referring to 'no loss of essential sovereignty' and trumpeting extravagant claims about the economic future ahead.
We all know the exact opposite has occurred: a massive and continuing trade deficit with our so-called partners; a huge budget contribution of £1.5 million per hour to Brussels; and the almost total destruction of the sovereignty of the British people.
The system of parliamentary democracy as established and practised in Britain up until 1973 was based on the sovereignty of the people who, by exercising their vote at a General Election, lend their sovereign powers to MPs to use on behalf of the people for the duration of a single parliament. These powers should be returned intact to the electorate, to whom they belong, to lend again to the MPs they elect at each subsequent General Election. Five basic democratic rights emerge from this process, all fundamentally damaged by British membership.
Firstly, instead of the consent of the House of Commons being necessary before a law or tax can be imposed, unelected and therefore unaccountable EU institutions, which the British electorate cannot dismiss, now impose laws upon us all.
Secondly, parliamentary democracy meant that MPs, who derived their power directly from the people, could change laws by majority vote; EU laws cannot be altered or repealed by Parliament. The "one-way street" principle of acquis communautaire means that once a power has been transferred to the EU, there is no mechanism for it to be restored.
Thirdly, British courts must now uphold and enforce EU laws which have not been passed by Parliament, even if they conflict with laws already passed by a democratically elected British Parliament.
Fourthly, parliamentary democracy meant that all Government ministers, and civil servants under their control, were accountable to Parliament for all their public actions and, through Parliament, to the people. By contrast, duties and constraints are imposed on British governments as a result of EU membership and, in discharging those duties, ministers are not accountable to Parliament, nor to the people who elect them.
Fifthly, democracy, because it entrenched the right of people to elect and to dismiss MPs, ensured continuing accountability to the people. MPs needed to listen to the views of the people between as well as during General Elections. By contrast most EU institutions are not directly elected by the people and do not care what the opinions of the people may be; most cannot be dismissed by the people, and cannot be compelled to remedy the people's grievances.
It is clear that in large measure the sovereignty of the British people has been usurped when we find that according to a recent report to the German Bundestag (Parliament) 80% of new laws now originate in Brussels. We can hardly doubt the position is any different in Britain.
The approximately 120,000 unremovable (by Westminster) regulations imposed on us by the EU are prescriptive in nature seeking to regulate and control every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave. We had previously enjoyed a proscriptive system under our now subverted common law, whereby we were free to do anything unless proscribed by laws, which, if we did not like them, could be changed or repealed by MPs elected by and accountable to the people.
In April 2004 the New York Federal Reserve Board produced a report concluding the UK's Gross Domestic Product would be 12.4% bigger (at least £125 billion) without the baleful regulations of the acquis communautaire.
Since, as we have seen, the drive for full political union, the creation of a state called Europe, and the final eclipse of the nation state are now within sight, your committee has concluded our present name, although familiar and evocative to older members, is less significant and meaningful for younger members and potential members.
We propose, therefore, to change the name to GET BRITAIN OUT LEAGUE and to give (in correspondence) our original name in brackets, as follows: (formerly The Anti-Common Market League) founded 1961.
I look forward to receiving your views and suggestions.
* * * * * *
As the European Union continues to prove itself as undemocratic as ever, the Commission is seeking a new slogan for the EU. The present one is "Unity in Diversity", and one wonders exactly how many people were aware of it. Perhaps the Commission could adapt the slogans of previous attempts at a united Europe; "Corporatism in One Union" and "One Union, One Currency, One Constitution" spring to mind. Any better suggestions?
* * * * * *
Last December our Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, went to the European Union summit in Brussels and agreed to a big increase in Britain's payments to the EU budget. Mr. Blair agreed to this increase despite regular reports of EU fraud, despite failure to reform the EU's wasteful Common Agricultural Policy and despite the refusal of the auditors to approve the EU's accounts for eleven years running. The Democracy Movement has launched a campaign entitled "Stop the Cheques" to prevent the increase.
Mrs. Marta Andreasen, the EU's former chief accountant, was sacked by the then EU Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, for revealing, as reported in The Times on 6th December last, that "Opportunities for fraud are open and they are taken advantage of. The most elementary precautions are neither taken nor even contemplated". British taxpayers' money, which could be used for schools and hospitals, against crime, towards alleviating poverty or for many other worthy purposes, should not be handed over to Brussels in these circumstances.
The Stop the Cheques campaign will put pressure on Members of Parliament to explain why they find it acceptable to hand astonishing amounts of public money to an organisation beset by fraud and whose accounts have not been approved for eleven years running. Alternatively, they can explain what action they are taking to stop payments to the EU, at least until we can be sure that public money is protected from fraud.
The campaign will press MPs to vote against the EU budget deal when it comes before Parliament in the months ahead. Although the EU budget deal itself is not subject to approval by Parliament, the promised increase in our contributions is subject to this requirement; it will have to be ratified by MPs through primary legislation. The precise timing of this is yet to be determined, but given that MEPs are still withholding approval of the budget, because they want even more money from Europe's taxpayers, it is liable to be some months ahead yet. So letting your MP know your view can make a difference in getting the budget deal blocked, especially if sufficient pressure can be put on MPs with small majorities.
* * * * * *
In an interview with the Belgian daily newspaper De Morgen on 18th March, Professor Paul de Grauwe, economic advisor to Jose Barroso, President of the EU Commission, argued that the euro has damaged Italy's economy, and that without "political union" in Europe, the euro will collapse in ten to twenty years. He also argued that the EU's Lisbon process, which forms the backbone of the Commission's efforts to make the European Union more competitive, "is best buried".
He said, "Sometimes I wonder: do we still need the European Union? I start to have doubts about that. It is sufficient that countries open up their economies. You don't need to do that in the context of the European Union". Asked whether the EU has added value he said, "I'm not sure about that. Probably the EU creates a framework to keep markets open in an organised way. In that respect it has added value." He went on to argue that "the euro is a bad thing for the Italian economy. I'm afraid that Spain is also evolving in the same direction. If that happens, we are stuck with a big problem." He said that developing a "political union" is the only way to mitigate the problems created by the euro, saying: "A political union is the logical end-point of a currency union. But if that political union fails to materialise, then in the long term the euro area cannot continue to exist."
He said, "Now that nobody appears to want that political union, you can begin to wonder whether monetary union was such a good idea. I hardly dare predict that, in the longer term, the monetary union will collapse, not next year, but on a time-frame of ten or twenty years. There is not a single monetary union which survived without political union. They have all collapsed. You invariably get big shocks. A monetary union becomes very fragile without a political framework. With the exception of a Don Quixote such as Guy Verhofstadt (Belgian Prime Minister and author of The United States of Europe), I see nobody who is pushing the case for a political union."
He added, "A large free trade zone remains the only feasible option for Europe. It's an illusion that we can realise a political union in Europe in the near future. Political unification has failed. But that is a big problem for the currency union. That is in danger"
* * * * * *
The International Herald Tribune has revealed that the European Parliament has for years been paying subsidies to journalists to encourage them to make the monthly trip to Strasbourg to cover the proceedings of the European Parliament. The funding for journalists can include payment of a first-class round-trip train ticket or an economy-class plane ticket to Strasbourg from any of the 25 EU countries and a daily stipend of 100 euros (about £68) to cover hotel, food and entertainment over two days. About sixty journalists from across the EU are invited to Strasbourg each month under the programme.
One broadcaster said, "The parliamentary sessions are stultifyingly dull, so the Parliament does whatever it can to make it easier for us to work here, including paying for our journeys and providing plush facilities. I would never get my parliament reports on the air if the parliament wasn't paying for it". Another broadcaster told the International Herald Tribune that perks such as these had prompted journalists to refuse requests by editors to write stories on members' privileges and travel expenses at the parliament. "How can I expose such perks when I myself am benefiting from them?", the journalist asked.
It is not just the European Parliament which lavishes gifts on journalists. In February, Austria, then holder of the EU's presidency, invited 62 Brussels-based journalists to Vienna, paying for their lodgings in a lavish Hilton hotel and hosting a complimentary dinner in an eighteenth-century baroque castle where a soprano sang Strauss operettas - all on the tab of the Austrian government. Nicola D”nig, a spokesman for the Austrian Presidency said: "It was a worthwhile investment".
* * * * * *
Despite the successes of the campaigns against the euro and the constitution, we need to be on our guard against the activities of our opponents. A group made up of some of the business supporters of the former pro-euro campaign group Britain in Europe has been launched, to campaign for "active engagement" with the EU.
The group, called "Business for New Europe" is chaired by Roland Rudd, described by PR Week as "a friend to New Labour creator Peter Mandelson and frequently tipped as a future Labour MP". Mr. Rudd attracted controversy in January 2004 when his public relations company was chosen for lucrative Government contracts soon after it made a donation to the Labour Party. He previously ran Railtrack's public relations operation and has also given work experience to Euan Blair, the Prime Minister's son. He was appointed to the board of Britain in Europe in 2004. Mr. Rudd was quoted in The Financial Times on 27th March, arguing that the new group will "avoid the mistakes of its predecessor, which was perceived to have been too close to government".
Other former board members of Britain in Europe said to be involved in the new group include familiar names such as those of Sir Stephen Wall and Niall Fitzgerald. The Financial Times also reported that the group claims to "include business leaders who have not been high-profile supporters of the euro or the constitution", such as Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of Boots, and Charles Dunstone of the Carphone Warehouse. In fact both had previously been involved with Britain in Europe for some time.
* * * * * *
Sir,
I resent your suggestion (Spring 2006) that "constructive criticism of the EU [would draw] UKIP supporters back into the Tory fold".
Firstly, this assumes that all UKIP supporters are ex-Conservative voters who are just waiting for a chance to go back to being Conservatives again. Not only is this not true of many members but highly insulting towards them.
Secondly, it assumes that, despite the fact that the Conservative Party took us into the Common Market and has spent more than thirty years since doing nothing about the problem it created, UKIP supporters will happily forgive and forget and least likely scenario - trust the Conservatives ever again to be in so much charge of their lives that they could do the same thing again.
The Conservative Party betrayed this country and conspired to betray this country, and has continued to conspire to betray this country. It only talks about being Eurosceptic when an election is in the offing. It has never done anything to justify its Eurosceptic claims and, like Labour, is too dependent on pro-EU donors ever to change its true attitude.
I for one should never vote Conservative even if the party claimed to be prepared to take us out of the EU. I should not believe them and should not trust them to run the country afterwards.
People who are anti-EU yet carry on voting Conservative are an example of "the triumph of hope over experience".
Yours faithfully,
(Mrs.) KATHLEEN GARNER,
South Croydon,
Surrey.
* * * * * *
You are invited to hear an address by Ashley Mote, MEP, S. E. England's only Independent MEP entitled "Exposed - the Secret Self-Perpetuating Rulers of the E.U." on Friday 21st July, 2006 at 6.45 for 7.00 pm at St. John's Church, Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8TY (near Imax Cinema and next to roundabout outside Waterloo Station)