As this Editorial is being written, the Labour Party leaders seem to be sharply divided about how soon they should start trying to persuade us to surrender the Pound and change over to the Euro. The arguments they give, for committing themselves early or late are whether (1) honestly to tell the public early will lose them the Election for certain, and (2) whether the change would bring more trade and employment.
We think that a majority of the public are now and always will be against joining the Euro, whether the Labour Party explains its plans early or late. The arguments the Labour Party will use will be of considerable interest to us as well as to many other electors. For up to now there have been no real arguments for our being tied into the European Union and subject to its restrictive rules and regulations.
Intelligent people quickly realize that there are two types of argument, the first depending on facts and figures such as those quoted regularly by ourselves and the CIB and other anti-Market organisations -many are from Government statistics and trade organisations. Such figures can be called boring, and, if thought about continuously, they are boring. But they are the relevant arguments, such as the figures quoted by us and the CIB from the Government's Pink Book 1995, published by the Government's Central Statistical Office, showing that Britain paid in 22 thousand million pounds more than it received, to the EC Budget between 1973 and 1994.
Such figures, and there have been and are many similar figures about the rise in the British cost of living, the loss of jobs as in the fishing industry, the difficulties of selling to the rest of the EU because of the mess that has been made of the Euro - all the figures are strong arguments against being subordinate to the European Union. Again, recent news has concerned the threat to British jobs in the West Midlands and the Dagenham areas because British jobs now come under the control of foreign companies. It is not wise to lose control of one's own affairs.
The really interesting thing about such arguments is that the proEuropeans NEVER manage to reply to them, or indeed, seldom even refer to them. But the practice of almost entirely ignoring for ever all the facts and figures of year after year economical and statistical arguments says a good deal about the weakness of the case of those who adopt such tactics.
This weakness of our opponents in ignoring what they pretend are the boring figures shows up badly when we observe that they also ignore an even more powerful argument which we bring against them. The real reason why most British people are against further commitment to the EU is that Britons take a rather loftier line than mere reliance on figures. We do not want to give up the pound for the Euro, and our laws for the judgements of the European Court, because we do not want to lose our independence. Not only our prosperity but our freedom and independence depend on our managing our own affairs, and not being controlled from Brussels or from wherever in Germany the Euro Central Bank may be. Those who wish to subject us further to Europe, do not choose to recognize our argument that opposition to such a change is a matter of principle. Such unreasonableness means that those who think thus (and many Labour people don't think thus, but have the patriotism and courage to think as we do), suggest to us that attempts to persuade us to adopt the Euro, whether soon or later, are liable to fail.
******************************
The League congratulates our Committee member (and printer) Mr. Donald Martin who has been elected by the governing body of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) to be their United Kingdom Policy Chairman. Mr. Martin says he is conscious of the responsibility placed upon him and prays that in fulfilling this responsibility he may have the support, advice and co-operation of all members of the FSB - though not all 150,000-plus at the same time!
In his address to the National Council (the governing body of the FSB) in May he said that the FSB now has a considerable history in the development and refinement of its national policy, which has been achieved by a succession of policy chairmen, each learning from the successes of their predecessors.
The FSB has a number of policy priorities, established by the National Council. Those that will have his immediate attention include:
To have greater effect in achieving their priorities he proposes a new basis of campaigning in co-operation with the Federation's regions, whom he will actively consult on the targets. He says that only by marshalling the grass-roots of the membership to co-ordinate with the lobbying on a national basis can they produce a shift in fundamental issues of government policy.
******************************
We thank Mr. Howard Pedraza for his reports of the two speeches at the League's meeting on 16th March, which follow:-
On 16th March 2000, in a Committee Room of the House of Commons, the Anti-Common Market League was addressed by Lindsay Jenkins, the author of "Britain Held Hostage, the Coming Euro-Dictatorship", with her next book "The Last Days of Britain, the Final Betrayal", to be published by Orange State Press in Autumn 2000.
We are rapidly moving towards a unified European Police Force (Europol) which will be armed and have the power to carry out arrests ordered by Courts anywhere in the EU and to transport suspects there without intervention by British Courts.
The development of this threat to freedom has been gradual and stealthy. Sixteen years ago, at the Fontainebleau Summit (1984), plans were laid to end border controls between EU states: because the UK refused, the Schengen Agreement (Schengen is a village in Luxembourg) was signed by Germany, France and Benelux.
The propaganda was that, as the EU had built an economic union, it must now devise a unified legal system to uphold its laws, especially in its fight against crime - which must mean a unified police force.
In 1994 the European Drugs Agency came into being, a purely co-operative venture between EU states to combat drugs and associated money-laundering. Four years later the Agency became Europol. It sounds like a innocent version of Interpol, and is much used by British Police and Customs.
But the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) moved the stage from co-operation between equal police forces to a new European authority. There is to be "common action" in all "criminal matters and in preventing racism and xenophobia". Europol's comprehensive computer system is accessible only to Europol officers. Europol already helps to train police officers on inter-service courses at a 4-year old Police College at Leusden, Netherlands (funded by the EU), and has plans for a Staff College to train European Police Officers. These European Police Officers can now take part in joint operations with the Police of any country (in a "support capacity"). We do not know if they may be armed or in uniform, but we do know that by a 1997 British Statutory Instrument they will be immune from legal redress for wrongful arrest, or destruction to homes and property etc. in the exercise of their official functions. They are above British Law.
Europol's HQ is in the Hague (formerly a Nazi HQ) with a staff of 130, but that will be increased to 350 in 2 years. (There are 45 liaison officers, of which 3 are British).
In the Treaty of Nice negotiations under way, there are further developments. Europol may be responsible to an EU Commissioner. A European Public Prosecutor or a subordinate Judge may, in accordance with continental practice, start and supervise all investigations, the Police being merely his agents. The Police Oath to the Queen may be abolished.
In addition, the "Mutual recognition of judicial decisions" agreed in Finland last October, means that by the end of 2000, continental courts will be able to apply their own laws and procedures to British Citizens on British soil: and the British Police will have to execute their orders.
Finally, in another sell-out by stealth, by the Police Act (1996) British Police Authorities are now dominated by Councillors, no longer by magistrates and independents. But Local Authorities are steadily increasing their direct links with Brussels!!
So we have the prospect of an armed Police Force, which is heavily politicised and will eventually be entirely subordinate to Europol.
******************************
Denmark, like Britain, is in the EU but not in the EURO. There will be a Referendum on whether to enter on 28th September 2000.
Knud Pedersen, a leader of the so-far successful "No" campaign addressed the Anti-Common Market League in a Committee Room of the House of Commons on 16th March 2000.
His starting point was the observation that Scandinavians have always been scrappers - either among themselves or against an Empire or against a Central Power.
There have been five Referendums so far on the subject of Europe. Through them runs a theme which is grimly familiar in the UK.
The first was on 2nd October 1972. Norway's and Sweden's objection to the word "Union" in the Treaty of Rome (`ever closer Union') had led to the substitution of another word. Even so, three weeks before the Referendum in Denmark, there was a majority against : but the Danish Prime Minister said there was no danger of Union, so the Referendum was for: the day after, the PM said the ultimate aim was Union.
Similarly, with the Maastricht Treaty 1993, reassurances were given that with the securing of the opt-out over entry into the Euro, the remainder of the Treaty could be taken as innocuous. When the truth dawned, there was civil disorder, especially among the young, and the police started shooting: it was the first time Danish police had fired on Danish people.
At the time of the Amsterdam Treaty, the politicians said if you vote "Yes", there will be no more integration for a long time.
Knud Pedersen said Denmark was now at the cross-roads. The "Yes" camp have started to have their doubts and have even admitted to telling lies. The Danish PM who is in favour of entry, is very low in public opinion.
But if the coming 6th Referendum says "No", Knud Pedersen is not sure the Government will conform because there are so many proEuros in the Government. Danish TV, moreover, has changed to being mainly pro.
******************************
The YES side have ten Danish krone to one for the NO side. A NO victory will help to kill off the pro-Euro campaign in the UK. Members who wish to assist the Danish NO Campaign should send a cheque payable to the "Danish Referendum Appeal", C/o C.I.B. at 81 Ashmole Street, London, SW8 1NF.
******************************
by Derek James
Twenty five years ago today (at the time of writing) the British people voted `yes' in the referendum on whether or not to remain in the EEC on the terms renegotiated by Harold Wilson's government. Some of us were - in spite of the predictions, in spite of the huge disparity in funding, in spite of each household being sent two leaflets advising people to vote YES against one advising NO - astounded by the result. We could hardly believe that given a choice (which unlike the electorates of Ireland, Denmark and Norway we had been denied three years earlier before entry) the people would vote against regaining their freedom. And yet they did.
Whether or not they would do the same today is impossible to predict, though it is clear that many regret the way they voted in 1975. They thought - even many of those who had no real excuse for doing so - that they were voting for free trade, prosperity and peace. Warnings of a political agenda leading to full scale federalism were dismissed as scaremongering by extremists. Perhaps the best way of marking the anniversary is to read again some of what was in the campaign leaflets.
From the YES campaign leaflet:-
Each of these claims has been proved false.
Of the alternatives to membership, the leaflet said:-
I wonder how many of us met anyone who seriously argued for either of these alternatives.
The Government's own leaflet (Britain's New Deal In Europe) makes even more interesting reading:-
Readers may not recognise in these quotations the European Union as it has in fact developed. They will, however, most definitely recognise it in the words of the NO campaign leaflet :-
If the NO leaflet deserves to be criticised it is only for its moderation. It did not predict EMU, a common foreign policy or the corrupt political culture of Brussels. Perhaps if there ever is another referendum the electorate will know whom to believe this time. Once bitten, twice shy.
******************************
by Peter Dul
Dr. Johnson once remarked that "Most opinions are held because they are in fashion". Political correctness and a woolly pro-European viewpoint have for some time been in the ascendant with the bien pensants of large sections of the media and the Establishment. The BBC(Brussels Broadcasting Corporation) amongst other politically correct organs, puts forward the view that anyone opposed to abolishing the Pound is a right wing extremist.
During the 1975 Referendum the media were busy portraying the leadership of the NO Campaign as wide-eyed extremists, and are trying to do so again. Mantras are and were then chanted about the unquestioned benefits of membership, but, as usual, no evidence is or was ever presented in support.
The fact is that it is not xenophobic or extreme to want to be governed by `representatives' (MPs) elected by the British people. On the contrary it is quite sensible as at the end of four or five years these MPs can be removed by the British people exercising their sovereignty through the ballot box.
If the Pound is abolished it will still be possible to elect MPs, but they will only be cyphers. With the transfer of governance elsewhere Britain will cease to be an independent country.
We shall be firmly in the grip of a corrupt unelected Euro-regime devoted to big government and big bureaucracy. As Enoch Powell said in 1970, "A single currency means a single government and that single government would be the government whose policies determined every aspect of economic life. In the Common Market that government would not be a British government; it would be a continental government, and the British electorate would be a comparatively small minority of the electorate to which that government was responsible."
The tradition of subterfuge continues with Mr. Blair. The Department of Health has secretly ordered huge resources (many hundreds of £ millions) to be diverted from patient care to prepare for the day when the œ is abolished. The British people have not of course even been asked whether they wish to abolish the £.
For the past quarter of a century a revolution has been going on in Britain, albeit slowly and quietly so that as few people as possible noticed.
This has resulted in a situation whereby 95% of British laws are made by civil servants issuing decrees. This legislation in the form of statutory instruments issued largely at Brussels' request is at the rate of 3000 a year.
Britain's constitution is now the Treaty of Rome as amended and her law is subservient to European law. For example the British public has recently been concerned about the planting of genetically-modified oil seed rape.
There is nothing whatever the British Government can do about it. Since 1990 all control over such crops has been handed over to Brussels, under EC directive 90/220. These seeds have been specifically approved for use in Britain under a "Commission Decision", a form of law with which no-one can argue.
Furthermore the sale of such seeds is also legal under the EC's Novel Foods Regulation 25 8/97. British politicians have, as usual, not pointed this out, preferring to remain silent about the extent of powers already passed to the EU.
The British Parliament is subservient, that is laws made by the Queen in Parliament can be struck down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which has spent 40 years furthering the cause of greater integration (a function laid down for it in the Treaty of Rome) and the creation of a European superstate.
In a recent letter to The Times Bernard Connolly (former EC Commission official) pointed out the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights would make the ECJ the ultimate arbiter of political freedoms in Britain.
A recent ruling of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities stated the right to free speech can be restricted by reference to "aims of general interest pursued by the Communities". Thus any policy adopted by the EU can justify restrictions on the exercise of free speech, of property rights and of the right to join or vote for a political party of one's choice.
Damaging the image or reputation of EU institutions - by telling the truth about their failings - is sufficient justification for those institutions to restrict the exercise of free speech and the right to property.
Giving such power to a political body, the European Court of Justice (sic) would be to undermine the freedoms until now guaranteed in Britain by the common law.
The ECJ simply follows the usual continental system whereby the bureaucracy is a weapon of executive power, and the `law' courts are extensions of executive power. There is no tradition of an independent judiciary nor of trial by jury.
British judges will after October, when the European Human Rights Convention comes into effect in the UK, be able to strike down Acts of Parliament which they deem to be incompatible with the Convention.
In addition the current Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) proposes a Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is expected to enshrine the power of EU judges to strike down any national parliamentary law that they deem to contravene our rights as European citizens.
If Mr. Blair signs a Treaty incorporating such provisions he will be in breach of his Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance to the Queen (which means at least keeping Her Majesty as our Queen, i.e. as the Head of a necessarily sovereign state).
He will also, I submit, be committing the felony of treasonmaking a criminal misuse and abuse of the Royal Prerogative to sign a Treaty granting foreign bodies like the ECJ full jurisdiction over the Queen's and all of our persons, amongst other things.
Price transparency and driving down transaction costs are two of the main reasons given for joining the euro. But the euro was conceived in an era of high tariff barriers and currency blocs. The Internet is much more likely to boost price transparency and reduce transaction costs. The euro would hinder our economy by diverting resources from the development of e-commerce and by leading to higher taxation and more regulation. Backward-looking economic dinosaurs such as Messrs. Blair, Heseltine and Clarke seem unable to grasp that theirs is the (supposed) solution to the problems of 50 years ago.
Now is surely the time for men and women, who put the electorate's rights as voters and democrats and the independence of our country ahead of party unity, to get together to propel us out of the disastrous and ultimately fatal embrace of the EU.
If we left the EU our trade with it, which existed before we joined, would continue. Our former `partners' would not and could not under international law cease trading with us.
Last year the EU concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) with Mexico (itself a member of NAFTA). Counting the EU as one country Mexico is now the world's seventh trading power. An independent Britain, as the world's fourth largest economy, would surely have no difficulty in concluding an FTA with the EU thus obtaining most of the benefits of the Single Market with none of the costs such as the œ1 million per hour to the EU budget and stifling regulations. It would also regain the right to conclude FTAs with Australia, New Zealand and Canada and would escape from the collectivist nightmare of the CAP and Common Fisheries Policy.
It is the English-speaking nations of the world which have over the centuries proved to be a bulwark against barbarism.
We should rebuild our economic links with them which go hand in hand with largely common cultural, historical and legal systems.
More powerful yet is the commitment of these countries to concepts of Law and Liberty, which are not shared to anything like the same degree by our so-called partners in the EU (and others).
Winston Churchill said faced with the choice of looking inward to a narrow Western Europe or outward to the open seas, we should always choose the latter. Let us prove him right.
******************************
Wednesday, 12th July, 2000 7.30 pm "Joining the Euro - Yes or No?"
Speakers: Ken Beastall, UKIP; Chris Davies, MEP, Liberal Democrat Public Debate: Carrow House Milestone Hotel, Carleton, Cumbria. Admission Free.
Saturday, 28th October, 2000 March and Rally, Trafalgar Square, London. Further details to follow. E v e r y o n e welcome.
******************************
Members may be interested to learn that objections can be made to EU flags being flown. As the EU is not a country the flag is classed as an advertisement and hence needs planning permission. Please tell us about your successful objections.