With this issue of Britain, we mark the retirement as Editor of Hugh Gilmour, who has edited our magazine with dedication and style for many years; we thank him for his valuable service and are pleased that he will be continuing as a member of the League's committee, where his wisdom and knowledge will be very valuable. He contributed an article to this issue, briefly outlining the origins and history of the League, and the progress we have made since the 1975 referendum.
During this last quarter we have witnessed the Danish "Nej" vote in their Euro referendum, and the Nice summit. Many of our members supported the Danish Referendum Appeal, and in many respects the Danes' victory was also our victory. It shows that, far from becoming isolated in Europe, we would not want for friends if we kept the Pound and began to look towards a life after the Brussels nightmare. Norway is no less European for being outwith the clutches of Commission directives; she has all the open trading arrangements we have and has retained her fishing industry.
The Nice Treaty, while not as bad as it might have been, will result in the leaching away of further powers of self-government from the member states to Brussels. Almost certainly it will not be brought before Parliament until after the General Election, so there will be a first rate opportunity to quiz parliamentary candidates on the issue. In this connection we encourage readers to make use of the Anti- Maastricht Alliance's Nice Treaty cards.
John Moran, a branch chairman in the Democracy Movement, responds to last summer's fuel protests. Opinions will vary on whether fuel taxes should be reduced, or kept high to encourage efficient usage and environmental protection. The point here, however, is that a self-governing country is able to decide such matters for itself (in co-operation with other countries where appropriate) rather than having them imposed by a supra-national authority, As Lord Shore of Stepney said at the recent launch of his excellent new book Separate Ways: "(it) shows the danger in a democracy when the government gets seriously out-of-touch with the electorate. But just imagine the fury that will erupt sooner or later when some unpopular law or tax measure is decreed not by our elected government but by the bureaucrats in Brussels."
Many excellent debates are held in both Houses of Parliament, and if they were properly reported by the media, Parliament would deservedly enjoy a higher reputation. In this issue we carry a speech from one such debate, by Christopher Gill, the Conservative member for Ludlow. Mr. Gill has been a doughty supporter of our cause for many years, and his departure from the House of Commons at the next election will be a great loss. While those of our subscribers who are Conservative Party supporters may take issue with his conclusion, Mr. Gill is displaying his characteristic honesty and candour, and we look forward to his continuing support.
In January 1987, in our booklet Bound to Fail the League reviewed the first quarter century of its existence, since its foundation in 1961 by Mr. John Paul.
Before 1961 there had been little formal opposition to our becoming submerged in the Common Market, though bold challenges had been made by a number of individuals such as Sir Piers Debenham and Lord Hinchingbrooke. Mr. John Paul, a fine leader and organiser, built up the League with public meetings and persuasive literature. In due course we and other anti-Marketeers made a powerful case against joining the Common Market organisation, and there was a Referendum in 1975 at which a large minority voted against joining.
Though we lost the Referendum the whole country had heard the issue debated. The more intelligent members of all parties had declared themselves against it, and opposition groupings had been built up.
Now in the year 2000 the situation has developed further to our advantage. Public opinion polls make clear that majority opinion throughout the country is against surrendering the pound for the euro. Majority opinion, in the Conservative Party at any rate, is against any further submission to the European Union such as the proposed Treaty of Nice would cause. The Labour Party, in which there are a number of very intelligent anti-Marketeers, appears to be frightened of discussing the issue and advocating European Union, particularly further European union, because it appears so obviously to be a vote loser.
New anti-Common Market groups have sprung up, noticeably the United Kingdom Independence Party, which stirs up Conservatives about the risk of weakening their anti-Market line, and which could be a considerable threat to Labour Marketeers.
The growth in specifically anti-Market groups has its dangers for us. Unity is strength, and the recovery of our independence is more likely if all those who believe in British freedom work together and co-operate at election times. On the other hand it is encouraging that in areas where leadership seems to be lacking or weak, ordinary people are ready to speak up and work independently. This is perhaps particularly valuable in the field of propaganda. The public is very cynical nowadays about expensive advertising campaigns, and there is perhaps nothing more persuasive than the opinions of friends and neighbours. Many of our members are prepared to. speak to their neighbours and to write to their local newspapers, and the influence of local groups is considerable and increasing. One thinks especially of members in the neighbourhood of Reading, in Kent and Sussex, in Newcastle, in Cardiff, and many other areas. The outlook seems more hopeful than it has ever been.
18th September 2000
Sir,
I think that congratulations are certainly in order to all the truckers, farmers and cab drivers who so effectively brought the matter of outrageous fuel taxation to the very top of the government's agenda and who won the overwhelming support of the British people.
However, I think that most of their efforts will unfortunately be wasted. Mr. Blair and his chancellor are beholden to their masters, the European Union. In a little reported meeting at Versailles last Friday, Ecofin, (the finance ministers of the EU) resolved to maintain their policy on oil taxation for "economic and environmental reasons". The Ministers expressed their "regrets" that France had caved in to their protesters. Pedro Solbes, EU commissioner for economic affairs, said: "It's no use crying over spilt milk". Once again the French get away with it whilst we play the game as Mr. Blair and his fellow Quislings suck up to Brussels!
Meanwhile, Norway, who is not a member of the EU, has called for a cut in their petrol prices, by half a crown per litre in response to public outcry. It reminds one of the days when we were free to have our Parliament make decisions that were in the interests of the British people. I do not need to tell your readers of the disastrous policies that the European Union has inflicted upon them, and many more are in the pipeline with the upcoming Treaty of Nice and the proposal to scrap the Pound.
The Democracy Movement who are pledged to keep the Pound and stay out of the collapsing Euro is holding a KEEP THE POUND RALLY in London on Saturday 28th October. The march will assemble in Hyde Park (Marble Arch end) at 1.00pm and will march to Trafalgar Square to be addressed by well-known anti-EU speakers, including Lord Shore and John Redwood MP.
It promises to be a big one and all concerned parties whose lives and livelihoods are under constant attack by the Brussels bureaucracy are invited to attend and demand that this country retains the right to it's own currency and self determination.
John D. Moran.
Branch Chairman
This letter, which appeared in September in the magazine of the London Cab Drivers' Club and around a dozen other publications, is an example of what can be achieved by writing letters to the press. Many of our members are already active in this regard, and we hope to report more fully on this in the next issue.
23rd November, 2000
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): The Foreign Secretary made his position and that of the Government clear in an article in The Daily Telegraph last Friday and at the Dispatch Box today. Similarly, my own position is transparently clear, and as the House will recognise, I have been somewhat more consistent in my views than certain Labour members, not least the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
I am a long-standing opponent not of Europe or things European, nor of European people, but of political union. I voted no in the 1975 referendum. I fought every inch of the way against the treaty on European union, and voted against the Amsterdam treaty just as surely as I shall vote against the Nice treaty. It will be apparent that I speak in this debate not as a spokesman for the official Opposition. 1 do, however, speak for the millions of British people who believe that the United Kingdom would be better of out of the European Union, and who are effectively disfranchised because not one party represented in Parliament today - my own included - has the courage to represent that point of view.
I quote the ancient Greek statesman, Pericles: Remember that prosperity can only be for the free and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.
I shall also remind my Conservative colleagues of the words of our party chairman, my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said, when addressing the Conservative party spring forum in Harrogate on 1 April, that our greatest weapon must be truth: plain, simple and blunt.
As someone who has never been afraid of the truth, I welcome that statement and consider it high time the debate in Britain about Europe was conducted on that basis. Sadly, it has not been so conducted to date. The record is that, over the past 25 years or more, senior politicians have been, shall we say, economical with the truth. To this day, there is a reluctance on the part of British politicians to accept what has long been recognised by continental politicians - that the European Union, as it is now called, is all about European integration.
The House need not take my word for it. Perhaps Hon. Members will heed the words of Joschka Fischer, delivered in Berlin on 12 May. He described his speech that day as a contribution to a debate long begun in the public arena about the "finality" of European integration.
He left no doubt that that was the end game. He described the process of European integration as probably the "biggest political challenge" facing the states and peoples of Europe. He said that we must put into place the last brick in the building of European integration - namely political integration. Having posed the question, "Quo vadis, Europa?", Mr. Fischer answered it as follows : Onwards to the completion of European integration. Only last week, he used the same analogy, likening Nice to the keystone in the edifice of European integration.
The German Foreign Minister is not alone, however. To a conference 12 months ago on "Progressive Governance in the 21st Century", European Commission President Romano Prodi stated unequivocally that European unity was, first and foremost, a political concept.
There is no lack of evidence or witnesses to show that the European Union was never - and was never intended to be - what successive British politicians have tried to con the British public into believing.
As far as the rest of Europe is concerned, the EU is not about economics. Only the British choose to believe that. It is about politics and political integration. The sooner we acknowledge that plain and simple fact, the better. However, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in Berlin in June my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) looked forward to an open Europe of free, democratic and independent Kingdoms and republics stretching from Brest to Brest-Litovsk.
It was as though he had never heard of Romano Prodi, or had never seen COM2000154Final, the paper that sets out the "strategic objectives" of the European Union for 2000-05.
What my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Horsham aspires to does not even begin to connect with anything that Prodi and the European Commission are talking about. He asserted: Nations once bound up ... in the shackles of Soviet control see European Union membership as the end point of their journey to freedom and free enterprise.
He did not stop to consider that, in real terms, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia today enjoy greater political freedom than we who have placed ourselves in the straitjacket of Brussels.
As far as those countries of central and eastern Europe are concerned, the proposition that exchanging Soviet-style communism for European Union-style collectivism represents a qualitative improvement beggars belief. It inevitably calls into question the judgment of those who can make such flights of fancy with such apparent ease.
Hon. Members would do well to recognise that the European Union collective exists to supplant the nation state. It follows, therefore, that continued membership of the European Union is incompatible with our on-going existence as an independent nation. My Right Hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said this afternoon that the British people do not want a European,super-state. However, does he not recognise that that is the only sort of Europe that is on offer?
In Berlin, my Right Hon. Friend talked about a fork in the road, but he used the wrong metaphor. We are not on a road and there are no turnings. We are on a conveyor belt, or perhaps even a railway. It makes no difference - the destination is the same whichever analogy is used, and that destination is political integration.
My Right Hon. Friend spoke of agriculture and fisheries policies that belong to a bygone era, but stopped short of saying that he would scrap both collectivise policies and return the powers to the nation states, where they rightfully belong - although to be fair to him, he has latterly accepted that the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policy are collectivise. On the contrary, he has studiously avoided using the word "repatriation", for fear, 1 suggest, of upsetting the treaties. The logic of his position is presumably that by the time reform of the policies is achieved, it will be of no more than academ- ic interest to the thousands of British farmers who will, in the mean- time, have been forced to leave the land their families have farmed for generations; or to the hundreds of British fishermen who will have been driven off the waters that their forebears have fished since time immemorial.
With all due respect, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that we are elected to this place not by the treaties but by the voters in our constituencies. His priority may be adherence to the treaties, but mine most certainly is not.
My Right Hon. Friend spoke of our long history of dogged support for British membership of the European Union. If I am to be remembered for my dogged support of anything, I would rather it was for my dogged support of the best interests of my country and the best interests of my constituents in the Ludlow division. Those are the people who sent me to this Parliament and those are the people to whom I am answerable - not the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers, not even the Conservative party, but the 60,000 voters in the Ludlow constituency.
To his credit, my Right Hon. Friend acknowledged: the tide of federalism on the continent of Europe is still inexorably rising ...
He said: I think it is time in Britain we accepted that among much of the political class on the continent the federalist drive towards full political union is alive and well ...
In that, there is not one iota of difference between us. Where we part company, however, is on the method by which we will return this country to the situation that people thought they were voting for when they voted yes in the 1975 referendum. My Right Hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is on record as saying: Come with me and I will give you back your country ...
That is where I and millions like me would like to be, but that highly desirable goal cannot be reached through the normal process of negotiation. Only by making it clear to our European Union partners that we are determined to reassert the supremacy of Parliament, that sovereignty belongs to the people of this country and is not negotiable, and that British law will no longer be overridden by European law can the commendable aspiration of my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks be achieved.
That is not the language used in these debates. In relation to the forthcoming treaty of Nice, my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has committed the Conservative party to revisiting its provisions if it fails to gain popular support. Rather than state that he will reject the treaty outright, he contents himself with saying that he will oppose it if it appears to be integrationist. In all sincerity, I ask my Right Hon. Friend whether he can name any European treaty that has not been integrationist. Does he not recognise that achieving the position hinted at by my Right Hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition requires unanimity, just as any meaningful reform of the CAP or the CFP requires unanimity, and that unanimity simply is not in prospect?
If unanimity for radical reform is not likely to be forthcoming, how are all the aspirations held out by my party to be achieved? Is not the reality that we have signed up to the equivalent of a full repairing lease for an infinite term on conditions that we no longer find acceptable and at a rent that some would say we can no longer afford?
My Right Hon Friend the Member for Devizes said that our greatest weapon must be truth. Is not the truth plain, simple and blunt, as he would have it - that nothing short of an irreducible ultimatum will take us out of the situation in which we find ourselves today and into the position that our rhetoric implies?
How can my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Horsham expect to achieve, by means of the normal channels, the fundamental modemisation and loosening of the CAP that he wants, when France - as has been demonstrated recently - torpedoes agricultural reforms, just as Spain would almost certainly veto any dilution of the principle of equal access to the common resource in relation to fisheries? How can other shadow Ministers hold out the promise of cutting back on the regulatory burden, when both the volume and content of EU regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations are beyond the control of the Westminster Parliament?
How will my party convince the nation that it will never accept, for example, the European constitution implicit in the charter of fundamental rights or the adoption of a continental legal system by way of corpus juris, when all the signs are that it is reluctant to make the repatriation of control over two of our most basic industries a precondition of progress in other directions? To put it plainly, simply and bluntly, the question is: how?
How will the rhetoric be turned into reality? How are slogans to be translated into policy? For how much longer can the answer to these questions be delayed before it is overtaken by a general election and the inexorable advance towards "ever closer union".
My loyalty has been strained to the limit. In all conscience, I cannot go to the hustings as candidate for a party that maintains that one can be in Europe, but not run by Europe. I have therefore announced that I shall not seek re-election.
That is my decision; I hope that my Right Hon. and Hon Friends are happy with theirs. It is still not too late for my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks to say that there will be no single currency while he remains leader of the Conservative party and that, under his premiership, control over agriculture and fisheries would be repatriated. That message would resonate with the people of this country; it is the very least that he must do to ensure that socialism is defeated at the next general election.
Mr. Thorburn, the Sunderland market trader is being prosecuted for using Imperial scales to sell a lb. of bananas. Funds are urgently needed to help fight this battle.
Donations should be sent to:
Steven Thorburn (Metric Martyr) Defence Fund, PO, Box 526, Sunderland SRI 3YS
or
BWMA, 45 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh EH7 5JX Tel: 0131 556 6080
Mr. Blair and the Foreign Secretary have suggested that "loving the EU is enlightened (British) patriotism".
Well over half the British people (who wish the UK to leave the EU) are, therefore, according to Mr. Blair, unpatriotic, in addition to being disenfranchised, since no political party represented in the House of Commons represents their views. Presumably Mr. Blair hopes to avoid any criticism for signing away Britain's independence, in the same way that Czech 'patriotism' was invoked to justify the 1968 Soviet invasion.
Mr. Blair is, of course, acting in a manner consistent with the actions of past Europhiles; not least Sir Edward Heath. The release of government papers under the 30 year rule reveal how well aware he (Heath) was that the true goal of the then EEC was political union involving the complete surrender of national sovereignty. What is also revealed is how anxious he and his colleagues were to keep this quiet: in the infamous White Paper of 1971 circulated to every home it was stated:
"There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty."
Sir Edward clearly set out to create a false and misleading impression. Regrettably the massive deception practised on the British people proved successful. They thought they were joining some sort of trade arrangement, little realising that their Prime Minister knew it was intended to produce a federal state with a single currency and common defence and foreign policy; in short that the degree of autonomy which would ultimately be enjoyed by Britain would be somewhat less than that enjoyed by the states of the USA. A mockery has been, and is being made of British democracy - what is the point of voting for MPs, and paying to send them to Westminster, and paying for governments if they have no control over decisions made on behalf of the British people?
The Nice Treaty is about destroying the freedoms that British people have taken for granted for hundreds of years. Article 53 of the Resolution of the European Parliament passed on 12th April, 2000 will subject "all measures concerning freedom, security and justice" to majority voting in the EU, and any dispute as to the meaning of the texts will be determined by the so-called European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Under Article 54 Europol (the EU police) is to become fully "operational", ie. armed and will be able to take action against 'xenophobes' in the UK since the Europol mandate covers xenophobia. The Advocate-General of the ECJ has described criticism of the EU, its institutions or its leading figures as akin to blasphemy and that therefore punishing someone for allegedly criticizing the EU (even if not proven) is not an infringement of free speech. In the light of this it would not be difficult to imagine Eurosceptics being labelled 'xenophobes'.
Thus will the EU be able to deploy armed Europol forces in Britain which the Crown will have no control over, and which will enjoy diplomatic immunity, ie, they are above British law and cannot, for example, be sued.
By Article 8 any political party with a programme of withdrawal could be declared illegal by the ECJ, and Europol would enforce the ruling.
Article 51 states that any and all rights must be limited by the competent legislative authority, that is, the EU voting by majority, if it is deemed necessary in the pursuit of objectives of general interest pursued by the Union. That is to say any criticism of any policy the EU has decided to adopt can be made unlawful.
All this is a formula for the creation of a lawless tyranny.
Article 7 of the Amsterdam Treaty is being amplified so that any member state can be punished, losing all voting rights including its veto, by Qualified Majority Vote if it is considered a potential threat to 'European values and principles'. These 'values' have historically in the main, been those of despotic power and tyranny.
Corpus Juris, the EU plan for a European criminal code, abolishes common law rights including trial by jury, habeas corpus and double jeopardy. In contrast liberty under the law was the purpose of the British constitution.
These are not Acts of Parliament but treaties, which define the basis of and limits of executive power, and are permanent and cannot be repealed. They did not make any grant of freedom. They proclaimed what were taken to be self-evident freedoms which exist by right.
On 21st July, 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the Courts saying:
"There has, of course, been no amendment to the Bill of Rights ... the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
Lord Wilberforce speaking in the House of Lords in 1997 said:
"Perhaps I should remind noble Lords of what our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by common law are: the presumption of innocence; the right to a'fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given an effect contrary to intemational law ... ; freedom of expression; and freedom of association . . . firmly secured already by the common law of this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by new inter-state obligations."
EU regulations already exist which purport to overturn many of these common law rights, eg. two in the last 9 months reversing the principle of presumption of innocence, not to mention Corpus Juris. But are they lawful in the UK? Lord Wilberforce's remarks would suggest not!
As John Locke said: "A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals."
If the earlier treaties did not do so Nice certainly purports to abrogate these treaties and particularly the Bill of Rights - as such signing the Nice Treaty is unlawful and treasonable. "To destroy the constitution of the country is an act of treason"(R.V. Thistlewood, 1820)
Liberty under the law underpins the values of all the 'Anglo- Saxon' countries, ie. the English-speaking world of the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
It is therefore not surprising, given its anti-democratic, despotic roots, that the EU entertains a visceral anti Anglo-Americanism. As such it is a threat to our wealth, liberties and indeed peace. NATO, our guarantor of peace for more than 50 years will be destroyed. The desire of the EU elite is to create an EU super-power to rival and challenge the other super-power, the USA, around the world. This is the sole reason for the creation of the EU's so-called 'rapid reaction force' (according to Mr. Blair) or, more correctly (by Mr. Romano Prodi, EU President) its army (in reality its armed forces since it, of course, includes navy and air-force). Die Welt on 1st November, 2000, published plans for beefed up EU forces which could be deployed up to 2,500 miles from Brussels (well beyond Moscow, Cairo or Baghdad!)
William Hague says he wants to "draw a line in the sand". How on earth will a line in the sand stop the tide of EU integration? In real- ity we are increasingly ruled by the EU, without the British people ever having voted for the ceding of a single power or freedom. Covert and stealthy is the ever faster movement towards complete integration led by the despotic non-elected Commission, like an absolute monarch such as are plentiful in the history of European (continental) 'civilisation'.
If the British people are to return to a constitution of liberty under the law, they must leave the EU - there is no alternative!