Although recent events have given the anti EU movement reason for hope we must not forget that those behind the EU, if they cannot deceive the people into supporting the project, may descend to other, darker methods to enforce their will. The latest newsletter from the Anti Common Market league contains an excellent article by barrister Michael Shrimpton, a member of CIB's NEC, concerning Corpus Juris. He points out that, contrary to the claims of the Europhiles that this is merely a measure to combat fraud, these are the most extreme legislative proposals promulgated in Europe since the Nuremberg laws. The British people would see the right of trial by jury and habeas corpus abolished, to be replaced by an inquisitorial system based on the tyrannical Napoleonic Code.

At the heart of Corpus Juris is the provision for detention without trail, initially for up to six months, renewable for three months at a time, again and again, without limit. Rights of access for lawyers and family members are not guaranteed and suspects could well be held incommunicado. Warrants could be issued anywhere within the EU and forcible removal from one member state to another is permitted, no prohibition being made on the use of armed police. For the UK it would be the end of Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.

As Michael says this is where the EU ceases to be a vague threat of rule by distant bureaucrats and becomes the reality of the foreign policeman at the door, with an automatic weapon and the safety catch off. One can see the possibility that in future Michael, or Lord Stoddart of CIB, Michael Holmes of UKIP, Dr Alan Sked or even the humble author of these pages, could be accused of some new crime, such as failing to respect the authority of the European Commission, and be dragged from home to a cell in Brussels or Berlin, there to be denied any right of public hearing in open court and subject to the mercies of the police, whose record in Europe is not without blemish.

The fight against the euro, vital though it is, may soon become secondary to the need to defeat these iniquitous proposals. CIB is writing to all the newly elected MEPs from the UK asking for their assurance that they will resolutely oppose Corpus Juris and the results of this exercise will appear here soon.

Romano Prodi, the president-designate of the European Commission, suffered from an excess of honesty yesterday when he admitted that Italy may not be able to remain in the single currency due to the state of its economy. Although the spin doctors quickly forced a retraction the cat was already out of the bag and the inevitable failure of the euro became obvious to all those who are not blindly committed to the whole insane project.

It is worth noting that the ridiculous treaties solemnly signed by all members of euroland declare that membership of the single currency is irrevocable but of course the realities of the world ensure that these promises are worthless. In the same way, on that day when the UK comes to its senses and leaves the EU, all the protestations of the Europhiles that we cannot do so because of the treaties will be deservedly lost in the general rejoicing. Eventually the genuine interests of the individual nation states will tear the European Union apart, the coming collapse of the euro being the spur to the end of the nightmare.

The French Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn has admitted that the nation's debt has now risen to 62% of GDP, a clear breach of the criteria the euroland nations undertook to observe at Maastricht. This was an inevitable development given the fraudulent accounting which took place to allow the country to creep in under the 60% barrier in the first place.

It is unlikely that the markets will react as the French are merely joining Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain as nations with debt levels exceeding the Maastricht criteria. However the British electorate should note that once again the European Union advances by deceit, lies and a refusal to accept reality. The single currency is doomed as not even the most skilled 'spin doctors' can explain away indefinitely the fudges and fiddles in which the nations concerned are indulging and one day soon the hard nosed speculators will expose the euro for the fraud it is.

As one might expect the federalists within the Tory party are not about to accept that their policies have been rejected, both by the electorate, and by the bulk of the Conservative party (see article below). The man who has dedicated his life to making the UK a province of the European superstate, Sir Edward Heath, has called upon his allies to be 'remorseless' in their support for the euro, while Sir Leon Brittan, Vice President of the European Union, has shown just how much respect these supposedly non political functionaries have for democracy by interfering in UK domestic politics in a speech to the Carlton Club, urging the federalists to stay in the Conservative party and continue to push the agenda of Brussels. It is obvious that these extremist fanatics will never jump so it is time William Hague grasped the nettle and pushed them. The Conservative party can no longer harbour those who have not even the desire to conserve the existence of their own nation if it is to claim the right to stand up for Britain in Europe.

19/06/99

Pro EU commentators in the media, and those too lazy to contemplate questioning the received wisdom of their fellows, persist in warning about the dangers to the Conservative party of a 'split' generated by the departure of the Heathite federalists, such as Heseltine and Clarke. However in reality their remaining within the party is far more cause for concern, as their corporatist views and desire to see the UK as a province of a federal Europe, poison debate and undermine the efforts of those seeking to implement policies aimed at preserving the independence of the nation.

Their departure would not lead to a major break within the Conservative party, as those of us who are, or talk to, ordinary party members, know well, they constitute a very small minority, only given credence by the insistence of their media allies in referring to them as 'big beasts in the Tory jungle' or heavyweights. Their faction succeeded in gaining power within the Conservative party under Heath and have spent the last thirty years attempting to further their federalist agenda, while at the same time denying that they had any such ambitions.

The European elections have exposed just how little support they enjoy among the British people, the Pro European Conservative Party having been thoroughly crushed, while they speak for almost nobody in the real Conservative party. If William Hague wishes to win the next election he must cease trying to appease them and let them join their like minded federalists in the Liberal Democrats. The only reaction among 95 per cent of Conservative supporters will be a sense of profound relief and a feeling of 'Good riddance'.

Of course the politicians in the other main parties have, with a few honourable exceptions, shown themselves to be completely out of touch with their supporters on the European issue. The success of the UKIP in the South West, heartland of the Liberal Democrats, illustrates how much feeling there is against the European project among those who generally vote for the Lib Dems. Indeed, many voters interviewed on polling day, declared themselves to be both Liberal Democrats and opponents of the EU, apparently believing that these two positions were compatible.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned the elections have shown just how little support membership of the EU has among those who are not 'New' Labour control freaks. Mr Blair has received his first major rebuff and his recent performance in the House shows that he doesn't like it but won't accept the truth it is telling him.

Why is it that in a nation, whose people are clearly opposed to membership of a federal Europe, so many of the politicians have spent so many years trying to deceive the electorate into supporting such an outcome. The answer is simple: the only real beneficiaries would be the politicians themselves, who would enjoy a wider stage, more jobs and less accountability. It is nothing more than a vested interest, the selfish concern of a closed shop who are prepared to sacrifice our democracy and prosperity so that they might benefit. We are fortunate that there have always been those within the political system prepared to stand against them and that, at last, they are gaining the ascendancy in at least one of our major political parties.

This morning the Europhiles are desperately seeking to place any interpretation on the results of the European elections other than the true one. We hear that it was all the fault of the low turnout, or of the PR system (admittedly a democratic outrage), or of traditional Labour party's supporters unhappiness with the direction taken by 'New' Labour, while the ludicrous statement is made that the Conservative party may have benefited in the short term but at a cost of unleashing right wing opposition to the European Union. This latter argument is particularly pathetic as 'right wing' opponents of the EU include Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and large numbers of ordinary trade unionists!

Despite the fact that many of the most devout opponents of UK membership of the EU chose to boycott these elections William Hague is now basking in the success of his anti euro platform while the UKIP is celebrating a breakthrough by its winning of three seats in the European Parliament. The Pro European Conservative Party has sunk without trace, the federalist Liberal Democrats have failed to gain the support for which they were hoping and Mr Blair has received a sound rebuff, his prospects for winning any referendum on joining the euro receding to nothing.

What these results show is that the British people do not want the euro at any price, recognize the European Parliament for the charade it is and are looking in every increasing numbers for the door marked 'Exit from the European Union'. If the Conservative Party should now seize the moment, eject the Europhiles like Clarke and Heseltine, and hazard all on support for an independent UK, outside the EU, the Europhiliac parties will have to change their positions radically or face annihilation at future elections. The real, and only, message of these results is that the British have woken up to the truth about the EU and that an end to the nightmare of UK membership is now in sight.

Politicians and many in the media are blaming the pitifully low turn out in the European elections on either ignorance or apathy. While these reasons may explain a little the truth is that large numbers of voters deliberately stayed away from the polling booths in order to make clear their revulsion at the mockery membership of the European Union is making of our democracy. Not only are we asked to vote for politicians to take their place in an institution whose legitimacy we reject, we are also faced with a voting system which ensures that party apparatchiks decide who is to take seats, not the electorate.

The European Parliament is a pretence, the MEPs supposedly representing constituencies of a size beyond the capability of any person to serve, the powers it wields derisory, its history of looking the other way until forced to act shameful and its claim to offer a substitute for our own parliament laughable.

The British people have shown good sense in rejecting the pretence which masquerades as democracy in the EU and it is very much to be hoped that this is yet another nail in the coffin of UK membership of the whole rotten organisation

As the Euro sinks ever lower the economic illiterates of the European political elite are discovering, what those of us who live in the real world have always known, that merely willing an end is not enough to ensure that it will be achieved. The overspending of the Italians, the inflationary disaster which is set to rend the Irish and, above all, the continuing stagnation in Germany will inevitably turn the cracks in EMU into fissures which will be impossible to contain and will, sooner rather than later, tear the whole rotten edifice apart.

A period of silence would now be appropriate from those who have been advocating that the UK join the European lemmings in their rush over the monetary union cliff, preferably one lasting at least five years, by which time the whole project will have collapsed and the Franc, Mark, Lira et al will have risen from the graves to which they were unwisely consigned.

This debacle is not the result of war, or of some unlucky accident but of overweening arrogance and those whose hubris was so great in January now face a deserved nemesis.

The anti EU movement should give thanks for the stupidity of the Euromaniacs who forced the Euro through against all common-sense as the destruction of EMU will precipitate the end of the European Union itself and allow the UK to escape the clutches of Brussels. We may expect increasingly desperate efforts by the federalists to save EMU but fortunately, outside the pages of 1984, two and two do make four and the 'one size fits all' interest rates will, to use the Europhiles favourite word, be an inevitable failure, as we told them but they were too arrogant to believe.

The election broadcast by the Pro European Conservatives, shown this week, exposed the paucity of their arguments, their fear of answering the points point forward by the anti EU movement and the extent to which they rely on unsubstantiated assertions and childish abuse when confronted. They attempted to portray Eurorealists as latter day Alf Garnetts, motivated by an unreasoning right wing xenophobia and incapable of understanding the principles at stake.

These accusations can be seen for the rubbish they are when one considers that numbered among Eurorealistic ranks are life long Labour supporters such as Lord Stoddart and Lord Shore, pillars of the left such as Tony Benn and intellectuals such as Dr Alan Sked, a man who speaks four European languages and whose knowledge of the EU eclipses anything the pro European Conservatives possess.

No effort was made to respond to the objections that are made to the ludicrous 'one size fits all' Euro, beyond claiming that the UK must join, based, it appears, on nothing more than an act of faith, or a desire to join the rush of the lemmings over the cliff.

One should never forget that the motivation behind this party is self interest of the most narrow kind for, when the UK finally escapes from the grip of Brussels, all these MEPs will have to leave the gravy train and attempt to find a real job.

The leaflet just issued to every household in the UK by the government, as well as trying to justify the totally anti democratic system of voting now foisted upon the electorate, also contains a section headed What do MEPs do? which is worth quoting, for amusement if nothing else:

• 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

• MEPs also deal with the EU budget that supports many projects in the UK and they have an important role in overseeing how taxpayers' money is spent

It is hard to know where to begin when considering this mendacious document. The laws which are increasingly being inflicted upon this country by the EU are not the product of democratic debate within the European Parliament but are conceived and written by the unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission, that body so recently revealed to be riven with corruption and nepotism. The EU money which is so often lauded as being given to the UK for 'projects' is nothing more than a proportion of our own membership fees graciously returned to us to be spent on what the EU, not our Parliament decides is relevant. If you gave me fifty pounds and, after a while, I gave you back twenty, but on the understanding that it was to be spent on painting the lamppost outside your house, not on your property, would you think that a good deal? The so called 'important role in overseeing how taxpayers' money is spent' was not much in evidence through all the years when the EU's own Court of Auditors refused to agree the accounts and the European Commission went its merry, corrupt way.

It would be difficult to improve upon the critique of MEPS contained within the recent press release by CAEF, an associate organisation of CIB representing trade unionists:

By definition the European Parliament is an Assembly as originally named in the Rome Treaty. It is not a Parliament.

The European Parliament is an institution of the European Community/Union, which institution has no powers to raise taxes, to elect a Government of European Union, does not control any armed forces, does not control the mint, has only minor powers over legislation known as co-decision and cannot of itself initiate legislation.

The so called European Parliament has no powers to pull Britain out of the EU or prevent Britain entering the single currency. The real role of MEPs is to promote European Union for which they are well paid and have lavish unchecked expenses.

The Euro-poll taking place on 10 June in Britain has nothing to do with democracy precisely because MEPs have no powers to speak of and therefore cannot be considered to be delegates or representatives of their constituencies. Parliamentary democracy implies those elected hold some powers on behalf of the electorate. Only the Parliament at Westminster can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act to withdraw Britain from the European Community and legislate to join the single currency.

Sending MEPs to the so called European Parliament does not alter how the European Union is governed, except in very minor ways. Real power to legislate, decide common policies, directives and regulations is held by the Council of Ministers, the unelected, unaccountable European Commission and unelected, unaccountable Governors of the European Central Bank.

It is significant that what Euro-federalists and the European Parliament most fear is a low turnout in the 10 June Euro-poll, hence all the activity and media hype.

Turnouts for this poll continue to fall, (the last Euro-by-election in Britain had 11%), because voters know only misery and policies against their interests emanate from the EU and that their largely unknown MEPs have no powers to do anything.

It has been revealed that the Treasury is involved in secret talks which could give Brussels control over nearly 200 taxes. The Code of Conduct Working Group on 'harmful' tax competition has been discussing the creation of a 'level playing field' for taxation across Europe which will mean the scrapping of some tax reliefs that benefit Britain. The Treasury claims that this is not the same thing as tax harmonisation but this secret committee has already produced plans to do away with tax reliefs for British business, including Enterprise Zones, the film industry and shipbuilding. The government refuses to publish any details until the end of the year.

Once again we see the madness of being a member of an organisation which is continually adding to its power by undermining the rights of the individual nation states. The control of taxation was the means by which Parliament wrested power from the monarch and the control of the purse strings is the determining factor when considering who actually runs a country. If the EU is allowed to arrogate the raising of taxes to itself the parliament at Westminster will soon cease to have any relevance whatsoever.

Today the Sunday Times carried an article on the proposed introduction of Adult ID cards, giving as reasons the need to prevent fraud and to update the driving licence, but mentioning in passing the fact that this will bringing Britain into line with other EU countries. This is of course the real reason for the proposal, other justifications being but camouflage, as it will enable the Brussels bureaucracy to 'harmonise' the way the citizens of Europe are policed. Many foolish people support the idea, imagining that in some way they will not be involved but it will only impinge upon criminal elements within society. Apart from the obvious danger that stereotypes will again be used to determine who is to be stopped and asked for their ID, it is foolish to imagine that over zealous officials will not seize on the opportunity to harass the public in the name of efficiency. Once again the warnings about the threat that EU membership presents to our liberty are being publicly vindicated as, not only will such an action increase the power of bureaucrats over our lives, it will hasten the day when a British subject may be stopped in a British street by a Euro policeman with the demand 'Papers!'

This will very quickly provoke a backlash from the majority of the British people. Many will be too young to remember that wartime ID cards were only abolished in the early 1950s because of a revolt by Middle England, tired of being expected to produce identification when going about their lawful business. That we should not be able to walk down the street without carrying an ID card would be a sign that the liberties granted us by centuries of struggle are almost at an end. CIB would never advocate breaking the law but there are many of us who, as individuals, will refuse to comply. If this scheme is implemented and every free born British man and woman should defy the authorities then they would have to take action against millions or retreat.

23/05/99

This last few days have seen interesting developments concerning the issue of UK membership of the EU. The election results in Scotland and Wales have given the British their first taste of the effects of proportional representation and the anti democratic nature of such systems was summed up in an excellent letter to the Times from Bernard Connolly, one of the heroes of the anti EU movement. The following quotes give the flavour of the sentiments expressed and lay out clearly the dangers we face from the continuing move towards a federal Europe:

Coalition government means that policies in manifestos are no longer contingent commitments to the electorate but merely weapons to be used in horse-trading with other politicians.

As already happens throughout Europe, elections in Scotland will no longer allow the voters to determine what policies are pursued. Immediately accountability is destroyed.

Only the possibility of the swing of the pendulum, kicking out sitting governments, can preserve accountability and minimise corruption. At national level, first-past-the-post elections to a sovereign Parliament in a predominantly two-party system characterised Britain for generations and made its governments the most accountable and least corrupt in Europe.

Proposals for proportional representation in General Elections, closed party-list systems, a nominated House of Lords- all these point to the elimination of political accountability.

Enthusiasm, dishonestly hidden, for the political incorporation of Britain for the political incorporation of Britain into that supreme example of an anti-democratic system, the European Union, naturally rounds off the project.

When politics are destroyed, what forces will rush in to take their place?

Blair, whether he intends it or not, is playing a leading role in the achievement of the fascist dream of a single European space cleansed of "Anglo-Saxon" notions of fairness, accountability and liberty.

Bernard Connolly saw the operation of the European Union at close quarters and is eminently qualified to speak on the iniquities that exist there. The dangers he speaks of lie at the heart of the entire EU project as the political class see the opportunity to remove themselves from serious contact with the wishes of those they purport to represent and to form an immovable elite who will divide power between themselves, without the need to take account of their electorates. This is not a new phenomenon, as it has characterised the politics of nations such as France and Italy for generations and indeed offers a return to the days of dominance exercised by a single group, although this time by party hacks, not Dukes and barons. If the UK continues down the path of European integration the days when we could throw out an incompetent government will be gone and we shall only have the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. As Bernard points out, where shall the people turn if the democratic avenues have been blocked? This is the real peril, that the suppression of democratic accountability would lead to the rise of non democratic methods of forcing change on a society.

This week also saw speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition which were claimed to show a true difference in their policies on the EU. However a close examination showed that neither speech was quite what it seemed. Mr Blair indeed showed enthusiasm for the EU but, as is so often the way with Europhiles, he is in love with his vision of the experiment, not the reality. It is as if someone were to say that they really liked a particular car, provided of course that the colour was changed, the horsepower of the engine was doubled, the body shape was redesigned and the steering wheel moved to the other side. There is no point in Mr Blair extolling the virtues of an open, free trading association of nations when the reality, which will not change, is a sclerotic, protectionist federal superstate.

Mr Hague takes a different approach, pointing out many of the faults of the EU, declares himself opposed to any further integration, but then commits the Conservatives to a policy of Britain in Europe. This is like saying that one doesn't like the train one is on, would rather go in the opposite direction, has no wish to arrive at the ultimate destination but will nevertheless refuse to get off. The architects of the EU are not going to stop until they have achieved their dream, and the people's nightmare, of a fully federal United States of Europe. Mr Hague is living in wonderland if he thinks there is any realistic alternative to going along with this except to withdraw from the whole project and return to our true path.

We are therefore faced with our two senior party leaders refusing to accept the realities of the European Union and instead hiding behind fantasies with all the substance of fairy tales.

One piece of good news comes in today's Times which reports that the pro EU pressure group, Britain in Europe, has privately admitted that it is losing the argument. Their own polls show that the British people will "remain overwhelmingly opposed to the euro for the foreseeable future". This comes at the same time as another poll shows large scale opposition to EMU from within the Trade Union movement.

Of course, rather than accept that the British people are showing good sense in resisting the blandishments of the Europhiles the latter, as always, draw precisely the wrong conclusions: "Europe remains a source of confusion and scepticism for the general public still fed on a diet of media hostility and Little England paranoia." It would never occur to these people that the media are hostile because they can 'see a church by daylight' and know what a pup is being offered to the British. The 'Little England' epithet is the last resort of those losing an argument and resorting to insult, perhaps an indication of the level of their own intelligence!

Incidentally, those who question our legal right to leave the EU should reflect on the words of Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England when he said "An Act of Parliament is the exercise of the highest authority that this Kingdom acknowledges on Earth. It hath power to bind every subject in the land, and the dominions thereunto belonging: nay, even the King himself if particularly named therein. And it cannot be altered, amended, dispensed with, suspended or repealed, but in the same forms and by the same authority of parliament". In other words, what parliament did in to tie us to the EU can also be undone by parliament!

If only the electorate remain true to their instincts and beliefs on the EU we shall yet escape the destruction of all we have built over the centuries.

15/05/99

Members of the anti EU movement are well aware that the current furore concerning the much hyped crisis in the Conservative party is not one of personality, but of policy, and that to believe that it can be solved by changing the leader is as foolish as thinking that the Titanic could have been saved by rearranging the deckchairs on its deck.

Many years ago, when the Welsh and Scottish nationalists were first making an impact, Iain Macleod was reported as saying that he was unconcerned, as the Conservative party were the English nationalists and therefore could always rely on receiving massive support. However, in the decades that followed, the party leadership consistently placed the self interest of the political class ahead of the needs of the nation, being in the forefront of those signing away our rights and our accountable democracy to the bureaucratic monster being constructed across the Channel. Even now the fudging of the issue continues with the party leadership being unwilling to grasp the nettle and follow where so many of their erstwhile supporters have gone.

Unless William Hague now breaks with the Europhiles totally and places the Conservative party in the vanguard of those seeking disengagement with the EU there will be no meaningful distinction between the main parties on the paramount issue of the age and therefore no reason to replace the Labour government with a Conservative one. Perhaps when Mr Hague addresses the second Congress for Democracy on 9th July he will feel able to commit himself to a greater extent than hitherto. He should beware for, were Mr Blair, who is nothing if not astute, to recognize that the national destiny does indeed lie outside the EU he could ensure that the Conservative party remains in opposition until Mr Hague is a senior citizen.

Those who advocate replacing William Hague with Kenneth Clarke fail to recognize that, despite the latter's apparent down to earth appeal, his support for a federal Europe would alienate as many voters as his supposed heartiness would attract.They would anyway do well to look closely at his record in government, which is not one of unblemished success.

As a cross party organisation CIB is not committed to any particular political grouping, but it is obviously in the interests of the nation that those who believe that Westminster, rather than Brussels or Strasbourg should rule Britain, be in positions of power within their own party. It is to be hoped that all who oppose the EU will make it clear to their MPs that the issue of Europe is the defining criteria by which they will determine whether an individual is worthy of their vote.

Insomniacs who would enjoy hearing that most Europhilic of Europhiles, Edwina Currie, get the worst of an argument on Europe should turn to her program on Radio 5 live at 11.00 p.m. tomorrow (2/5/99) when one of the guests is that stalwart of the anti EU movement Dr Alan Sked. The fact that Dr Sked stood against Ms Currie at the last European Election, thus helping to prevent her achieving her desire of transferring from Westminster to Strasbourg, should help to give a certain edge to the program.

The latest edition of the satirical magazine Private Eye contains an article on Corpus Juris which is well worth quoting. Private Eye is a sturdy defender of the people's rights against the Establishment and prints articles which the mainstream media are too self obsessed to consider.

Although those involved in the fight against the EU know only too well what Corpus Juris involves the opening paragraphs of the article sum it up excellently:

"In their haste to appear open and democratic in the fight against the European Union's greed and corruption, British MEPs have voted for ... one of the most totalitarian legal schemes ever devised by Eurocrats.

The secret plan called Corpus Juris calls for the appointment of a European public prosecutor who can order judges in any EU country to arrest anyone without a public hearing and without evidence, and transport them to any other EU country for an indeterminate length of time. It was conjured up by the European commission's infamous DGXX without any public debate 18 months ago.

Although it would override British law, British judges and the universally acclaimed British democratic principles of trial by jury and habeas corpus, it was quietly introduced as a magic formula for defeating the EU fraud criminals - neatly forgetting that many of these were themselves Eurocrats."

Private Eye's investigation into the attitude of our so called democratic representatives reveals a sorry tale:

"Even though Britain's two main political parties have publicly stated that they would oppose the move, in an extraordinary volte-face nearly all Labour and Conservative MEPs supported it on 13 April. Only two Labour members, Alf Lomas and Alex Smith, and one Ulsterman, Jim Nicholson, voted against.

Why? Because, it seems, our MEPs really are as embarrassingly pisspoor and badly organised as everyone makes out and simply don't read the documents they vote on.

A spokesman from Conservative Central Office confirmed that he had been told by that, as a result of, er, 'a mistake', the Conservative MEP group all voted 'for' when they meant to vote 'against'. Sneaky Eurocrats had apparently concealed Corpus Juris in a short list of other measures which confused our MEPs completely. William Hague is to make a statement.

At Millbank, meanwhile, a Labour spokesman said he had no information about matters European but he knew a man who did. This was the party's 'international' expert. 'You have caught me cold', he said. 'I know nothing about a vote in the European Parliament and how our group might have voted'. He did not know what Corpus Juris was nor what party policy on it might be."

Private Eye also revealed the confusion which reigns at the highest level within the main parties

"The British home office minister who is responsible for EU judicial affairs, wrote to a Tory MP on 11 November promising that the government would vote against Corpus Juris, claiming the project threatened national sovereignty and human rights, and was reported in Hansard, the Daily Mail and the Sun. A Conservative home affairs spokesman and the Conservative party leader correspondence secretary also declared that party policy was opposed to Corpus Juris.

Shame no one told our cosseted MEPs."

That the basic liberties of the British people should be sacrificed so lightly by a group of ignorant, so-called politicians, is an offence which is rank and smells to heaven. These parasites in the European Parliament, with a few honourable exceptions, are so careless of their constituent's interests that they can vote for an end to habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury without even realising what they have done. This alone should be enough to convince everyone who believes in democracy and freedom that it is time the UK withdrew from the EU. Perhaps the MEPs could then find themselves a real job, although, given their obvious incompetence, it is doubtful anyone would hire them.

A report from Reuters (Brussels, April 28), illustrates how the Eurocrats wish to damage the standing of London as a major art market:

The European Commission on Wednesday proposed ending a tax break on art imports into Britain as planned, saying it had found no evidence that taxes significantly harmed Europe's art markets.

Britain applies a value-added tax (VAT) rate of 2.5 percent to imports of art works created before April 1, 1973 -- lower than the five percent minimum required by European Union tax rules.

But an exemption that allows it to apply the lower rate will expire on June 30 and may be renewed only by unanimous agreement of the 15 EU governments.

Britain has vigorously defended the lower rate, arguing that the giant London art market would lose sales abroad -especially to New York -- if import taxes were doubled.

But the Commission said it had found in a study that the EU's VAT regime for art works, adopted in 1994, had not hindered growth of the bloc's art market.

It said the market showed continued growth, with sales in Britain growing faster than the world-wide average even after it raised the import tax from zero to 2.5 percent tax in 1995.

"The Commission has found no evidence to suggest that application of VAT has an impact on the competitiveness of the EU vis-a-vis the markets of countries outside the EU," the EU executive said in a statement.

A British spokeswoman contested the Commission's figures, saying it had ignored findings in a consultancy's report showing that Britain had moved from being a net importer of paintings to a net exporter between 1994 and 1997.

The figures also showed that the EU art market grew less than the global market, and much less than the U.S. market, between 1993-94 and 1996-97 -- 21 percent, compared with 36.5 percent and 44 percent respectively, she said.

She said Britain would try to persuaded its EU partners to allow all EU governments to apply a lower VAT rate to art imports.

Britain applies a much higher 17.5 percent VAT rate to works of art sold for the first time by the artists themselves and to imports of art works created after April 1, 1973, although it could apply lower rates to those items, the Commission said.

A Commission official said the 2.5 percent rate mainly benefited the big auction houses Christies and Sotheby's

Once again we see deliberate efforts by the Eurocrats to destroy the competitiveness of a British industry

The latest edition of Flora Jenner's excellent newsletter is now available, main points being:

• September 23. Charles Moore, Editor Daily Telegraph to be guest speaker at Max Gate - 7.30 p.m. Number limited

• May 9. London March. For SE area ring 01424 812673

• July 15/16/17. Kent Show at Detling. Democracy Movement stand needs volunteers. Ring 01622 756884

• Various dates. Demonstrations in Devon against Nick Harvey's volte face. Ring 01598 740 446

• September 14. Labour Euro Safeguards TUC fringe meeting. Old Ship Hotel Brighton. 1.00 p.m.

• September 26. Labour Conference fringe meeting. Bournemouth International Hotel. Peter Shore. Ring 0171 388 2250 or 01692 402339

• John Walker of FSB to speak in Tunbridge Wells. Ring 01622 687377

• April 30. Dr Helen Szamuely to speak to Chichester High School for Girls

A briefing document from the Democracy Movement entitled "The European Union's Child Propaganda Campaign" is now available from 192 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, SW1V 1DX. This contains details of the shameful campaign being conducted by Europhiles to convince young people that UK membership of the EU is inevitable, desirable and laudable.

The head of the European Commission (remember, the body that just resigned due to institutional corruption, nepotism etc.), in the UK, Geoffrey Martin had these kind words to say about the Campaign for an Independent Britain:

The CIB are a spent force, a waste of people's time. These minority elements are intent upon misleading the public. Their statements and beliefs are based on false premises. It is worrying to see how many people are being taken in by the deliberately misleading propaganda which these bodies are peddling round the country.

Apart from the bare faced effrontery for a minion of the EU to talk about 'misleading propaganda' one suspects that the old adage 'truth hurts' is at work here for the EU cannot stand light being shone into its dark corners. They would prefer that their propaganda was swallowed whole and clearly resent the possibility that free speech means their opponents can counter it at every turn.

In Gwent, where distraught farmers demonstrated against EU regulations the police have asked, on Government orders, for intelligence from any source, including overheard conversations from farmers. This is all part of the move towards criminalising criticism of the EU by redefining legitimate opposition as 'xenophobic'. If this continues we shall yet see the holding of a contrary opinion to the Europhiles as 'thoughtcrime'!

Romano Prodi has outlined his ideas for Europe in a book published last week and they confirm Eurorealists worse fears as to his federalist ambitions.

His proposals include:

• the scrapping of national passports and their replacement by a single European passport

• all babies born in the EU from next year should become European citizens as well as citizens of their country of birth

• the abolition of all border controls within the EU

• an elected president of the commission, through a vote in the European Parliament

• harmonised education policies to form 'a new European ruling class'

• history lessons to be slanted in the direction of Europe and European institutions

At least no one can claim that Mr Prodi is not clear as to his federalist aims and John Redwood expressed the horror of Eurorealists when he said "He wants to control our minds as well as our money". These bald statements of support for a federal state give the lie to all the honeyed words from British Europhiles that no such project is planned and should be a warning that the project is still on track

Mr Prodi also intends to stand for the European Parliament. In British terms this is like the Cabinet Secretary, a civil servant, also being in the House of Commons, a ridiculous idea, but obviously acceptable in the Alice in Wonderland world of the European Union

There was a smaller attendance than usual at the AGM this year, partly due to the reluctance of many members to endure yet another debate on constitutional matters, particularly after the considerable airing the subject received last year. However the various officer's reports were well received and there was a question and answer session which allowed numerous members to take part in debate.

The number of candidates for the committee exactly equalled the number of vacant posts so all were deemed re-elected

There were a number of resolutions dealt with as follows:

1. A proposal for the complete replacement of the current CIB constitution by one drawn up by Mr William Scott

   Many speakers expressed their annoyance that what they considered an unnecessary distraction was being foisted on the AGM at a time when there was so much to be discussed concerning the developments in the EU. The committee made clear their opposition to the resolution and their spokesman made a detailed analysis of the proposals, pointing out where significant contradictions or omissions gave rise to major flaws. The depth of opposition was made clear and, when the final vote was taken, only one member voted with the proposer and seconder, eighty voting against. It is to be hoped that this decisive confirmation of the current constitution will be accepted by all and that the next AGM will be able to concentrate on the actual business of defeating the federalists.

2. Two further resolutions relating to the constitution, the first proposing that the committee should include one member resident in each of the four home nations, the second that every branch should be able to appoint a committee member were both heavily defeated.

3. A resolution asking that CIB actively resist the use of EU propaganda in schools and produce material to be used by schools to put the Eurorealist point of view was passed without opposition

4. The next resolution asked that the AGM in 2000 be held in Birmingham. After some debate this was agreed to.

5. The Chairman felt that a resolution asking CIB to endorse the UK Independence Party was out of order as it ran counter to CIB's position as a cross party organisation. However, in the interests of openness and democracy, he left the decision as to whether or not the resolution should be considered to the AGM. The members decided that the resolution should not be accepted.

6. The final resolution asked CIB to campaign against the involvement by Britain in the European Common Foreign and Security Policy and in a European Army. After a short debate this resolution was carried without opposition.

• 14 May 1999. Southwest Regional Assembly Chamber meeting at Devon County Council's County Hall office in Exeter convened to start at 14.00. The Assembly is directly accountable to the EU in Brussels. Similar Regional Assembly Chambers will be held in all other regions in England. Protesters are urged to picket these meetings in view of the lack of democracy that attended their formation.

• 23 April - St. George's Day. Protest at South Molton, North Devon, against the remorseless transfer of powers to Brussels and the supine attitude of our three main political parties. This protest follows on a successful protest at the same location on 27 March when 500 people turned up in South Molton town square to demonstrate against LibDem MP, Nick Harvey, abandoning his general election pledge to roll back euro federalism and resist the single currency.

The European Parliament is paying more than two and a half million pounds a month in rent for a new HQ in Strasbourg which will not be ready for use before July. This new building, costing over £350 million, will be in addition to the £700 million complex in Brussels, and will be used for a maximum of 60 days each year. The leader of the British Conservative group has described it as "hideous, dysfunctional and completely indefensible".

The European Parliament spends over £80 million each year moving between Strasbourg and Brussels, as a result of demands from France that at least 12 sessions a year must be held in the French city. If the EU were the 'union' it claims to be it would not be necessary to satisfy the pride of individual states in this way but of course the reality is that it is actually a means of France in particular to benefit at the expense of other nations. A British Labour MEP and member of the budgetary control committee describes the situation as "crazy and a waste of money and time".

Perhaps those who worship at the altar of the European Union might pause to consider how many kidney machines or hospital beds could be supplied if the money were not being wasted on this farce.

Bernard Connolly, author of The Rotten Heart of Europe last night addressed the city branch of CIB concerning his views as to likely developments within the EU over the next few years. The speech was wide ranging and erudite and only a few of the points made are detailed below. I must apologise if, in the course of scribbling notes, I have misinterpreted anything he said.

• While the UK and Eire have made sufficient provisions to fund their pension liabilities, the other members of the EU have not. When this particular chicken comes home to roost these latter nations will face a crisis and he thinks it probable that the EU would declare that, in order to maintain the famous level playing field, the countries affected would be declared a demographically disadvantaged region, requiring a transfer of funds from those not involved (i.e. the UK and Eire). This would result in an asymmetric shock to our economy, leading to us suffering a massive macro economic disequilibrium, as the sums involved are vast, the British liability being only 40% of GDP, while that of France and the others are of the order of 220% of GDP. The cost to the British taxpayer of servicing this fund would amount to an extra £55 billion per annum in perpetuity.

• Mr Connolly turned to the consequences of the inevitable economic disasters which will be suffered by those countries whose required interest and exchange rates do not coincide with those of the core countries of France and Germany. At the time the UK was in a similar position, during the ill fated ERM experiment, we were being prevented from implementing a timely tightening of fiscal policy by the demands of adhering to the fixed exchange rates which were the essence of the ERM system. However we were saved by the actions of the speculators who forced the government to put in place a more rational macro economic policy. In the case of the single currency there is no exit through which speculators could force a nation and the very real danger of governmental default arises. In order to prevent what would be a political disaster for the EU the governments of France and Germany would then force the European Central Bank to bail out the supplicant nation, but at a cost of a new treaty, which all members would be required to sign, placing the EU in control of the individual nation's economies. At this point, if the UK had not already signed up to EMU, we would be presented with a choice - sign up to everything or leave the EU. Although this is a course devotedly to be wished the British people must be warned of this possibility by the Eurorealist movement and not faced with an unexpected demand to which they might feel obliged to accede.

• Mr Connolly was asked if could explain the motivations of those who seek to advance the cause of federalism. He said that the bureaucrats were largely governed by the herd instinct, in that they could not see a committee without wishing to be on it or a club without wishing to join it. The politician's motives were mixed: a few idealists; many pursuing self interest, but most having the arrogant belief that they knew best and never mind what the electorates of Europe thought. However the UK should take warning from the fact that there were a significant number who felt an envy and resentment of the success of the City of London and who sought to pursue policies which would undermine it. If they were to succeed in persuading the UK to sign up to EMU then they would in very short order destroy the City's competitive position and create a disaster for the UK economy.

Mr Connolly has kindly agreed to speak to another CIB meeting in June and it is to be hoped that many members are able to attend

One of the tragedies of the EU debate is that so many young people's idealism is being perverted by those whose motives are not what they appear. The image those who are at the centre like to present resembles the old posters of the totalitarian regimes of the thirties - smiling workers working for the common good and a bright future. The reality is of self interested bureaucrats and politicians conspiring together to create a federal monster which will allow the political class to escape from accountability to their electorate, while at the same time undermining the economic prosperity of the whole of Europe. We are fortunate that there are a few heroic souls such as Mr Connolly to shine a light into the dark recesses of the EU and to reveal the truth. We must hope that eventually the light dawns on enough people to ensure that the need for withdrawal by the UK becomes the accepted wisdom.

Events in the Balkans this week have distracted attention away from Berlin where the EU leaders have been giving their imprimatur to another collection of fudges. The French have succeeded in preventing any realistic reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, thus ensuring that their allotment holders will continue to be subsidised by taxpayers in the rest of Europe. One wonders if the Germans realise the extent to which they are being taken for a ride by France, given that Germany continues to provide funds for the stronger French economy, while the exchange rates locked into the euro are giving France a permanent competitive advantage over them. Of course it is not Britain's responsibility to safeguard Germany's interests but we should take warning from the way the EU is operating to the detriment of such a major country - perhaps the reason the Germans want the UK to sign up for EMU is the fact that misery loves company! The way things are going it is not an overpowerful Germany we need fear but a complete French stitch-up of the EU.

The hurried manner in which Romano Prodi was installed as Jacques Santer's successor brings to mind the old saying "marry in haste, repent at leisure" as he has lost no time in making clear his desire to push a federal agenda, the like of which Santer would be proud. He has scorned the three year delay before euroland adopts euro notes and coins, spoken of co-ordinating taxes at EU level and proposed a fully integrated west European army. These federalist ideas have been welcomed by a Downing Street spokesman who said "Integration is part of our mantra. The Prime Minister is integrating now".

Prodi was once head of the huge Italian state conglomerate IRI and one of its current directors said last week "He ruined IRI, then he went on to ruin Italy. Now he will ruin Europe". It is to be hoped that he succeeds in doing the latter before the UK is mad enough to sign up to EMU!

As usual this appointment has not been made for positive reasons but because the self-interest of individual nations has dictated it, from the desire of Italy's government to have him out of their hair, through the German's naive belief that his tax proposals will lessen the amount they contribute to the EU to the French wish to exclude the Spanish candidate whom they regard as too pro American. Of course we in the anti EU movement are not against nations acting in the interests of their own people but it is a measure of the failure of the pan European ideal pushed by the federalist dreamers that, when push comes to shove, they forget all their so called desires for 'ever closer union' in order to advocate their own country's interests. This is only natural but makes a joke of the pretence that their's is some high minded mission which we are too reactionary to comprehend.

The fact that Prodi is merely another Santer illustrates that the problems of the EU are not due to individuals but are rather endemic within the organisation and an unalterable part of its nature. There is no solution but to abandon the whole project as a failure and to turn to policies which will secure the future of an independent and democratic Britain.

Recent pronouncements from the Western European Union and from the German Presidency make clear that the architects of the EU are aiming at establishing pan European armed forces which will act in the interests of the political elite of the EU, not those of the individual nations involved, leading to British servicemen dying in wars which are none of Britain's business. When this is coupled with the plans for a single immigration and asylum policy across the European Union, contained in the Schengen Agreements, which are aimed at the Third World, we are seeing the creation of a corporate dictatorship with racist overtones. Amnesty International and the UN High Commission for Refugees have condemned the protocols of Schengen for seeking to erect 'Iron Curtains' against the people of the east and of Africa, while at the same time undermining national self determination within the EU. Surely the UK should want no part of this plot, which includes the introduction of an unaccountable EU police force, and should be instead be disengaging from the whole rotten structure.

Despite the best efforts of the Europhiles to portray the resignation of the European Commission as a victory for the European project the reality is that they have suffered, to use Churchill's words about Munich "A total, unmitigated defeat". The people of Europe have seen that all the warnings given by the anti EU movement about the incompetence, unaccountability and corruption of the Commission have been nothing more than the truth, Indeed we were too kind, not realising that they would be so out of control they even their fellow travellers in the European Parliament would be forced into taking some action.

The anger engendered by the revelations about the Commission have been compounded by the attitude of those culpable, from the patronising smugness of Jacques Santer through the barefaced arrogance of Edith Cresson to the smirking self satisfaction of Leon Britten who, though not personally accused, seeks to provide Panglossian reassurances that 'all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds'. The truth is that as always power corrupts and the second rate political failures who have been running the Commission have been corrupted by the possession of power without any need to be accountable to those to whom they dictate.

The hysterical reaction of the Europhiles to light being cast on the dark recesses of the EU is illustrated, as so often before, by the leader column of the London Evening Standard, which states that "The Europhobes do not start from the premise of Britain's national interest, as they so often claim, but from a position of chauvinism and insularity, a very different thing". This ridiculous assertion is a blatant attempt to attribute false motives to the anti EU movement while at the same time distracting attention from the fact that the whole European project is rapidly coming off the rails. The problem does not lie with a particular set of individuals but in the anti democratic and unaccountable nature of an organisation which is designed to consolidate the power of the political elite at the expense of the ordinary people. There is no possibility of reform changing this reality and the only way to escape from this quagmire of corruption and incompetence is for the UK to withdraw from the EU altogether.

22/03/99

This week saw Gordon Brown's budget, which was noted for its lack of surprises. The reason for this is not that Mr Brown is a calm and confident manager of the economy but rather the fact that everything must be seen in the context of the desire of the British political elite to force the UK into the federal European superstate.

Last year Charlie McCreevy, the Irish Finance Minister said "In the old budget model, the Minister for Finance could choose to be Santa Claus or Judge Dredd. He could give a present to everyone in the audience, or he could punish the spenders and give lectures on how everybody had to get a grip.

There was high excitement value in the old model. High anticipation: people queuing the day before a Budget to fill their petrol tanks or stock up their drinks cabinets. The old model might have made some sense for a small nation and a small economy.

The new model makes sense for a member state within the EU, and part of a vast and open economy. Because we are a member state, because we are part of a vast open economy, because we are committed to the parameters that will take us into the single currency, the surprise element is more or less gone from the Budget."

These statements come from a member of a political class which has chosen to sign away their country's independence by joining euroland. The relevance to the UK should not be missed as Gordon Brown is behaving as if the UK were already part of that disaster zone and the unmistakable hand of the EU lies hidden in his Budget. The broadly revenue neutral changes are made within the confines of the 5 year budget already agreed and approved by the Council of Ministers to comply with the Maastricht criteria. Tax harmonisation by stealth continues with the ineluctable progress of stamp duty on houses moving towards the 5% minimum required by the EU. The energy tax simply moves Britain into early compliance with the forthcoming Directive, rather than being a product of Brown's radicalism. The "new competition policy" replacing the pragmatic policy of old with a new inquisitorial system as required by forthcoming Directives. Making new criminal offences for competition crimes will bring exactly the type of catastrophes witnessed daily in abattoirs and the food hygiene business when little Hitlers, flush with their new powers, reek havoc. For a nation such as the UK, which led the world in social democracy at the time of Beveridge, to be reduced, as a direct consequence of its political establishment's lust for a wider stage on which to disport themselves, to playing with pennies rather than pounds is a disgrace.

The political demise of Oskar Lafontaine is not a matter for satisfaction among those opposed to UK involvement in the European project. Unlike most European politicians he was a man who spoke the truth that dared not say its name, that the ultimate aim of the EU is the creation of a fully federal United States of Europe in which ancient nation states such as France and Britain will become mere provinces. His successor may be more diplomatic than Oskar but he shares the ambition for a federal European state and will merely continue to pursue the same policies but, in common with his colleagues in Europe and Britain, by stealth. The despicable plan, as laid down by Jean Monnet, that the peoples of Europe are to be deceived into supporting policies which will end their nations independence and their right to hold their masters accountable, will continue but we will no longer have Oskar to shine a light into the dark corners and illuminate the undemocratic monsters lurking there. Better an honest opponent than cunning and unscrupulous enemies who lack the courage of their own so called beliefs and who have such contempt for their own electorates that they conspire with their fellow politicians across Europe to end democratic freedom in the continent.

We are now to be subjected to the propaganda of a new business group called 'Britain in Europe' which will seek to convince the British people that they should reject their own instincts and vote for involvement in the single currency. These people will attempt to proclaim themselves the voice of business, despite the fact that grouping such as 'Global Britain' and 'Business for Sterling' prove that they are nothing of the sort. What they are likely to prove is that it is only the big, multinational companies, who loathe the need to deal with democratically accountable governments, who want all power to be transferred to Brussels and that most small and medium sized businesses want none of it, although there will always be those akin to Lenin's 'useful idiots' who can be relied upon to act as fellow travellers.

It is in any case a very doubtful proposition that a basically political decision should be subject to the opinion of business. However well meaning individual businessmen may be the bottom line is always profit, and a decision touching upon the fundamental freedoms of the nation should be free of base considerations. We should never forget how often business opinions and actions, both in the UK and abroad, has been in conflict with democratic values. The companies who, before World War II, supported appeasement so that they might deal with Italy's fascists and Germany's Nazis, the German companies like Krupp which co-operated with the authorities of the Third Reich, those businesses which always wanted to deal with the apartheid government of South Africa and those which seek every opportunity to sell to those like Saddam Hussein illustrate that business does not place democratic freedoms high on its agenda. Of course individuals, of whatever profession, have a right to be heard, but the decision to end a thousand years of British independence should not rest with the size of the profit margins of international corporations.

14/03/99

The last week has seen a number of developing stories connected to the EU: the danger of a transatlantic trade war generated by European intransigence; the realisation that the economies of those countries within euroland are already beginning to diverge; the success of the French in resisting CAP reform; the continuing slide in the German economy; the advent of the anti EMU, pro EU group and the ongoing saga of euroland politicians attacking the British rebate

However, to start with the good news, Peter (Lord) Shore is to be one of the speakers at the public meeting organised by CIB for the afternoon of the 10th April, in Central Hall, Westminster. This is an opportunity to hear a politician who has dedicated his life to politics because of heartfelt conviction and not, as is so often the case these days, in order to follow a lucrative career. He has been a consistent and principled opponent of UK involvement in the European project since the idea was first mooted and has been in the forefront of those advocating withdrawal. He is a marvellous speaker whose devastatingly logical arguments are delivered with overwhelming sincerity and passion and anyone who wishes to hear the unanswerable case for British withdrawal should be there.

The trade war threatening the world this week is the result of prevarication by the European Commission which, despite losing in front of three international trade disputes panels, continues to ignore the judgements given against it and thus gives the US no option but to take measures against EU exports. It is unfortunate that the UK should be penalised by this action but it is inevitable that we shall suffer if we allow the EU to determine our trade policy. Not only is this affair a grave danger to trade liberalisation world-wide but it portends future dire events, for the EU is poisoned by French loathing for the 'Anglo-Saxons' and there are many in euroland who talk of 'staring the dollar in the face', revealing their ambitions to use the EU as a power bloc in opposition to the USA. The UK would be mad to take part in such a scheme as it would be entirely negative and a danger to world stability.

As warned by Eurorealists the fudging of the Maastricht criteria for economic convergence is now being exposed by the developing fault lines within euroland. Growth is strong in Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland, continuing in France but slowing in Italy and especially Germany. The latter, far from being the sheet anchor of euroland is now rapidly assuming the identity of the sick man of Europe, an epithet so often thrown at Britain in the past. Oskar Lafontaine continues his attempts to bully the European Central Bank to set its interest rates in Germany's interests but is consistently rebuffed for, as all but the economic illiterates of the political elite knew, one rate will not fit all, and German interests are now out of line with those of the rest of euroland. It would be pleasant to savour the justice of politicians being hoist by their own petard were it not so potentially serious for future world stability. These problems are the writing on the wall for the whole European project and, when it dissolves in acrimony, who knows what lasting damage may have been done to international relations and to the economic well-being of millions of people. The hubris of the architects of the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam may yet result in the nemesis of a continent in disarray. Mr Blair is reported to be extolling the virtues of reform to his fellow European leaders but it is all falling on deaf ears, dear old Oskar rejecting the appeals outright.

This refusal to face reality is further evidenced by the French success in forcing Germany to bow to a demand that the plan for 'co-financing' of the CAP be dropped. This may have allowed the politicians to pretend that the alliance between Bonn and Paris is still strong but offers no solution to the problem of what to do about a budget of which over half is committed to CAP and which cannot be sustained if Poland and other agricultural nations of Eastern Europe join the EU. We have the ridiculous situation that France, with the fourth largest economy in the world, is still a beneficiary of EU funds thanks to the CAP while Germany, a nation on the slide, is paying more than any other into the project. It seems unlikely that the desire of Germany to be contained within a larger entity, for fear of what she may do if left to herself, will survive if she sees herself as the victim of a never ending confidence trick. The French economy is registering a robust annual growth rate of 2.8 per cent, the French consumers continue to spend and Gallic business continues to invest, while the German GDP contracted by 0.4 per cent in the final quarter of last year and the spectre haunting Europe is not now that of Communism but of German deflation and recession.

The parlous state of the German economy is emphasised by the decisions now being taken by business in relation to investment within that country. RWE the German energy and industrial group is casting doubts on further investment in the Ruhr while Allianz, the country's largest insurance company is considering shifting operations to London or Zurich. It seems that being inside euroland is not an advantage as far as these companies are concerned. British Europhiles please take note!

The French are proposing a scheme which will involve the exclusion of enlargement costs from rebate arrangements, thereby benefiting France and Germany but costing Britain an extra £1 billion a year extra, or nearly £50 for every family. This would allow Tony Blair to claim that he had not retreated from Mrs Thatcher's victory over the British rebate but at the same time to increase the size of our membership fees to his favourite club, the EU. Watch this space to see whether he falls for it.

The media have given considerable coverage to the advent of the 'New Europe' group which proclaims itself to be anti EMU but pro EU. For those of us who have been in the fight for many years there are mixed feelings over the matter. Many of the arguments appearing in columns written by members of the new group could have been lifted straight from these webpages and other publications of the anti EU movement and naturally we welcome additional publicity for the truth. However the tone of the reporting has been that the new group is composed of 'serious' people, unlike the 'headbangers' of the Eurosceptic camp and our friendly overtures to them have gone unanswered. This media perception is not only an insult to all those thoughtful and serious people who were opposing UK involvement with the European project when many of the new group were actively working for UK membership, but also ignores the fact that, while our position is, and has always been, totally consistent, that of the New Europe is based on a fallacy. Every prophesy made by Eurorealists at the time when Britain was first involved in moves to join the EEC has come true, or is in the process of doing so and the warnings of Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, David Stoddart, Peter Shore and others at the time of the 1975 referendum have been shown to be prescient.

In discussing the EU with those who declare themselves to be in favour of it one usually finds that they will say 'I accept there is much wrong with it at present but think how wonderful it would be if ..' and then go on to present their own version of the organisation which, not surprisingly, they like, but which bears no resemblance to the real EU. This is like saying 'Buy that car. I know it lacks a lot at present but think how good it will be with a new engine, four new wheels and a complete restructuring of the bodywork'. In fact the EU is what its architects intended, and the continental politicians want, a federal state in the making, and no amount of wishful thinking by those who believe they can cherry pick features will change that. The main trouble is that support for the EU has for long been fashionable among intellectuals. Of course being intellectual is not the same thing as being intelligent and, as Clement Attlee, one of the most astute and efficient political leaders we have ever had, said 'Never listen to intellectuals. They are always wrong'. Attlee's position on the European project was illustrated in 1950 when, in response to Ted Heath's maiden speech urging a positive approach to the Coal and Steel Community, Attlee stated "We are not prepared to accept the principle that the most vital economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and responsible to nobody". In the nearly fifty years that have elapsed since neither Heath's obsession with submerging the UK into a European superstate nor the truth of Attlee's words have changed, despite the numerous changes of name the EU has enjoyed.

It is a shame that those who now realise that they have been pursuing a chimera cannot just swallow their pride and come over to the anti EU camp entirely, rather than pretending that there is some 'third way' between being an independent nation and a province of the United States of Europe. In the end they will have to choose.

Finally, now that euroland has a currency to "challenge the dollar", French President Jacques Chirac is in Washington to press the Federal Reserve to 'come to terms' with the new currency in the form of a euro/dollar price stability pact. Regrettably for Chirac, the Fed appears slow to recognise the international magnetism of the new currency (which has declined 5% against the dollar since its launch); nor is it keen on the common exchange rate stabilisation policy being proposed from Europe. US Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin says: "If our currency is weak when our economy is weak then we would be required to raise interest rates. That seems to us counter-productive." A spokesman for sterling (which, along with Britain's economic cycle, moves with the dollar rather than the euro) couldn't have expressed it better. 80% of the world's financial transactions and 60 per cent of its trade are done in US dollars, Britain's dollar-denominated trade and investment is far higher than the euro-related trade and investment and British interest rates and exchange rates move in step with the US, not euroland. To force the British economy into the Euro straitjacket would be akin to crashing the gears of a fast-moving car into reverse, as the Irish are now finding out.

06/03/99

A recent report has revealed the extent to which the members of the European Parliament feel it necessary to disclose their outside interests. When one reads of a register of interests one imagines an easily understood document, open to all in the name of democracy. However the reality is a handwritten collection of papers, only available at a few specific locations and which it is forbidden to photocopy. This travesty is rendered even more laughable by the fact that about 20% of MEPs have not yet bothered to complete their details, despite the fact that it is a statutory obligation. When questioned the overwhelming arrogance of these people comes through, as we are told that we should not question their trustworthiness and accept that they are always guided by the purest of motives when voting in debates.

It is fortunate that, so far at least, the European Parliament is little more than a talking shop, and a figleaf to cover the EU's democratic deficit, but the cavalier attitude many MEPs take to legalities should be a warning to us. If, as the Europhiles desire, the European Parliament gains greater power, we shall see even more arrogance and disregard for accountability from MEPs. If we stay within the EU the choice will be between a European Commission riven with corruption and nepotism and a European Parliament consisting of those who consider themselves above the law. Obviously the sensible, and only democratic option, is to head for the exit and leave the whole sorry mess behind.

01/03/99

This is the week when Tony Blair finally tied his colours to the mast and laid out the government's plans for taking the UK into the single currency. In the eyes of some deluded, Europhile, commentators, Mr Blair's imprimatur is sufficient to make our joining inevitable, stating, as Peter Riddell did in the Times that it was now not if, but when. Of course this is a ridiculous position to take for, although Mr Blair may be many things, a good family man, a religious man, a skilled and successful politician, he is not some kind of Messiah, whose word is enough to make something so. When the referendum comes the vote of every individual in this country will be equal to every other and if Mr Blair has only the backing of those who stand to gain by Britain signing away her independence then he will lose by a vast margin. The Prime Minister may be a competent lawyer and expert at the art of public relations but his grasp of financial reality seems shaky and his view of the EU is at best naive, although he is not alone in that.

The essential issue at stake was underlined by Tony Benn when he said in the Commons "Will you make clear that, when the information published by the Government goes out, every elector is told that, if Britain is a member of the single currency, they will lose the right to elect or to remove on polling day those who make the economic decisions that affect our lives". Answer came there none!

In the same week as the Government pledged to spend enormous amounts of our money on a project which has every chance of failing the reality of the continuing farce was thrown into sharp relief by the activities at the summit held at Petersberg, near Bonn, to discuss the EU budget. There the Germans berated the French for their refusal to limit the excesses of the CAP while the French hit back with the worst insult they could think of 'You're just like Margaret Thatcher!'. The smaller nations all squealed that the EU paymasters must continue to fund them and the only thing they could all agree to was that poor old Britain's rebate must be ended. It is of no surprise, and indeed laudable, that national politicians should express concern for the interests of their own nations, but it reveals the belief that they are building a state based on the good of all for the laughable deceit it is. The whole charade was accompanied by the now traditional riot by farmers who are determined that the taxpayer should continue to subsidise French allotment holders, and other uneconomic producers, ignoring the fact that the accession of Poland on the same basis would ensure the total collapse of the EU finances.

Apart from the performance in Petersberg this week saw the confirmation that the EU Internal Market Council is determined to implement the droit de suite, an action which will damage London's international art market, while having minimal effect on the other EU nations which have only small and domestic markets. If there was a global agreement on this, via amendments to the Berne Convention, then London would not suffer but, as things stand, the EU will destroy British jobs and incomes to benefit only New York or Geneva. The British Government can block the move by use of the 'Luxembourg compromise' which has been used by the French in the name of 'vital national importance'. Whether they do or not will be some guide to Mr Blair's true motives. Failure to do so will show that he puts his ties with the European elite ahead of his concerns for the interests of Britain.

The euro itself continues to perform limply, the lack of convergence between those such as Ireland, currently booming, and Germany, sinking, ensuring that the crunch will come sooner, rather than later, concerning the impossibility of finding an interest rate that is suited to all members of euroland.

A new development on the home front is the arrival of an anti EMU, pro EU group containing such luminaries as David Owen. While their partial conversion is to be welcomed it is saddening that they are unable to see the illogic of their position, for EMU is an integral part of the plans of the architects of the EU and cannot be avoided by those intending to stay within the whole project. It would be as impossible to imagine an EU, possessing one currency and one government, allowing the UK to be a member but remaining outside EMU, as it would be to imagine the county of Surrey to be part of England yet have a separate currency and to set its own financial policies. We welcome the new grouping as allies against EMU and hope that they may yet experience a Damascene conversion to the view that the only sensible option for the UK is to withdraw from the EU.

27/02/99

A number of recent speeches and articles by significant members of LESC have been added to the website. Any unbiased observer reading these could hardly fail to be convinced both of the fact that membership of the single currency would be disastrous for the UK and that opposition to the EU comes as much from the left as from the right:

Once again we have been treated to exhortations from diverse Europhiles to the effect that the UK must join EMU, and that without delay. Not surprisingly some of this was from the usual suspects like Leon Britten who has dedicated his political career to seeing this country submerged into a federal superstate. However one new source, seized upon with great glee by the pro euro propagandists of the BBC, who described it as the 'voice of the working class', was the leadership of the engineering union. Of course what the chattering classes fail to realise is that a corporate state, such as the intended United States of Europe, is designed to benefit the political elite, among which can be counted the leaders of major trade unions, particularly those who have allowed themselves to be seduced by the pro European views of the party leadership. As those who work with ordinary trade unionists know such views are not representative of the wishes of the union membership but unfortunately the power of the executive officers frequently prevents this from becoming clear.

It is particularly ironic that this week should have seen these statements, as well as the news that, as the Daily Express has it, "Green light given to Euro", reporting that the treasury is authorising our money to be spent in advocating British membership, for a much more heartening headline was to be found in Thursday's Times - French regret euro 'catastrophe'

This opening paragraph of this report is music to the ears of Eurorealists:

Europe's new currency, the euro, was condemned yesterday as ridiculous and catastrophic by French Europhiles who vaunted its launch just six weeks ago.

The article details how the public are avoiding the new currency with the Parisian Europhile newspaper Liberation stating that "the volume of transactions in euros borders on the anecdotal" while the pro European Le Monde has been forced to concede that the euro is both weak and unpopular, concluding "the excitement has fallen away fast".

This failure of public support has been compounded by the news that the EU commission officials have raided banks in France, Germany, Italy and Spain as well as the European banking Federation in Brussels as part of an investigation into allegations that there is a cartel operating, charging commission on transactions in euros. As the abolition of such charges is the one positive advantage the Europhiles have to offer to counter the vast changeover costs, and the destruction of democratic control of national economies, it is laughable that their own allies, the bankers, are undercutting even that. One hardly knows what is worse, the venality of the banks or the knowledge that the European Commission now possesses the power to raid them.

Another development worth noting this week was the increasingly hysterical demands by Euroland politicians that the European Central Bank should reduce its interest rates and the absolute refusal of the latter to comply. This is a classic case of the villain being hoist by his own petard for, while Eurorealists have always recognized that political control of fiscal policy is both right and necessary, the economic illiterates who created and signed the Maastricht treaty specifically outlawed national governments from even making representations to the ECB about such issues. Therefore the French and German politicians who are now doing so are breaking the provisions of their own beloved treaty while the actions of the ECB confirm the worse fears that political reality will play no part in their deliberations. The British people should be grateful that, for the time being at least, when fiscal levers require moving, only Eddie George and his colleagues need to be convinced, rather than a group of continental bankers in Frankfurt.

One matter which is not directly related to the EU is the accusation by Germany's cultural minister that Britain is obsessed with the Second World War. The activities of certain tabloid newspapers in the UK lend some support to his charge but of far more concern is the way in which the Germans are alleged to be using the weight of the EU presidency to pressure the Americans into halting proceeding in their courts being undertaken, as a class action, by former Nazi slaves. It is reported that the US State department was given to understand that American trade relations with Germany, and with the entire EU, would be damaged unless the American authorities intervened to block this action. We in the anti EU movement are not xenophobes, and indeed share concerns about the survival of democracy with similar organisations throughout Europe, and we of course recognize that the Germany of today is not the monster of the 1930s. However the British people should be disturbed to find that the EU, an organisation of which they are currently a part, is being used to bully others into interfering with due process and the rule of law, particularly when the victims are those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Rather than busy themselves about the odd outburst from tabloid headline writers perhaps the German authorities should seek to meet moral responsibilities without involving the whole of the EU in a cover up.

Further points from the week's news:

• Edith Cresson faces further charges relating "irregularities" at her department which may lead to criminal proceeding. Her reply to charges of employing friends is "I employed them because they are good". The transfer of the arrogance of the French elite to the central EU institutions is no surprise but the only way for the UK to escape this web of corruption is to leave the EU, as the whole enterprise is rotten to the core and completely without hope of reform.

• As expected the European Commission rejected a reprieve for duty-free, despite the expected loss of tens of thousands of jobs. This whole matter should be a lesson to those who campaigned against the end of duty-free, while at the same time declaring their belief in the European project. As the fishermen and the London art dealers are learning there is only one way to prevent the destruction of their industries and that is to cut the Gordian knot by ending UK membership of the EU.

• HJ Heinz, the giant US food group, plans to make Britain the centre of its European operations as part of a vast global restructuring. Will all Europhiles please note that this decision has been taken in the full knowledge that the UK is not now, and may never be, part of Euroland. Perhaps they would like to explain how this miracle has come to pass, massive inward investment without membership of the euro. Of course the reality is what we have always stated, the reasons for coming to Britain have nothing to do with EU membership but relate to infrastructure, a skilled workforce, good communications and a paradigm that is global, not parochial.

• If every person in the UK wished to end the encroachment of genetically modified foods into our fields and onto our food shelves there is nothing the government could do about it as it is now the EU which decides these things. THAT IS WHAT IS MEANT BY THE EROSION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!!!

Despite all the above reasons for breaking with Europe the British government continues to work towards greater involvement. It is to be hoped that the British people come to realise that, if they were ever to vote for joining EMU, they would be in the same position as those other non flying birds, turkeys, voting for Christmas.

20/02/99

Another week and another set of events which reinforce how insane is UK involvement in the entire project:

• a combination of EU dictate and British bureaucracy is endangering the continuance of the humble paper round. The application of minimum wage legislation may force newsagents to drop the service

• Yves-Thibault de Silguy, Europe's Monetary Affairs Commissioner, said that the forecast for European economic growth will shortly be revised downwards. Another triumph for the Euro?

• an internal European Commission report has rejected pleas to extend duty-free for another five years. It describes Britain's case that thousands of jobs will be lost as 'extremely weak'. Of course we might expect this from an organisation which will sacrifice any number of jobs provided they aren't those of the bureaucrats and politicians

• while UK politicians connive at the destruction of the British fishing industry, support the distortion of our agriculture by the CAP and pay nine billion pounds a year in membership fees, all in the name of being 'good Europeans', the Spanish break EU laws in another attempt to force the unwilling people of Gibraltar to cede sovereignty to Madrid. Once again we see how the rules only seem to apply to the detriment of the UK and how our spineless politicians will always put their membership of the European political elite before any other consideration.

• Bernard Connelly's case for unfair dismissal came before the European Court this week. His sacking followed the publication of his book The Rotten heart of Europe in which he exposed the fundamental lies and deceit which are at the heart of the European project. It is worth repeating here the nature of the 'functionalist' theory propounded by Jean Monnet (the 'father' of the EU) who stated that

  • the unification of the European nations will never be achieved by the normal methods of political democracy

  • political unification can be brought about almost imperceptibly by transferring more and more governmental functions from national to European institutions

  • these functional transfers of power would create an unstoppable momentum for full-scale political union, provided that they started with relatively non controversial matters, such as steelmaking, which would blunt objections about national sovereignty, and that they would be irreversible

  As all who have followed developments know, both of these latter conditions are scrupulously followed by the architects of the EU, in particular by the application of the acquis communautaire which asserts that all powers transferred to European institutions are permanently subject to European law and are removed from the competence of national legislation

  The truth is that Mr Connelly has helped to reveal the arrogance of the political elite and the nature of their undemocratic agenda. Only last week we saw another victim of EU dictatorship when Paul van Buitenen was suspended for bringing the scandalous level of corruption in the heart of the EU institutions to public attention. Every day the EU grows more like the government Orwell predicated in 1984 - the Commissioners and their friends in the political elite are the Inner Party, ruling for their own benefit and the love of power, the bureaucrats of Brussels become more like the Outer party, enforcing the ever growing rules and regulations, and not daring to question their political masters, while the rest of us are the despised proletariat, expected to obey every dictate from Brussels. Of course the physical coercion is still lacking but we would indeed be fools to continue to bow the knee to these arrogant knaves, for one day it might not be as easy as it would be at present to break with them and all their works

• the European Parliament has refused to exempt London's eurobond market from the proposed withholding tax, thus putting at risk billions of pounds of income and tens of thousands of jobs. The British government has promised to veto this madness and their adherence to this promise or otherwise will be an indication of whether they do have any concern for the interests of their own people.

• a similar confrontation looms over the British rebate. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French minister stated that It is inconceivable that the British rebate can go on operating in the old way and this position received support from all the other EU states. Once again the pressure can be resisted by use of the British veto but we are told Gordon Brown is loathe to use it

All the developments this week, as every week, merely indicate that UK membership of the EU is a doomed enterprise. Instead of fighting, and losing, continual battles with those determined to build a federal state, we could take the sensible option, leave the EU and we would then find, as the Victorian novelists used to say, "with one bound we were free". Not merely free but restored to our position as a global trading nation and with a democratic system no longer under threat.

Never a week goes by without the London Evening Standard producing a rant in favour of UK involvement with the EU. This week they were provoked by the pronouncements of Lord Levene, who, while obviously free to express his personal opinion on the euro, is speaking in direct contradiction to many others who make their living in the City and see EMU as a threat to their continued prosperity. The Standard produces its usual emotive attack on Eurorealists, stating that 'their Little Englander proclivities incline them to believe we can buck the market when it suits them' and 'the market has made its choice: it has given the Euro a warm reception'. These statements are the complete opposite of the truth as it is the politically motivated architects of the EU who seek to buck the market by ignoring the fact that economies which are structured differently and at different stages of the economic cycle cannot successfully combine their fiscal policies, while the 'Little European' mentality of the Europhiles causes them to turn their backs on the rest of the world, seeming to believe that the nearly two hundred nations outside the EU, including thirty in Europe itself, are of no account. As to the City giving the euro a warm reception, those who invested in euros on the opening day of trading will have seen their money shrink in value once the initial honeymoon period had worn off (it took all of a week!).

The Standard goes on to say that 'concern among those at the sharp end of business and finance about the costs of staying out is growing', a laughable statement given that the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and all those associated with "Business for Sterling" and "Global Britain" are praying that the UK will not join EMU. The Europhiliac CBI is afraid to conduct a fair assessment of opinion among its members as they know what the result would be and the only major players who can be found to have a good word for the euro are some of the multinationals, whose pursuit of their own interest obviously takes no account of the well-being, or the democratic interests of the British people.

The Standard concludes 'it is a measure of the fanaticism among its British opponents, that some will not even acknowledge the existence of the pressures to join'. For Europhiles to accuse their opponents of fanaticism is rich, given that their devotion to the EU is based upon an almost religious fervour which ignores the realities of the world, and to say that we do not acknowledge the pressures to join is arrant nonsense. It is just that we recognize that these pressure are political, not economic and that Britain's economy is to be offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of European political union, a doomed and eventually destructive enterprise.

Readers outside London may weary of these reports of the Standard's attacks but they do represent the thinking (if it can be called that) of the Europhiles and need countering less they convince some by default of reasoned rebuttal

06/02/99

Once again Europhiles of the media print stories which reveal how damaging EU membership is to the UK, while at the same time publishing leading articles which eulogise that very membership. As so often this schizophrenia can be seen to best effect in the London Evening Standard. On Friday (29th January) they exceeded their previous worse excesses by what can only be described as a rant in favour of the EU. It is worth quoting some of it here in order to illustrate just how far this particular paper will go in pursuit of its love affair with Brussels (italics, and some comments, are added, although in some ways the whole thing should be italicised, so unthinking is its tone);

"The serried ranks of Tory Canutes continue to recite their daily mantra of rejection of Europe and the Euro, even as the City of London declares with increasing conviction that our entry into EMU is not merely inevitable, but essential" [A blatant lie - see below]. "The lunatic Tory fringe clamours for trade association with the United States, or mere glorious national isolation" [Isolated in common with about 180 countries outside the EU!] "Yet the British people, for all their distaste for a federal Europe, instinctively understand the realities of power in a manner that Mr Hague and his friends do not. German economic dominance of Europe may be bitterly regrettable, but it is a reality that must be confronted by participation in Europe, and not merely denied with vainglorious futility, as the Eurosceptics seek daily to do" [One must assume that the writer would have used a similar argument in 1939 to argue for British submission to supposed German military dominance in Europe!]

There is much more in a similar vein but that quoted should be enough to show how totally the Standard has sold out to the EU, perhaps not surprising as the same paper sacked its columnist, a certain Mr Winston Churchill, for his attacks on appeasement in the 1930s! In view of the comment about the city of London it is instructive to look at a two page article the Standard published on Tuesday the 26th January entitled 'Threat to the City'. The main thrust of this was the danger to tens of thousands of City jobs and to millions of pounds worth of British earnings by the threatened 'with-holding tax' proposed by the EU. To quote :

"The Swedes imposed a withholding tax on securities transactions in the late Eighties. Within weeks more than half the trading in major Scandinavian shares had moved to London to escape the tax, leaving the Swedish financial sector devastated. The government relented a few years later, and some business flowed back, but not before huge damage had been done"

Given this scenario why does the author of the article believe that the EU would impose this tax, to the very great disadvantage of the City of London. To quote again:

"If the tax hits London, even if the EU as a whole loses business, the suspicion is that this might almost be seen as a plus. This is not because the trade would go to Frankfurt - it wouldn't - but because its loss to London would weaken the City on other fronts where Frankfurt could compete for business"

It would therefore seem that the price of 'ever closer union' is a continual sacrifice of British jobs to the advantage of Germany. The article actually acknowledges that the fuss about the UK being outside the Euro is invalid when it states "the euro is just another currency and the City can buy and sell it, and indeed is doing so without blinking an eye".

Stories about the withholding tax appeared again the next day, in the Times and other papers, this time reporting that the European Parliament has rejected any attempt to exclude the eurobond market, thus placing the full onus for stopping this attack on over 100,000 British jobs on Gordon Brown who can use the veto in the Council of Ministers to reject it outright. However whether he will do so must be cast into doubt by the report on Friday that 'Tony Blair is to endorse a pan-European election manifesto that praises the euro, seeks to trim the scope for vetoing EU policies and demands an end to 'harmful tax competition" ['harmful' to whom?] It seems likely that the lawyers who now run the UK are sufficiently ignorant of financial matters that they will continue the last government's policy of sacrificing the vital interests of the British people in the name of some mythical European unity which the other EU members are determined to use to destroy our economy.

Two other matters of note this week are the accidental leak of a memorandum from the European Commission and a trumpeting from the 'Rest home for retired Tory gentlefolk'.

In the first instance the Commission's media service released an internal document that called for "a measure of hypocrisy and evasion when dealing with the world's press", said that "the Commission should not get carried away by the idea of transparency" and also stated that "It is necessary to learn how to conceal aspects of information which could give rise to bad interpretation". In the week following the abject failure of the European Parliament to do anything about corruption in the Commission it shows once again their true nature. As Private Eye would say "No change there then".

The second event was the coincidence of statements from two of the main architects of the Conservative policy of kow-towing to the European Union, Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke. While the latter confined himself to a general attack on his party the former stated that leading Tories along with businessmen were being driven out of the party over Mr Hague's "incomprehensible" European policy. While it is true that Eurorealists would like to see Mr Hague firm up Conservative opposition to the EU it is laughable that Mr Heseltine should criticise when for years he and he colleagues put forward policies distinguished only by their failure to admit the realities of what they proposed and which even now they deny were intended to lead the UK into a federal European state. If Mr Heseltine wishes to quote the views of businessmen perhaps he should ask the leaders of 'Business for Sterling', the Institute of Directors or the Federation of Small Businesses' all of whom would tell him they want nothing to do with EMU.

30/01/99

The Europhile elements in the media continue to prove that self deception is the hardest habit of all to break. This week the London Evening Standard, whose love for the European Union is unsurpassed, ran an article by George Walden, plus a leader comment, on the subject of the death blow the EU intends to deal to the London art market by its imposition of the tax known as droit de suite. The theme of both pieces was that it was a terrible idea, that it must be resisted and that it gave ammunition to those opposed to UK involvement in the European project. What neither writer were able to accept is that this is not some isolated aberration but a manifestation of the real nature of a bureaucratic, centralising and essentially undemocratic institution, from which we can only be freed by detaching ourselves totally. Walden and the Standard may huff and puff but the self satisfied bureaucrats in Brussels will ignore them, as they ignore all protests concerning their arrogant disregard for the welfare of the people they seek to rule. The jobs lost from the London art market can be laid directly at the door of the Europhiles, the victims joining the fishermen whose industry has been laid waste by EU membership, their numbers to be swelled by all those others whose livelihoods will be destroyed by European 'harmonisation' in the next few years. The Standard is correct in that this gives ammunition to the Eurorealists but the answer to that must be 'Why should it not?' as the realities of the EU increasingly prove that everything we say about it is true.

A related matter also appeared in the Standard later in the week, this time concerning the issue of the inevitable overheating of the Irish economy consequent upon its joining EMU, despite the fact that its economic cycle is completely out of line with the core nations involved. Those present will remember Norman Lamont's warning at the Cardiff congress that the fate of Ireland will be a salutary one for all those who want the UK to join the single currency and nothing that has happened since makes that fate less likely. Again the Standard states that this should not be allowed to bolster the Eurorealistic cause and again the answer must be 'Why should it not?'. The unfortunate Irish people will soon find that unrealistic interest rates will drive their economy into massive inflation and economic disaster, and that their political class has surrendered control of the fiscal levers necessary to correct the situation to Brussels. Why do those committed to the EU continue to ignore the writing on the wall and persist in advocating membership against all sense and logic. One can only conclude that the Greeks were right when they said that those the gods wished to destroy they first made mad.

This morning the Today program on Radio 4 proved once again how biased is the coverage they give to the European question. A speaker asserted that the only reason Britain attracts foreign investment is because of EU membership, a statement that has been constantly rebutted by the companies involved, and also averred that British trade was increasingly and overwhelming with the EU. This latter statement, apart from being untrue (see below), is irrelevant, as withdrawal from the EU would not mean an end to this trade, unless the EU were mad enough to break with the WTO in an act of pique which would cost them dear.

As always, the presenters of Today made no effort to question these outrageous assertions, their contributions being limited to proclaiming that our membership of EMU was inevitable, that of the EU irrevocable, and that those who did not agree were obviously right wing nationalists - tell that to Tony Benn! The final few minutes of the program were given to a commentator who purported to be putting a Eurosceptic view which however dwelt upon the human urge to 'isolation' and implied that opposition to the EU was based on sentiment rather than reality. As a presentation of our position it was a travesty, given that to be outside the EU is not 'isolation' as we would merely be rejoining the family of independent nations, while continuing to be members of the UN, NATO, the G7 et al. As far as the 'sentiment' idea is concerned, as the EU chickens come home to roost the realistic basis of our arguments will become more and more obvious.

The assertion about British trade being increasingly and overwhelmingly with the EU is given the lie by an opportune article in this weeks Eurofacts which illustrates the manner in which exports to the English speaking world are soaring. It is worth quoting the article here as it is based upon Economic Trends, December 1998, ONS and is therefore firmly founded upon confirmed statistics:

Over the five years 1992-1997 British exports to the English speaking world grew almost twice as fast as exports to the non-English speaking world.

Within the English speaking world, British exports to the USA grew on average at over ten per cent per year, while exports to the rest of the English speaking world grew on average at almost 17 per cent per year.

During the same period the corresponding growth rate for British exports to the non-English speaking world (including the EU) was a modest seven per cent.

Consequently, the proportion of British worldwide exports going to the English speaking world rose from 26 per cent in 1992 to 31 per cent in 1997.

In 1997, Britain achieved a healthy trade surplus with the English speaking world, of £12 billion. The biggest British surplus with an English speaking country was, as usual, with the USA: £4 billion.

The British deficit on trade with the non-English speaking world in 1997 was £4 billion.

The strong - one might even say dramatic - differences in growth rates to English speaking countries and the rest of the world is consistent with the equally dramatic "weight" of the English speaking world as a source of inward investment into the UK and as a destination for British investment overseas, as highlighted