'Britain in Europe' obviously intends ending the year as it began, by lying about the reality of the European Union. They now claim that the UK has lost 66,000 jobs because we have refused to join the single currency, citing the mendacious statements of various manufacturers who have said that the exchange rate was the reason for the cutbacks.

Of course this conveniently ignores a number of facts.

1. It is not the strength of the pound, but the pathetic weakness of their beloved Euro which has caused problems

2. Exchange rates have always fluctuated and the increasing strength of, for instance, the mark against the pound, did not seem to cause German manufacturers to collapse in the post war years

3. No sensible manufacturer takes strategic decisions based on short term conditions such as the exchange rate

4. Inefficient managements, and those such as Nissan, which are driven by the political interests of their real owners, the French government, are very happy to use the exchange rate as an excuse, knowing that the sycophantic fools of organisations such as BiE will accept any lie emanating from the mouths of Europhiles

A more honest, and revealing assessment, would result from a consideration of how many jobs the UK has lost thanks to the insane decision to join the EEC in the first place. We gave up historic markets, whose products complemented ours, in order to join an organisation of industrialised countries whose products competed directly with ours. As a consequence we have run a continual deficit in our trade with the other members and have therefore suffered enormous damage to our manufacturing base. In addition the fishermen have seen their livelihoods destroyed by the Common Fishing Policy and the farming industry has been devastated by the Common Agricultural Policy.

If the Europeans have their way the London Arts market will be destroyed, to the benefit of New York and Switzerland, while the withholding tax, which they will never cease to advocate, would cost thousands of jobs in the City of London and undermine one of the sources of British prosperity.

Of course, the jobs BiE are really concerned about are those of the parasitical political elite, who will lose all those grossly overpaid sinecures in Brussels and Strasbourg on that glorious day when we withdraw from the EU. They would be happy to see hundreds of thousands of job losses in the UK, provided their cosy club can still provide them with opportunities to parade around a wider stage with their cronies from the other European elites. The British people would be mad to listen to this self important, self interested bunch of nobodies!

The claims by the europhiles that the UK retains the right to set the level of its own taxes were today given the lie by their friends in the European Commission. Gordon Brown had promised relief to the hard pressed churches by reducing the level of VAT on repairs to historic buildings from 17.5% to 5%, to help the British transport industry and the environment by issuing "Brit discs" for lorries using British roads and to assist those buying houses by a relief on stamp duty.

Now a commission spokesman, arrogantly asserting the right of Brussels to set the level of British taxes, said "Gordon Brown knew very well that all this would require a major change of law" and a Treasury spokesman has confirmed that ministers "honestly don't know" whether these promises will be honoured.

This is an intolerable situation for an independent nation. That the electorate are to endure taxes set by Brussels bureaucrats, rather than by their own elected representatives, is a negation of democracy and proves that all the recent talk by europhiles of 'no single state' is just another of their lies.

That our politicians should now announce measures which they know they cannot deliver, due to the manner in which they have signed away the democratic rights of the British people, is a national disgrace, and can only be solved by withdrawal from the European Union. Once no longer a member of this undemocratic organisation we can set taxes to suit ourselves, abolish the iniquitous VAT, and put the interests of the people ahead of that of the politicians.

The two hundredth anniversary of the creation of the UK is due in just a few days time but one would not know this if one relied upon the media for information. The question must be - is this just another example of the general level of ignorance exhibited by the modern press and TV, or is it a deliberate policy, implemented by those who seek to replace our nation with a series of regions within the EU? The truly frightening answer is that it could be either - those tasked with acting as the watchdogs of democracy are either too stupid or too corrupt to do their duty. What a position for a once proud nation on the eve of the third millennium!

On Sunday night BBC2 showed a program which purported to examine the dispute between the pro and anti sides of the great debate. However, as you might expect from the BBC it totally failed either to present a balance view, or to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.Over a period of 50 minutes not once was a spokesman from the Eurosceptic camp allowed to state why so many people are against the Euro nor did it even mention that close on 70% of the British population now want to Keep the Pound.

As far as personalities were concerned it failed to give air time to any of the speakers at the Democracy Movement March nor were there any interviews of well known Eurosceptics such as Lord Peter Shore, Tony Benn, John Redwood, Lord Stoddart and Christopher Booker but ridiculous amounts of time were given to Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine and Simon Buckby of Britain in Europe. Paul Sykes did appear a number of times but no one watching who did not know Marc Glendening would have realised from the programme just what a significant voice he is in the anti EU movement.

On a number of occasions business people, who clearly put their own selfish desire for profit before any considerations of democracy, were allowed to rant about the need to join the single currency, but no opportunity to reply was afforded for any of those opposed, such as Business for Sterling.

As is so often the case the BBC chose to trivialise the issue, spending time on Eddie Izzard, a lightweight transvestite with no understanding of the issues, while neglecting to mention the core issue of sovereignty and failing to explain the case put forward by those who represent the real opposition such as CIB and UKIP, neither organisation being mentioned even once. The people from New Europe, who persist in their unrealistic view that the UK can stay in the EU but stay out of the Euro, were allowed to attack the true British resistance as xenophobes, in fact doing the Europhiles dirty work for them.

Despite all this bias even the BBC was unable to prevent certain facts from becoming clear. That the Britain in Europe campaign was, from the start, co-ordinated by Number 10 and that its leader, Simon Buckby was an arrogant puppet of Millbank whose constantly repeated the mantra that the anti-groups were hysterical, something which was true of him, not us. That many people involved in the campaign believed that speaking up against the campaign would threaten their careers and that the pro-euro camp was disorganised, divided, in disarray and guilty of deliberating misquoting the truth. That the campaign tried to suppress public knowledge of much of what was happening, as when they tried to block the Times reporter from attending the BiE launch, while, in contrast, the anti-group was much better organised. That the majority of people were against the euro, as evidenced by plenty of shots of Hague/Sykes getting praised at meetings/in the street etc. and not one example of anyone agreeing with Blair or Brown (bar the usual suspects).

That even the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation could not conceal the rottenness at the core of the pro EU camp shows just how rotten it truly is, and one can only imagine the effect if one of the television companies ever had the courage to show a truthful representation of the anti EU case.

Once again we are confronted by the Europhiles rewriting history and falsifying the present.

As the European Union imposes yet more restrictions on the livelihoods of the British fishermen we are told that it is all due to their selfish over fishing of limited stocks. What of course is not said is that we in this country managed our stocks perfectly well for centuries, until Heath and his cronies betrayed the interests of the fishing communities in their eagerness to join the EEC. In order that our political class might disport themselves on a wider stage they agreed that the British fishing grounds should be a common resource, now open even to land locked members of the EU such as Austria.

An agreement was proclaimed by the British government not long ago which would prevent the destruction of the London art market. Now however we hear that the European Parliament is rewriting this agreement in such a way as to make that destruction certain.

The ink is not even try on the Nice treaty, declared a triumph by Tony Blair, and the French are accused by other EU members of amending what was agreed, to the advantage of France and the federalists.

Even worse the statements made by British ministers about the European Army are revealed as lies. When NATO foreign Ministers met today in Brussels to examine the defence agreement made at the Nice summit, Shadow Defence Secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP said:

"The French Government have got what they required. All the documents signed at Nice make it absolutely clear that the European defence force is autonomous from NATO. It will not have to use NATO assets but will only do if it decides to.

Once an operation is conducted by the EU force, full political and military control will rest with the European Union and not with NATO and EU military staff will also have a planning cell which will be capable of low level planning operations.

Mr Blair has not told the truth about the document he signed. NATO does not have a right of refusal over EU operations but in the document signed it is clear that the EU will make the decisions about operations first and not NATO."

We should always remember - if a Europhile tells you the Sun is shining, be sure to pick up your umbrella. They would not recognize the truth if it was presented to them on a plate!

There is little to say about the Nice treaty as it has not yet been published. Despite this Tony Blair's government attempted to report to parliament using a document which Lord Shore pointed out was dated 8th December, at last two days before they finished the deliberations! Nothing more clearly illustrates the contempt this government has for parliament.

Amazingly enough Tony Blair could not resist joining that sorry line of British Prime Ministers who return from signing away vital British interests and declare the whole thing to be a triumph, from Neville Chamberlain, with his 'peace in our time', through Edward Heath's original negotiations with the EEC, to John Major and his 'Game, Set and Match' at Maastricht. As is always the case the devil is in the detail and we shall no doubt see the real truth about what has been conceded becoming clear over the next few years. Already we know that the surrender of the veto over foreign, justice and home affairs will allow the introduction of a European police force and the implementation of Corpus Juris, the Napoleonic legal code which will destroy Common Law rights, the surrender over measures relating to the Euro could see it imposed on the UK, against the wishes of the electorate, and the surrender over political parties may see the effective suppression of anti EU groups such as UKIP and the Socialist Labour Party.

However the details are for subsequent comment. What we do know, thanks to the sterling work of Lord Stoddart of CIB and Lionel Bell of AMA, is that the counter summit was a success. For the first time French opponents of the EU joined the usual British and Scandinavian delegations and the result was a full hall and excellent speeches. The Danes were received as heroes for their triumph in the Euro referendum and the Irish heartened everyone with their plans to force a referendum on their own political class. The meeting prepared a statement for delivery to the European leaders but were prevented from delivering it by para military policing of Nice, which incidentally prevented the law abiding citizens of the city from going about their business. Some remarked that it was as if a meeting of the Nazi or Soviet high command was taking place, not a supposed assembly of democratic leaders. In fact these arrogant politicians behave more and more like a group of Mafia capos, a comparison that has some weight when one considers how many members of the European elite who signed the Maastricht treaty have since fallen foul of the criminal law - not something our representatives can be accused of, despite their pusillanimous surrender of British interests.

It is ironic that Mr Blair now finds himself under attack from Prodi and others for not signing up to their wilder schemes, as we all know he would if he thought he could get away with it. When will this man realise that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time and that his Big Tent is falling about his ears? If he took as his guiding light the interests of the British people, instead of his own selfish ambition to be President of Europe, he might find decisions easier to make and easier to defend. It does not matter how many of these treaties pile up, one on another, from Rome, through Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice etc. In the end we will have to repudiate the lot and the sooner we take that decision the less traumatic will be the break with the other EU members.

13/12/2000

In a letter to The Times this week the Earl of Dudley was good enough, on the eve of the Nice summit, to share his views on the future of the UK within the EU. Salient points from his letter are as follows:

"The anti-Euros are right in seeing a single currency as an element in the formation of a new political entity. They are wrong, in my opinion, in believing that they can impede that process, and abort the slow, painful, but inevitable birth of a new nation - Europe".

"As no statesman would, I believe, seriously contemplate taking this country out of the European Union..."

"The most important prerequisite, to my mind, is that the individual states of the Union should continue to be recognized as sovereign powers...".

The Earl appears to be sincere but unfortunately that is no guarantee of being right. He at least admits that we who are opposed to UK membership of the EU are correct when we point that, at the end of the road, the USE awaits. However the tone of patrician arrogance is only exceeded by clear ignorance of the qualities of nationhood.

Who are these statesmen whose support for the permanent imprisonment of the UK within the European Union he considers definitive. Could it be political dinosaurs such as Michael Heseltine, whose superlative judgement gave us the Dome, and Kenneth Clarke who, despite being a lawyer, was quite happy to support the Maastricht Treaty without even reading it. Or perhaps we should look to current members of the Cabinet such as Peter Mandelson and Robin Cook. One might seek property advice from the former or marital guidance from the latter but would be foolish indeed to rely upon their views for Britain's future. Lord Shore, an MP for over thirty years, a former Cabinet Minister, and now a distinguished member of the Upper House, is a true statesman, whom no doubt the Earl would choose to ignore. Lord Shore's view that the EU is a threat to the prosperity and democracy of all the peoples of Europe does not resonate with those who are blinded by idealistic dreams and refuse to face reality.

The Earl speaks of a new nation, Europe, as if the forcing together of ancient nation-states into a federation which its people do not desire is merely a matter of administrative detail, rather than the undemocratic imposition of the will of a small elite in order to further their own interests. He speaks of the recognition of the states involved as sovereign powers but this is meaningless within a federal Europe. How much sovereign power does the good Earl believe is possessed by Kansas or Idaho?

There is no inevitability about the birth of the Earl's new nation. Rather history shows that artificial constructions such as this inevitably break up, usually in a messy, and sometimes in a bloody, fashion.

03/12/2000

We hear today that the New Labour government has appointed a "Minister for Patriotism". It sometimes seems that the political establishment is using 1984 as a blueprint for their actions, as surely such an appointee must be located in The Ministry of Truth or The Ministry of Love. That a government which is determined to give away the democratic rights of the British people, which intends to cede control of British Armed Forces to Brussels and which desires the establishment of a single European state, reducing Britain to the status of a province, should have effrontery to claim to be patriotic is almost beyond belief. This corruption of the meaning of the English language makes the Conservative Party's "In Europe, but not run by Europe" seem tame in comparison. The truly terrifying thing is that one suspects that Mr Blair may really believe what he says, at least at the time he says it, and that therefore doublethink has become a reality at the highest levels of British politics.

25/11/2000

The violence of the reaction from the Europhiles to the attacks upon Mr Blair's plans for a European Army clearly illustrate how little they care for the shining of the light of truth into the murky corners of their plans for a single European state. Do they seriously expect us to believe that an organisation which has, or is in the process of creating, its own flag, anthem, currency, police force and legal system does not intend to develop its own armed forces. Mr Blair and his apologists are either fools or knaves and, as far as the future of British democracy is concerned, it doesn't matter which. We already have the statement from Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, that "Europe is forging its own government and Army. If you don't want to call it a European Army, don't call it a European Army. You can call it Margaret or Marie-Anne" and we know that it has long been the ambition of the French to undermine NATO and to drive the American forces out of Europe. In order to satisfy the vanity of our political class we are risking the defences of our nation and proposing that British servicemen and women may die in wars that are decided upon by majority voting in Brussels! If we allow this then perhaps we will deserve the consequences, but one may hope that this might instead prove to be the last straw, finally awakening the British people to the slow motion betrayal which has been destroying our nation for the last three decades.

24/11/2000

An article by Michael Heseltine, published in The Times on Thursday, is the usual litany of mendaciousness, myth and misrepresentation which typifies the utterances of those dedicated to the European federal superstate. He speaks of a high pound, when in fact it is the dire weakness of the Euro which is causing problems. He asserts that business community supports EMU when both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors have made clear their opposition, those in favour being only a small number of multi nationals whose genuine concern for the well being of the British economy is doubtful. He repeats the discredited claim that three million jobs rely on membership of the EU, ignoring the massive number of jobs lost in the fishing industry, in farming and in manufacturing due to the effects of the European treaties. He pretends that inward investment depends upon the exchange rate when no responsible company would allow such short term considerations to influence long term decisions, fails to mention that Japanese investment represents only four percent of that attracted to the UK and glosses over the fact that political influences from the French car makers Renault is behind the threats from Nissan.

Above all he avoids the question of the constitutional implications of handing control of our economy to Brussels and Frankfurt. As we have seen in the case of Ireland the politicians there are now quite unable to take any action to prevent inflation rising to dangerous levels because they have signed away their fiscal powers and accepted the ridiculous 'one size fits all' interest rates imposed by the ECB. To join the single currency would be to sign Britain's death warrant as an independent, self governing nation, surrendering the democratic rights of the British people and accepting rule by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. This betrayal of our nationhood and our democracy is of far more significance than whether a Japanese manufacturer chooses to invest here or elsewhere.

12/11/2000

An expert report delivered to EU finance ministers yesterday confirmed that the UK is the only major nation within the EU with a viable long-term public pensions system. Frank Field, former Labour minister and welfare expert, says that Britain and Denmark, the only other country with a properly funded scheme, may be forced by the EU to join a system of pooled pensions, which would cause British taxpayers money to be used in a bail out of the French, Germans, Spanish and Italians.

Eurorealists have been warning for years that this situation would arise and, as usual, the British political establishment has claimed that it would never happen. Once again we have seen Europhiles consistently deny the truth until, quite suddenly, what had been proclaimed to be impossible becomes a fact. This has been true for issue after issue and will continue to be so until the day dawns when the existence of a federal superstate is acknowledged, despite all the denials we have heard over the years. We must be mad to believe a word these people say.

08/11/2000

Two stories in the media today are almost beyond belief.

The first is the sort of thing one expects to read on April 1st but one must assume is genuine. The Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice has issued an opinion which states that Criticism of the European Union is akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech. If this is true then the architects of the European Union can take their place alongside the Spanish Inquisition, the KGB and the SS as apologists for regimes which regard democracy as anathema and who would prevent the free expression of opinion by any who did not subscribe to their view of the world.

The second item is that the British Government is placing a major order for the Ministry of Defence with German shipyards, thus destroying British jobs in areas where the economy is already on its knees. That a so-called Labour government should do this proves that they have finally abandoned any claim to represent the interests of the working class as they place their love affair with their counterparts in the EU ahead of any other consideration. The smug, London based political establishment cares nothing for the ordinary people of Britain, provided that they can continue to posture on the European stage. Any Labour MPs who still retain a belief in the principles upon which their party was founded must be feeling sick today.

28/10/2000

As the continuing disaster of the privatised railways continues to unfold, with numbers of our fellow citizens paying with their lives for the organisational mess we have been left with following privatisation, let us not forget where the blame lies for this debacle. The stupidity of the policy which involved separating ownership of the track from the trains is a direct result of, in 1992, our government bringing Britain into compliance with EC directive 91/440, which lays down that track ownership must be separate from that of the operating companies.

Every death and injury which occurs as a result of this form of privatisation can be laid at the door of the European Union, and at those of our political class who worship it. Even if a British government were to be elected on a promise to renationalise the transport infrastructure they would not be able to implement such a policy without withdrawing from the EU.

Membership of this vile organisation is not only an economic and democratic disaster, it may also kill you!

22/10/2000

No sooner had Mr Blair asserted that the European Charter of Citizen's Rights was merely a political declaration, and not legally binding, than his fellow EU leaders were busy making clear that that was far from the case. First the German Foreign Minister stated that he saw the charter as an incipient European constitution, then Romano Prodi said that not only should it give EU judges the power to override British law, but "it will", and finally French President Chirac announced an investigation into whether the charter can override national law, such investigation to be conducted by the Swedish Government, which takes over the presidency of the European Union in January.

In addition Mr Blair has indicated that he is ready to surrender the British veto on at least a dozen policy areas, including industrial policy and the regulation of public transport.

Of course it is no surprise that Mr Blair is prepared to capitulate in this way, as he is a fully paid up member of the same liberal intelligentsia which has just produced the report of the Runnymede Trust, in which even the term "British" is declared racist. The sort of blinkered outlook which could produce this report is the same as that which can see nothing wrong with handing all the democratic rights of the people to the bureaucrats of Brussels. Attlee said that intellectuals should be ignored, as they were always wrong, and nothing that has happened since his day detracts from the truth of that view.

16/10/2000

Today the newspapers are full of Mr Blair's latest ideas for the future development of the European Union, in which he attempts to make us believe that all the democratic faults of that organisation can be remedied if only the EU leaders will listen to him.

Of course Eurorealists know that every drop of ink devoted to this speech is totally wasted as, even if Blair were genuine in what he says, and not merely seeking to obfuscate the issue with waffle, those who created and run the EU are not going to be turned from their course by the irrelevant bleatings of a man whose idea of principle is to remain popular at all costs. The architects of the EU always intended that the ultimate incarnation of the European project would be a monster state, the United States of Europe, run by the political elite without reference to the wishes of the people, and this is precisely what it will become. They will have no interest in Mr Blair's proposals, something he and his fellow Europhiles like Cook and Mandelson know only too well.

The British people would be very foolish to believe that the EU can be transformed into anything which would be remotely acceptable to them, as its raison d'etre is the destruction of that national independence and democracy which we in this country hold so dear. One might as well believe that the Nazi party could be reformed into something worthwhile! Mr Blair's speech is yet another smokescreen behind which the federalists will continue to move towards their aim of full European integration and should be treated as the deception it is.

07/10/2000

In his comments today at the Conservative Party Conference Kenneth Clarke has proved once again how little right he, and his soulmates Heseltine and Patten, have to claim any sort of place in the political life of this country, other than as fifth columnists for Brussels. Despite his John Bull imitation, with his red face, beer drinking and 'hail fellow well met' act, this man is in the forefront of those who would transfer the powers of the people's elected representatives to unelected bureaucrats and bankers in Brussels and Frankfurt. He tells William Hague to 'grow up' about the EU and asserts that, if in power, Hague would be forced to go along with the plans of the federalists. This belief that European integration is an unstoppable phenomenon was always foolish and grows even more idiotic as the internal contradictions of the organisation become more and more obvious. If the German people, whom polls now reveal oppose the Euro by almost two to one, were to finally force their government to recognize their wishes then how long does Clarke think the EU would survive? Without Germany France would drop the whole thing like a hot potato and the rest would find themselves on their own.

The inevitable integration of Europe is no more inevitable than was the victory of Nazism, or of Communism, and, if Hague really wants to win, he should reject everything that those like Clarke stand for and run on a platform of negotiated disengagement from the EU, freeing our people from the bureaucratic monster, reclaiming our fishing grounds, ending massive payments to Brussels, sweeping away mountains of regulations and restoring democratic control to Westminster. Indeed, if he does not, and once again the British people are betrayed by the Conservative party, they will never forgive them and the torch will have to be passed to others who will free us on this unwanted dictatorship.

03/10/2000

The result of the Danish referendum is a tremendous blow for democracy and puts all who oppose the Brussels dictatorship in the debt of the courageous people of Denmark. Despite facing the full might of the political establishment, backed by the unions, business and the media, those Danes who believe in the independence of their country have won.

Almost unbelievably the arrogant federalists are already talking about another referendum. Had the 'Yes' camp won would there have been another referendum? The Europhiles want vote after vote until they get their way, then the people would never be asked again. These people have no understanding of democracy and the will of the people. One of the pro Euro ministers in Denmark insulted his own people by saying that they did not understand the issue, thus proving that the political elite cannot abide being defied.

If only the British people can show the same courage as the Danes we shall reject the Euro and, given the impossibility of creating a federal superstate without a common currency, either the whole project will collapse, or the free people of Denmark and the UK will escape from it entirely. We have a long way to go but tonight may be the beginning of the end.

28/09/2000

The behaviour of Liberal Democrats at the meeting arranged by CIB on their conference fringe proved once and for all that their party is irredeemably federalist, whatever evasions some of their candidates use when it suits them. Every time the speakers gave details of how the building blocks of the European superstate were slipping into place, whether it be a Common Army, a single police force or Corpus Juris, these worshippers of the EU burst into applause and cheers.

Despite the fact that everyone who knows anything about politics in Britain is aware of the federalist beliefs of the Liberal Democrats, opinion polls still show vast numbers of the electorate believing that the party is not committed to the EU. It has been said that a country gets the government it deserves and such apathetic ignorance may result in our country losing its independence. If that happens those who showed such a lack of concern for the facts need look no further than the mirror when seeking who to blame.

27/09/2000

In his speech to the Labour Party Conference the Prime Minister implied that those opposed to UK involvement with the European project are motivated by xenophobia. That this is untrue is easily demonstrated by the fact that foremost among such opponents are Tony Benn, Peter Shore and David Stoddart, who have devoted their political careers to seeking equality of treatment for all, and whom no one in their right mind could accuse of detesting foreigners. The anti EU movement is aimed at the bureaucratic dictatorship of the Brussels bureaucrats, not the peoples of neighbouring nations, but the Europhiles, in the best traditions of Dr Goebbels, constantly repeat the big lie in the hope that it will come to be accepted as the truth.

That the Prime Minister is prepared to take part in this deception proves that, far from being 'a regular kind of guy', he is just another self serving politician who places the interests of the political elite above those of the British people.

26/09/2000

The damage being caused by the hubris of the European political elite, when they decided, against all economic sense, to launch their bastardised creation the Euro upon the world, is endangering the wellbeing of the entire world economy. Yesterday's action by the central banks of the USA, Japan, the UK and of Euroland will not save the arrogant fools who promoted the single currency from the nemesis they so richly deserve even if they are prepared to spend billions over months, or even years, to defend the indefensible.

Now that the warnings by its opponents about the folly of rushing into a single currency have been fully vindicated is it not time that attention was paid to the equally persuasive case being made for UK withdrawal from the European Union. Unlike so many who are in favour of the project and who base their case on an unquestioning, almost mystical, belief in European integration, the contrary view is grounded in hard facts. An independent, non partisan analysis carried out by the United States' International Trade Commission for the Senate Finance Committee has concluded that the UK derives no economic benefit from being in the EU, compared to not being in the EU. When one considers this fact in conjunction with all that we are sacrificing in order remain a member, from the destruction of the fishing industry to the far greater damage being inflicted on our democracy, the British people should demand that the politicians cease to place their own narrow, sectional interests above those of the nation as a whole. They have lost the case for the Euro and it is time for them to face the fact that the wider case for EU membership is also fatally flawed.

23/09/2000

On Thursday Politico's bookshop hosted the launch of Peter Shore's new book on the UK and the EU. Excellent speeches were made by Tony Benn and Peter Shore himself in the presence of many major anti EU activists including John Mills of LESC, Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement, Tony Scholefield of UKIP, Christina Speight of Reform plus a number of us from the CIB NEC.

This book should be required reading for all who desire to see the UK escape from the rule of Brussels and makes clear the extent to which the British people have been lied to by the political class.

Details of the book are as follows:

16/09/2000

The European Court of Justice's latest ruling will impose VAT on all roads and bridges where tolls are charged. We may have been under the impression that Her Majesty's Government sets taxes in this country but it is now becoming clear that we are subject to the whims of judges in Luxembourg who have no knowledge or interest in economic conditions in Britain and who are entirely beyond the control of the British electorate.

The imposition of this extra taxation designed to rake in extra funds for Brussels is outrageous and follows a recent announcement that the European Commission is likely to introduce a £30 per year levy on every personal, business or mobile telephone line. There is a clear agenda emerging here, that Brussels is intent upon lining its coffers at the expense of business and personal taxpayers in Britain and across Europe. We are now paying the price for more than 30 years of supplication to the mandarins in Brussels which has allowed control of taxation to be taken out of the hands of our elected Government.

12/09/2000

The petrol crisis makes clear that the Prime Minister is beginning to reap the whirlwind sown by the contempt he, and the rest of the political elite, have shown for the sovereignty of Parliament. As power has been haemorrhaging to appointed quangos, and even more to the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels, so the people have come to realise that their elected representatives are being sidelined and no longer possess the means to rein in the excesses of government.

The English Civil War was fought to reassert the rights of the legislature against an over mighty executive but the transfer of power to the institutions of the European Union is rapidly reversing that verdict. Unless the Westminster Parliament is restored to its rightful place at the heart of the British state then we shall see the methods adopted in France increasingly used in this country, in the absence of any democratic means of controlling our arrogant rulers.

12/09/2000

The Foreign Office has just published a document Britain's Entry into the European Community: Report on the Negotiations of 1970-72 by Sir Con O'Neill.

This document reveals the extent of the appeasement by the British Government and the depth of the betrayal of British interests involved in what was not "negotiations" but in reality an unconditional surrender to the demands of the Continentals.

Comments by Sir Con, one of that line of Foreign Office mandarins who possess the arrogance to think that they always know best, and who can be relied upon to put the interests of the political elite before those of the country, clearly illustrate the attitude taken by those determined to submerge the UK in a European superstate:

• the whole of our long negotiations were peripheral, accidental and secondary...What mattered was to get into the Community

• it would be in the interests of this country to join the EEC whatever the terms

• none of the EEC's policies was essential to us; many of them were objectionable, but the doctrine of accepting everything, unless a case should be shown, had to be adopted

• I do not feel any real apprehension about the future and am, on the whole, rather complacent

Sir Con, from his protected position in the FO, may have had no reason to be apprehensive, but perhaps one should ask the opinions of the fishermen, whom Heath sacrificed by signing the Common Fishing Policy, the farmers, for whom the Common Agricultural Policy is a disaster, and every democrat in the UK who sees their right to hold their political masters to account being given away to Brussels.

If Heath, a man obsessed with tying this country to Europe, and his acolytes Rippon, Heseltine, Howe, Lawson, Hurd and all the rest, had ever been honest about their ambitions to dismantle the UK as a sovereign nation-state they would never have been elected but, in their overweening arrogance, they decided that they knew best and the people should be prevented from knowing the truth. This was at best ignoble, at worst nothing less than a deliberate conspiracy to conceal the implications of the European project from the nation.

Of course, nearly thirty years later, those responsible have learnt nothing, while the lying still goes on, a pretence being made that the UK can remain in the EU without losing its independence. Only last week Heseltine spoke of the absorption of Britain into the United States of Europe as being "as irreversible and unstoppable a process as anything in politics ever is", while the Conservative Party puts forward the meaningless "In Europe, not run by Europe" and the Prime Minister declares that joining the single currency has no constitutional implications. These people live on the other side of the looking glass!

Now of course we face the fact that if the UK is to survive we must withdraw from the EU. The complacent elite of 1972 are not only responsible for Britain following the wrong path for nearly three decades but will find that the ultimate result of their deceits is the breakup of the EU itself, something which might not have happened had we never joined under false pretences. These people should be remembered with the same opprobrium as Benedict Arnold is by the people of the United States.

09/09/2000

05/09/2000

Although the political summer holidays mean temporarily less exposure for the iniquities of the EU there have been several notable outbreaks of hypocrisy from federalists.

First in line was Keith Vaz, the 'Minister for Europe', with his accusations that Eurorealism in the British press is unbalanced and prevents the issues being discussed in a sensible manner. It is almost beyond belief that federalists have the brass face to say this, when their contribution to the debate consists in deriding their opposition as being 'right wing, xenophobic Little Englanders' who do not understand the issues while, at the same time, declining to answer the very real points made by the anti EU movement as to the economic mismatch between the British and European economies, the failures of the Euro and the massive unemployment within Euroland, and who claim that there is no constitutional issue involved in transferring the powers of our elected representatives from Westminster to Brussels!

Next to pop up was that ridiculous figure, Robin Cook, who echoed Vaz in talking about a 'grown up' debate, by which he no doubt means we should believe all the rubbish concerning the EU produced by the Foreign Office and not dare to question the received wisdom of self interested mandarins. It is certain that Cook would not dare to take on the articulate leaders of the anti EU movement such as David Stoddart, Peter Shore, Bill Cash or Alan Sked in any 'grown up' debate as he knows his absurd pretensions as to the benefits of EU membership would be swiftly demolished.

Europhiles have worked themselves up into a fine old lather about British Eurorealists, such as Frank Field and Daniel Hannan, going over to Denmark to make speeches against that nation joining the Euro, claiming that no outsider should interfere in their forthcoming referendum. This is a laughable statement, given that the European Commission is, via their tame creatures in the European Movement, ensuring that millions are being spent to bolster the 'Yes' campaign and that leading members of 'Britain in Europe' have been to Denmark to speak in favour of the latter.

To address the main accusation, while acknowledging that there is always a risk in venturing an opinion on a matter relevant to a county not one's own do we not have a duty to speak out when we see a fellow democratic nation in danger of taking a fatal decision. Would these federalists say nothing if they saw a car taking a road which they knew led over a cliff? When, in 1939, we saw Poland under threat from an external, undemocratic state we intervened. Now that all the little nations of Europe are under threat from the monster of Brussels, should we not raise our voices in their defence?

It is anyway in our own interests, as well as that of the Danes, that they should reject the Euro, as a 'No' vote would hasten the end of this absurd and dangerous economic experiment and save the UK from the perils of joining, albeit only until the project finally collapses.

Perhaps the questions about intervention should be addressed to the European Commission which is now spending millions in the UK in an attempt to brainwash our children into believing that EU membership is good for us!

03/09/2000

As we in the Euro realist movement warned from the beginning the decision of Eire to join the Euro is proving to be a disaster. Inflation has spiralled to a fifteen year high, the central bank is powerless to act, the trade unions are demanding that their recent three year pay deal is scrapped and the opposition is demanding the recall of Parliament to confront the crisis. The Irish government has resorted to a raft of policies to hold down prices, but so far they are not working. It has even forbidden increases in the price of a pint of Guinness.

One of the biggest trade unions, the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers, said the pay deal should be torn up. Mick O'Reilly, the union's leader, said: "Inflation is spiralling out of control, while wages are tied to minuscule increases. It cannot be tolerated any further."

The Governor of Ireland's Central bank, Maurice O'Connell, has conceded defeat saying "There is nothing we can do...We can do take no action on interest rates or exchange rates; they're gone. We can no longer put a cap on credit either...We have no corrective mechanism any more on monetary policy".

Wim Duisenberg, the Governor of the European Central bank, has totally disclaimed responsibility "There is nothing that the ECB can do about it, except trying to convince the national authorities in Ireland that these developments, which are indeed somewhat worrisome...that it's their piece of cake to deal with".

The Irish Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy accepts that action is needed but says "In a small, open economy like Ireland's, to have any effect, I'd have to cut public spending by dramatic amounts and raise taxes by dramatic amounts. And that's not politically feasible".

The level of interest rates in an economy is like the level of the gas under a boiling kettle. Once you renounce control of the gas and try to hold back the steam by putting your finger down the spout you are headed for pain, failure and eventually disaster when the kettle blows up. In the same way the Irish will not be able to control inflation by price controls but will see their economy overheat and finally collapse. The Franco-German Axis which controls the EU cares little for the fate of their small 'partners' and it will only be when their two economies diverge massively that the Euro will fall apart. For the time being the Irish, followed by others such as the Spanish, will reap the whirlwind, the result of trusting a self interested political class who are economic idiots. Their fate should provide a salutary lesson to all those in the UK who might be tempted to follow their example.

18/08/2000

One of the stalwarts of CIB, Flora Jenner, has written to the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Light Railway Company concerning their flying the Euro flag at their station. She received the following reply:

We are very conscious of the need to make our station look attractive and inviting to all visitors. We do not see our flags as political tools or adverts simply something visitors will recognize from a distance and that makes the station identifiable.

Equally we were careful to place the Union Jack as one of the trio along with the Kent Invicta as we are very much part of the South East tourist industry although we also rely on many visitors from our continental neighbours"

It is likely that this policy is inspired by naivete, rather than malice, but these people should realise that the choice of flags is a political statement. I very much doubt whether they would fly the Swastika or the flag of the old Soviet Union, just to make the station look 'attractive', and they should be aware that for many who love democracy the EU represents as great a threat as did those old dictatorships. If they wished to make the station cheerful, and please our continental neighbours, they could fly the flags of France, Italy, Germany etc. without giving succour to those who support the federal superstate. Anyway, as the Europhiles are always telling us that the EU is not a superstate in the making, their flag is not a national one and has no right to be flown as if it was.

Perhaps CIB members should write in protest to the Railway company, telling them they will never use their trains unless they cease to display the flag of Brussels.

13/08/2000

It is absolutely outrageous that multinational companies such as Toyota should attempt to dictate to British industry that the UK must sign up to the single currency, applying pressure by invoicing suppliers in euros. This is a primarily political issue, not an economic one, and the democratic birthright of the British people to elect parliamentary representatives who control fiscal policy is not for sale to the highest bidder.

The arrogance of these companies grows daily and it is time that democratically elected governments took action to put them in their place. If they do not then perhaps all those who believe in freedom and the sovereignty of Parliament should consider boycotting the products of these modern over mighty barons. We should not forget that only 4% of inward investment to the UK comes from Japan and that not all Japanese companies agree with Toyota.

Perhaps Toyota might like to take a look at Honda who, far from running scared, are showing their confidence in the UK, inside or outside the Euro, by transferring more car production to Swindon from Japan. They clearly recognize that short term currency considerations are not the determining factors when deciding where to invest.

13/08/2000

A recent episode of the TV series 'Europtia', consisting of a guide to the European Parliament by one of the UKIP MEPs, produced a number of revealing glimpses of the reality behind all the Europhile rhetoric.

In an interview with the Times the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, an arch federalist, asks what alternatives are presented by the opponents of his federal dream. While we in the Eurorealist movement would not presume to dictate to the other nations of Europe we have a very clear vision of our hopes for Britain. We see a future as an independent nation-state, governed by a parliamentary democracy whose politicians are accountable to the people, unlike the bureaucratic elite of the EU. We envisage prosperity as a truly global nation, trading with our historic partners and allies in the Commonwealth, the English speaking nations, and indeed with all the world. We would control our own fishing grounds, determine our own agricultural policy, live under the Common Law, not the Napoleonic variety, set our own taxes and defend our islands with our own independent armed forces.

In other words we see Britain as she would have been had we not taken the disastrous step of joining the EEC and we seek to return to the path we should never have left. Does Mr Fischer have a vision for Germany once the EU has imploded, due to its own internal contradictions?

Herr Fischer displayed all the arrogance of the federalists in his declaration that Germany would not accept a system that allowed countries to block fast European integration. "We cannot wait around until the last country has decided it wants to go farther along the road of European integration", he said. "Those who do not want to do this, or cannot, should not have the right to block it". In other words, despite the rules of their wonderful club giving the UK the right to do just that the federalists will NOT ACCEPT IT.

If we had political leaders who stood up for Britain they would ignore such bombast and just veto anything we didn't like but unfortunately our political class is pursuing their own self interest and can be relied upon to bow the knee to the EU. The best solution all round would be for the UK to withdraw from the EU, which could then go ahead and jump over the cliff without having to be concerned about the views of the British. Threats to expel us are rather like threatening to throw Brer Rabbit in the briar patch - it would be just what we want!

31/07/2000

The latest leaked memos show that Tony Blair is as committed to membership of the single currency and of the EU as are Heath, Clarke and Heseltine. His claim that the UK would have more influence within the EU, rather than outside, is an absurdity. As an independent nation we are one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, a member of the G7 group of the world's richest nations, possess the most effective military forces in Europe, including nuclear weapons, have the fourth largest economy in the world and enjoy unparalleled global connections with the Commonwealth and the English Speaking world.

As a province of the United States of Europe we would be a small part of a federal superstate, whose interests would not coincide with ours; it will be inward looking, protectionist and restricted to small minded Eurocentralism. One should ask which has the greatest influence in the world, a small but independent nation like Norway, or an American state of comparable population which, despite being a part of the world's only superpower, is merely a province.

It is no more surprising that Mr Blair considers that the political case for joining the Euro is 'overwhelming' than it would be if cats think the case for cream is unanswerable. As a leading member of the political elite he, and his colleagues, will be the only beneficiaries of the absorption of Britain into the coming USE, as they will be able to be share out the plum jobs, unhampered by the sort of inconveniences involved in being accountable to their electorates, the preferred form of government of the Europhiles being bureaucratic not democratic.

27/07/2000

Those evil, but successful, exponents of propaganda, Hitler and Goebbels, knew that if a lie was big enough, and repeated often enough, it would come to be accepted, except by those who recognized them for what they were.

The Euro debate is rapidly approaching that position, as the Europhiles pump out one lie after another, and the less intelligent members of the media repeat them parrot fashion.

Today we have Robin Cook stating that the euro's long term attraction appeared irresistible and that joining was inevitable. As far as the first quote is concerned perhaps he should ask the Irish if membership is so wonderful, as inflation begins to rise past 5% and they try to contain it by price controls, a strategy which will be as successful, and as painful, as trying to stop a boiling kettle by putting one's finger in the spout. They know that they should be raising interest rates but, as members of euroland, they cannot do so, and must accept the disaster which now awaits them. Mr Cook should also be aware that, contrary to the old saw, only death is truly inevitable, as taxes could be abolished, and that the success of the Euro is about as certain as the inevitable victory of Communism.

Another long term Europhile, that smug, self satisfied, serial appointee Chris Patten is reported as having' mocked' the idea that joining the Euro would mean a loss of sovereignty, showing that he is another who does not like facts to get in the way of a good story - perhaps he should ask the Irish if they feel their sovereignty has been impugned.

In his appearance on Question Time Mr Blair asserted that the record levels of inward investment to the UK only take place because we are in the European Union, something that shows he is a better lawyer than an economist. When asked, those investing in the UK always say that it is a stable political system, a skilled workforce, the power of the City, the English Language, a mature infrastructure and a less bureaucratic atmosphere that brings them here rather than going to euroland and has nothing to do with whether we are inside the EU or not. It sets the latest whinges by Japanese carmakers in context when the latest figures released show that only 4 percent of inward investment to the UK comes from Japan. We would indeed be stupid to give our democracy away for that!

The insanely Europhilic London Evening Standard again described those who oppose Britain's membership of the EU as Right wing Little Englanders. That this is a complete lie is shown by the fact that leading opponents include Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill and the Labour Peers Lord Shore and Stoddart while it is in fact the Europhiles who look inwards to a stagnating, protectionist bloc, instead of outwards to the opportunities to be grasped across the oceans.

The constant drip of these lies, aided and abetted by the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation, will no doubt have an effect on the views of the mass of the electorate. However, if they wish to preserve their freedom, they would do well to realise that it is the self interest of the political class which is behind these pronouncements, not any concern for the well being of the British nation or people.

07/07/2000

As the battle over the Euro now appears to be joined it is necessary to provide some answers to those siren voices who claim that for the UK to remain outside the single currency threatens the economic well being of the nation. Foremost among these have been complaints from manufacturing industry that they are unable to compete, while a number of primarily Japanese car companies have suggested that further inward investment may be directed elsewhere.

A simple response to these latter is provided by the Ford car company which has pointed out that only an idiot would make decisions about long term investment on the basis of short term currency fluctuations. The same people who say that cars made in Britain will not sell on the Continent because of the weakness of the Euro also tell us that this weakness is temporary and that soon the Euro will prove to be a strong currency. If so (and it must remain doubtful) then those companies which transfer to Euroland would, if one accepts the basic premise that the value of the currency is the main determinant, face the problem of being unable to sell within the UK. The real world is not as simple as this and efficient manufacturers have always been able to succeed, despite the relative strengths of their own currency, as is evidenced by the ability of German companies to export throughout the years when the Mark was strong.

The continuing series of pronouncements by Japanese car firms may say more about Japanese psychology than about the economic issues involved. Despite their innate conservatism the British have always placed a greater value on democracy than on purely material considerations, whereas the people of Japan have exchanged a military dictatorship for a more benign, but nevertheless ordered regime, which has led to essentially one party rule, the main focus of the nation being on collective profit, not individual freedom. It is probably beyond the understanding of those who operate within such a corporatist state that a people might prefer to make their own choices, rather than hazard all on the presumed wisdom of businessmen whose only guiding star is financial gain. When one adds to this the fact that, for the UK, the limited economic benefits in some areas of joining the single currency are far outweighed by the disadvantages in others it would be best if companies such as Nissan prevented their executives from commenting on such sensitive political matters, particularly as the suspicion exists that there may be ulterior motives involved in threatening to reduce investment. Some industry analysts believe that Nissan is seeking to use sterling's independence as an excuse for a rationalisation already planned as a result of its merger last year with French manufacturer Renault. The latter is 44 per cent owned by the French government and, facing unemployment levels twice Britain's, French ministers are unlikely to approve new jobs and investments sailing across the Channel.

On the wider issue of manufacturing, although certain lobby groups constantly repeat the mantra that the strength of the pound vis-a-vis the Euro is the cause of all their problems, this is a superficial, and indeed deliberately misleading proposition. It is in the interests of large sections of industry to attribute blame in this way as it is easier to justify poor results to shareholders if one can point the finger at some external evil that one cannot control, rather than face the fact that there is something amiss nearer to home. An examination of fluctuations in export growth over the last ten years shows that currency movements are not the main determinant but only one factor, the level of global demand being much more significant. When the USA pulled out of recession in 1992 British exports grew, whereas the latter's collapse in late 1998 related to the economic disasters which hit South East Asia at that time.

An even more telling point is that manufacturing profits have not varied in accordance with the success, or otherwise, of export growth because, for most of the British economy, it is domestic demand which determines success. Only about 15% of the economic activity of the UK relates to external markets so the bulk of manufacturing relies on sales at home, something not directly affected by the level of the pound. The fall in domestic demand seems to centre on a decline in brand loyalty and the ease in which goods can now be obtained, via the Internet, from anywhere on the planet. This points to a structural problem which will not be solved by playing around with the level of the pound.

Were those who seek a fall in the value of the British currency to get their way, the resulting rise in interest rates and increases in the cost of raw materials obtained from outside Euroland would more than cancel out any short term gains. The real answers are for British manufacturers to close down terminally loss making activities, to position their businesses in areas of growth and to recognize that they must compete more efficiently. However it is much easier to demand that the British jump over the Euro cliff with the rest of the lemmings, than to make the changes necessary. It seems of no consequence to these businessmen that the democratic rights of their fellow countrymen would be sacrificed for all time in order that their profit margins should benefit in the short term.

The British people should also be aware that manufacturing is not the only source of income for this nation. The truly massive investments we hold around the world yield enormous profits, as do the activities of service industries working in the 'invisibles' sector, much of which profit is generated outside Euroland. To put all this at hazard, to give up for ever the power to run our own economic affairs, to hand control of our mortgage rates to countries which do not have the same level of home ownership as do we, merely in order to help inefficient companies make their bottom line appear more satisfactory for a short time, would be insane.

01/07/2000