A just published poll states that a majority of Conservative Party members would vote for Kenneth Clarke as leader. If this is to be taken seriously one must ask whether they have all gone completely insane. His apologists claim that his euro federalist views are not a problem, that euroscepticism has failed, that he could unite the party and that he is an election winner. Any dispassionate consideration of the facts show these statements to be absurd:

• Clarke's eurofederalist views are not a problem

  Some are claiming that the whole matter of the euro and of EU membership can be put on the backburner as it is not a serious issue for the moment. This is ridiculous as no issue is of more importance. If we continue as members of the EU then we shall be prevented from setting the level of our own taxes, deciding on what we wish to spend our money and indeed will no longer run our own affairs. It is the issue of the age, and all others are subservient to the question "Who governs Britain?"

• Euroscepticism has been tried and failed

  Again this is an absurd contention. Both Hague and Portillo are on record as stating their opposition to withdrawal from the EU and the formula used by the Conservatives of "In Europe, but not run by Europe" was a nonsense. If Hague had had the courage to seize the nettle and run on a platform of outright opposition to the EU he would still be leader of the Conservative Party, and indeed might be Prime Minister. Instead he sought to retain the support of the party Europhiles and ending by falling between two stools. A Tory leader who ran on a policy of ending the federalist nightmare could restore the fortunes of his party but not one who seeks to be all things to all men.

• Clarke could unite the party

  A joke. The chasm between those who see the future of Britain as an independent self-governing nation and those who wish her to be a series of provinces within a single European state cannot be bridged. If Clarke turned the Tories once more to a Heathite path then he would split the party in a much more serious way than it would be split now if the small band of Europhiles were to be driven out by a Eurorealist leadership.

• Clarke is a winner

  Crass stupidity. The Conservative campaign of May 1997 was dominated by Heseltine and Clarke, who had a much greater degree of control on policy than did Major. They led their party to its most crushing defeat for a hundred years and yet one of the architects of that defeat is now held up as an election winner. Clarke may have a certain appeal because of his apparent down to earth personality but the sad fact is that this seeming personification of John Bull is in fact in favour of allowing our right to rule ourselves to pass to the EU.

In the early 1970s the Conservative party renounced its past and betrayed its natural constituency to follow Heath into becoming the 'Party of Europe'. It has taken them decades to realise the error of their ways, as even Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act and took us into the ERM, but it has seemed recently that those who recognize that EU membership will mean the death of Britain have regained control of the party. The poll of members conducted by Hague only a few years ago showed an eighty per cent support for a Eurosceptic line in policy. If they now turn to Clarke the only conclusion must be that the Gods have made them mad and will shortly destroy them.

30/06/2001

It was clear in the Queen's speech that the corrupting influence of the European Union is undermining the principles upon which the liberties of the British people are based. Because the European Union is institutionally corrupt and unable to control the fraud being perpetrated every day within its central bodies, the dictators of Brussels are forcing ever more illiberal measures upon member states, the most draconian of all being Corpus Juris which, as noted elsewhere in these pages, will destroy British Common Law.

Firstly the government is now intending to end the double jeopardy rule, at first only for murder, but how long before it is abolished entirely. This will allow the state to pursue individual citizens endlessly and ensure that no-one, once accused of a crime, can ever be certain that they are free to resume a normal life, however often they are cleared by a court.

Even more alarming is the proposed 'Proceeds of Crime Bill'. This will allow assets to be recovered from citizens who have been convicted of no crime by replacing the presumption of innocence by the idea that the police "know" they are guilty. The provisions of this bill also impose an obligation on financial advisers to pass on suspicions of money laundering, even if they merely have what a judge decides is 'reasonable grounds' for such suspicions, that they must no longer act for such clients but they may not tell their clients what they have done. This means that if you buy a new car your accountant may be obliged to report you and then will not continue to work for you but will not tell you that he is no longer acting on your behalf.

These measures are a disgrace, proposed by the lapdogs of Brussels, who have no sense of the rule of law but only see that their special interests are served by obeying the EU's orders. If enacted financial privacy will be dead and the trust and honesty without which civil society cannot survive will be replaced by suspicion, mendacity and law-breaking. We shall be on the verge of Orwell's world of 1984 where neighbour informs against neighbour, and family member against family member, all in the cause of Big Brother.

This is the state to which this nation is being reduced by membership of a truly despicable organisation.

24/06/2001

A report by the Centre for Financial Innovation, commissioned by Business for Sterling, says that the interests of the City of London (one of the Chancellor's five economic tests for entry) will be better served by the UK remaining outside Euroland.

The report states that "London has fully maintained its market share and remains by far the largest and most competitive financial centre in Europe"

So much for the scare stories put about by the Europhiles.

24/06/2001

An article about the Irish Referendum, which can be found on the European Foundation section of this website, is so important that it bears repetition here, as it illustrates the depths to which the European political class is prepared to sink in order to achieve their aim of a federal Europe:

Faced with another defeat at the polls - the Irish 54% No to Nice comes after the Swiss No to the EU in February and the Danish No to the euro last September - EU foreign ministers issued a statement on Monday saying in effect that they would ignore the result of the Irish referendum. In a common communique, they said, "While respecting the will of the Irish people, the foreign ministers expressed their regrets at the outcome of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty. They rule out any re-opening of the text signed at Nice. The process of ratification will be continued on the basis of this text and in accordance with the planned timetable. The other fourteen states have said they are ready to help the Irish government in all possible ways to find a way out by taking into account the worries which the results of the referendum reflect, without re-opening the text of the Nice treaty."

By this statement, European leaders formally gave notice that they have abolished democracy. It is a long-established fundamental principle of democracies that governments are responsible to the people who elected them and to their representatives. By stating that the ratification process is a rubber stamp which can be overruled at will, the governments of Europe have explicitly stated that they do not recognise the rights of their national legislatures (for instance to ratify treaties, or to change the constitutional structures which govern their countries) and that instead they, the governments, enjoy those rights instead. This is, quite literally, a coup d'etat.

Individual ministers peddled the same anti-democratic line. The Swedish foreign minister, Anna Lindh, current president of the European Council, ruled out any substantial change to the Nice treaty. Her German counterpart, Joschka Fischer, said that Europe's institutions had to become "easier to understand" - it evidently does not occur to him that European citizens (Irish ones, anyway) might understand them perfectly well already. The French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, said that the French National Assembly will continue to ratify the Nice treaty unperturbed by the Irish result. The Belgian prime minister also said that ratification would go ahead regardless. Romano Prodi said, "I have the impression that people did not have a very clear understanding of the question which was put to them." [Die Welt; Le Monde, Agence France Presse, Deutsche Presseagentur, AP et. al., 11th June 2001]

Telephone calls made by your correspondent to the Attorney General's office in Dublin were not returned when the following question was put: "Within what time delay does Irish law allow a new referendum to be held on a subject which has already been rejected in a popular vote?" The silence is not surprising: how can the Irish be made to vote again on the same treaty if Irish law forbids two votes in quick succession on the same subject? Europe will have to do some fairly intensive rummaging around in its box of tricks before a solution is found.

One would find the arrogance of the elite almost unbelievable were it not repeated so often. In the Sunday Telegraph this week Mark Steyn had a thoughtful article on the EU which exposes many truths about this putative superstate:

It has a government, but no political parties. It has a defence policy, but it doesn't have an army. It swanks about like a superpower, but half its members are neutral. It wants to meddle in North Korea, but it's paralysed in the face of genocide on its own frontier.

If has a currency, a passport, a citizenship, an anthem, a flag and people like to burn it, but it doesn't have any of the inner organs of democracy, accountability or basic constitutional principles, and on the whole it's the guys who lose the elections (Chris Patten, Neil Kinnock) who get to run the joint.

It is difficult for the US to have a split with Europe because there isn't a Europe to have a split with. There's Mr Persson (the Prime Minister of Sweden) and a few dozen other persons who've got together, ordered up some headed notepaper and issue press releases on this and that on behalf of 'Europe'.

I recently pointed out to a distinguished Senator, the US is ineligible to enjoy the benefits of EU membership. "Thank God for that", he said.

No one is as dedicated to the proposition that the people are cretins as Mr Chevenement (France's erstwhile Defence Minister) and the panjandrums of the new "Europe". The EU is organised on this assumption. If, like the Danes and now the Irish, they're impertinent enough to tick the wrong box, we'll just keep reasking the question until they get it right.

Who's really the swaggering cowboy? The well-mannered, modest Texan? Or the insulated Europenomenklatura sneering at him as they blunder round the world? it's the difference between a representative democracy, and a poseur democracy. Or to put it another way: America believes in the will of the people, "Europe" in the will of the Perssons.

What can one say but "Amen to that".

On this subject of democracy a letter in The Times today, from a Mr Fergusson, highlighted the sort of trick the Europhiles will attempt in an effort to get around the promise of a referendum on the euro:

Sir

We are committed to a referendum, so let it be soon. And let it be on whether or not to give the Government a mandate at a future time of its choice to attempt to negotiate conditions for the entry of sterling, which it can confidently recommend to the House of Commons. In the event of a positive outcome, our representatives would then make one of the judgement and decisions which they are elected and paid to make.

That would fulfil the referendum commitment; avert the difficulty of negotiating an agreement that might subsequently be rejected by the electorate; and simultaneously deliver the country from the malign economic pressures of a divisive and constitutionally unsatisfactory political device

One does not know whether Mr Fergusson is just naive, or is flying a kite for the Europhiles, but this is just the sort of proposal which we must fear they will promote, knowing as they do that they are unlikely to win a fair referendum. The author of these pages therefore responded as follows:

Sir

The formula for a euro referendum proposed by Mr Adam Fergusson, would obfuscate the true issue by deferring the decision, and then allowing it to be taken by MPs alone. Mr Fergusson is naive in his belief that the latter would then apply impartial judgement, as the vast majority would meekly follow the instructions of their party leadership, or would, as careerist politicians, recognize that, whatever the dire consequences for the country, their own self interest would be served by supporting moves to further European integration.

Mr Fergusson should recognize that the sovereignty of our nation does not belong to, to coin a phrase, 'Here today and gone tomorrow politicians', but to the British people, and if it is to be sacrificed the latter must be the ones to take that decision.

If the British people fall for a suggestion like Mr Fergusson's then they will deserve to lose their country.

22/06/2001

The summit in Gothenburg saw the first shots fired in the coming war between those who will not see their freedoms destroyed without a fight and a political class which is determined to suppress democracy throughout Europe, ensuring for themselves permanent domination of a bureaucratic monster centred on Brussels.

And what did our sanctimonious Prime Minister say while an unarmed protester lay seriously wounded in hospital? He attacked those who will not tamely lay down before the juggernaut of the European Union in terms that made them sound as if they were terrorists, rather than people expressing the feelings of millions who are sick and tired of being ignored by arrogant politicians. Why does he think the French take to the barricades so often? It is because the system in France only works for the elite and the ordinary people have no means of effectively influencing a government policy determined by those who go to the same limited number of schools, follow the same career path and have more in common with each other than they do with their electorate.

As the EU continues on the same undemocratic course it has followed since its creation the protests will grow. How many will the elite be prepared to shoot to preserve their power three, three thousand, three million? The journey to totalitarianism has begun and we must all fear where it will end.

20/06/2001

Two letters in the Daily Telegraph this week reveal the real truth behind the European Army, coming as they do from retired senior officers of the British and French armed services:

The first, published on Tuesday:

Sir

The UK and France are the two countries in Europe with global reach and influence. We both enjoy permanent seats in the UN Security Council, both carry the responsibilities of acting as nuclear powers with global projection and a global role.

While close co-operation should quite rightly take place, common cause does not mean that we should dilute our forces in a common army, navy or air force. As former Servicemen, we wish to voice our concerns at the manner in which the ability of our nations to protect our vital interests is being whittled away.

First, by penny-pinching, cutbacks in procurement and in force strength. Second, by overstretch, by committing reduced forces to increased global peacekeeping commitments, with disastrous effects on retention and morale. Third, and most important, by forging a common pseudo-identity in EU defence and foreign policy.

Our two countries have differing views on the future role and shape of Nato. But we can build on our distinctiveness if our armed forces remain under national flags. A common Euro army is incompatible with both of our approaches to this issue.

The actions of federalist politicians and technocrats playing at armchair generals, building a fictitious paper army, will only serve to weaken even further our national capabilities to the detriment of our own security and world stability. They should beware: paper tigers burn.

For the sake of our two countries and for Europe as a whole, we would counsel throwing the scheme into the dustbin of history before the fires begin.

Signed

General Pierre-Marie Gallois

General Alain Le Ray

Vice-Admiral Michel Debray

General Jean-Marie Moreau

General Jacues Derenne

General Jean Remignon

General Sir John Akehurst

Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton

Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly

Rear Admiral L J Lees-Spalding

Major-General Peter Martin

The second letter was published today:

Sir

We concur fully with the concerns of our former colleagues on the dangers of the European Rapid Reaction Force. The Ministry of Defence has indicated that it has earmarked a brigade of armour or mechanised infantry, four destroyers or frigates, an aircraft carrier, two nuclear submarines, a marine assault group, 72 combat aircraft and an unspecified number of Apache helicopters for possible deployment under the EU flag.

Given the present rate of cutbacks, this will soon constitute the larger part of our operationally available fighting forces. It would probably mean that we would ultimately have to obtain our European partners' approval if we wished to use them on a purely national issue.

The Irish have lately expressed their concern in a referendum over the loss of such national independence. We believe it is far preferable to have a full and proper debate on the Euro force than risk undermining our rare and immensely valuable special relationship with the Americans in exchange for an essentially political gesture towards a federal Europe.

Signed

Vice-Admiral Sir John Roxburgh

Admiral Sir John Woodward

Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. These men are the true professionals, unlike the products of squalid party politics who claim to rule us. We should be mad to repeat the insanities of the inter war years when we allowed our defences to become undermined and justified it with the despicable doctrine of appeasement. Now the political class of France and Britain is again exposing their people to danger, this time in the name of a federal Europe, something that operates only to their narrow advantage. However, as we were told by some members of the public during the general election "Europe is the only policy that makes Hague stand out... it's not a major issue", "A lot of people don't understand the Euro and are nationalistic about it", "If business wants to go in we'll have to go in because business rules", "We are so committed to being part of Europe we have to stay part of it". Perhaps they will remember those statements on the day their nation goes down to defeat at the hands of an enemy who will not have sacrificed their strength in pursuit of the chimera of European integration.

13/06/2001

There was good news for the Eurorealist movement today when the Irish people rejected the treaty of Nice in a referendum. According to the rules of the EU this means that the treaty falls but how many are so naive as to imagine that the dictators of Brussels will allow this to happen. When the Danes did the same over Maastricht Chancellor Kohl said "You are a little people, you must not stand in the way of Europe" and they were obliged to vote again in order to permit the juggernaut to continue. The Irish will no doubt be treated in the same way. Already one European Commissioner has declared that it will make no difference. Nevertheless we should applaud the Irish for having the sense to stand up for their country, something the present generation of Britons seem afraid to do.

08/06/2001

As the Conservative Party faces the reality of its second drubbing in a row we hear again the voices of those such as Leon Brittain and Michael Hesletine claiming that Mr Hague's policy on Europe was to blame. This is almost unbelievable in its bare-faced cheek. It is those who took over the Conservative party under Heath and made it 'The Party of Europe' which have destroyed it. By doing that they divorced themselves from their natural constituency and began the long decline, only temporarily halted by Margaret Thatcher. We also hear much from her about her opposition to the EU but she signed the Single European Act and agreed to enter the ERM so she bears her share of guilt.

The manner in which the people of Britain have ignored the warnings about government from Brussels indicates that they may very well wish to see this country a province of the United States of Europe. If that is the case then it is their right to choose that course but let them not complain when they reap what they elect to sow.

08/06/2001

At a crowded election meeting last Sunday a sitting MP gave an account of how governments of both main parties had, over the last few decades, encouraged the growth of an over mighty executive which was destroying the legislative powers of Parliament. The damage was compounded by, but independent of, the ceding of powers to Brussels and yet was not mentioned by the majority of the voluble politicians or pundits whose regale us with their views on the vital issues at stake in the election.

The main points he made were

• Parliament now ceases business at 7:00 p.m. and treats Friday as part of the weekend

• The parliamentary recesses are more numerous and longer than ever before

• The governing party ensures that all select committees are dominated by their own tame creatures, thus emasculating their powers of effective scrutiny

• The second chamber is becoming nothing more than a fiefdom of the Prime Minister of the day

• Vast numbers of quangos are taking over from civil servants whose responsibility to Parliament ensured that the government could not avoid being held accountable

• The Prime Minister has halved the number of weekly Question Times when he is made to answer Parliament direct

• Every government bill is now guillotined

As if this terrifying litany was not enough a report in Private Eye this week gives a specific example of how Parliament is being treated with utter contempt by the government:

On 12 March the Commons were to discuss the criminal justice and police bill at a time when the government was still trying to clear the decks for a May election and was falling over its own timetable. For a grim moment it looked as if there wouldn't be time for the report stage of the bill, and the whole shooting match might have fallen as a result.

In the event, an extraordinary emergency motion was introduced by the leader of the House, Margaret Beckett. The text was as follows:

The Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, as if those clauses and schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the committee had been ordered to stand part of the bill... with the outstanding amendments which stood on the order paper in the name of [home office minister] Mr Charles Clarke."

This motion, described by the speaker as "without precedent", was debated late into the night of 12 March. At a quarter past one in the morning Tory backbencher Richard Shepherd rose to oppose it. He made the rather obvious point that the House was being asked to "deem" something had happened when it hadn't.

"We are now telling ourselves that we are redundant," he said. "If every minister can deem, with a majority behind him, that something has happened, we can cut out the process of debate and transfer the business to the other end of the palace." It was no use. For the first time in its history the Commons proceeded by a majority of 98 (240-142) to "deem" that a bill had passed when it hadn't and that a minister's amendments had been discussed and passed when they hadn't.

We face nothing less than a complete reversal of the decision of the English Civil War when an arrogant executive was made to yield to the power of the people as expressed in the legislature. If this goes on then one day a Prime Minister will claim a divine right to rule and we shall be back to the early 17th Century as far as the constitution is concerned! Of course the greater destruction wrought by the EU will make even this fate irrelevant as there will be no British PM in a series of provinces of the United States of Europe.

And what do the media discuss as our Parliament is destroyed from within and without? They talk constantly about opinion polls, projecting possible results and 'scenarios' and preferring speculation to reporting actual events. They ignore the death of our democracy while indulging in mindless discussion of personalities and of issues which are rendered more irrelevant every day by the encroaching tide of legislation from Brussels.

This may indeed be the last General Election when the British people have any influence on those who claim to rule them. Unless the cannon fodder which now pass for MPs wake up and retrieve the powers of Parliament then we truly shall be living in an elected dictatorship.

06/06/2001

Today Sony have announced that they are basing their financial operations in London and gave as their reasons for the choice location, sophisticated markets, infrastructure, people and status as the premier international financial centre. No mention was made of the EU or the euro!

It is worth quoting from Patience Wheatcroft's commentary in The Times on the subject:

"Sony's decision to base its financial operations in London underlines the fallacy of claiming that the euro would inevitably make the capital less attractive to investors. Not only has inward investment in the UK surged to a record high after the single currency's launch, but the City has adapted admirably well. London continues to trounce Frankfurt in foreign exchange dealings, as well as in the lucrative eurobond market. If this is failure, success would be interesting to see.

In recent months, there has been a curious silence from those Japanese corporations that were at one time falling over each other to warn of the terrible consequences of staying outside the euro. The once pro-single currency voice of the Confederation of British Industry has, under guidance of Digby Jones, been quelled.

It is London's position as a link between three time zones, its flexible labour markets and its light regulatory touch that are among the qualities investors value.

When it decided to consolidate in London, Sony was weighing the relative merits of New York, Singapore and Tokyo. Frankfurt did not even make the shortlist. The euro is no guarantee of success as a business location. Indeed, the associated regulatory creep risks undermining any capital's hard-won prosperity."

On this same day fifteen "eminent" economists have written to the Financial Times urging the government to join the euro, saying that this would "safeguard" the advantages already gleaned from EU membership.

We are well aware that if all the economists in the world were laid end to end they would fail to reach a conclusion but this is the first time that we have an indication that they actually come from another planet. The euro is a disaster and the UK has "gleaned" precisely no advantages from EU membershipask the fishermen, farmers, industrial workers and those who love democracy!

How much longer will these idiots who took us into the ERM and now want to join that mechanism's big brother be given credence by the media. They are either fools or liars but perhaps that is an essential qualification to be an "eminent" economist!

05/06/2001

The Chairman of CIB (Scotland) has asked that two letters he has sent to newspapers be reproduced here:

Dear Sir,

Wake up Britain before it is too late. The only important question in this election is whether or not we want to become completely ruled by the European Superstate which is being created.

Labour, the Lib/Dems and SNP would ratify the Treaty of Nice, which Mr. Blair recently agreed to, and go all out to adopt the euro. These acts would make all other electionering promises worthless, as the EU would have overall control of everything.

The Treaty of Nice has hardly been mentioned by the main political parties or the media, before or duing the election campaign, but it transfers considerable powers from our own UK government to the institutions of the EU. For example, it abolishes almost all national vetoes, thereby rendering us defenceless against EU legislation and directives which could harm us.

Hence, although Mr. Blair has managed to retain the veto on taxation, harmonisation of taxes could be forced upon us under some other Treaty clauses, and the Commission has already been investigating this. (Already they prevent us reducing VAT to less than 5%.)

Amongst other things, the Nice Treaty would also commence replacing our legal system by the European one (e.g. trial by jury and imprisonment on suspicion alone, possible for 6 months or more). It also enables the EU to ban political parties which oppose it; and provides for a Common Energy Policy - will they take our oil as they did our fish?

Adopting the euro is not just a question of changing the name of money or of whether we would benefit economically. It would transfer our gold reserves and control of our economy to the European Central Bank for ever, and remove the last vestige of our self-government. Our only hope is to leave the EU, and vote accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

John G. Greer-Spencer

Dear Sir,

Rail privatisation and fragmentation was done in compliance with EU Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991. On Question Time, BBC1, Wed 30 May 2001, the question was asked "Why don't you renationalise the railways?"

Tony Blair replied - "Because it would take two years, etc." No statement that EU would not allow us to because of the Directive.

Mr. Blair must surely have known about the Directive. If so he was concealing the truth. Presumably he did not want people to know how much we were ruled by the EU.

Yours faithfully

John G. Greer-Spencer

03/06/2001

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, has now added his voice to that of the German Chancellor and the French Prime Minister in making clear that the European project is proceeding apace.

Prodi called for strong new powers for Brussels, the creation of a European tax to finance the EU, stronger political government, abandoning the national veto, giving more authority to the European Commission and the European Court of Justice and devising a constitution.

He wants the Commission to run EU foreign policy, instead of the Council of Ministers and to be a real 'economic' government to challenge the European Central Bank.

One classic Prodi question came when talking about foreign policy and defence - "In what cause would we be ready to die together?". It obviously does not occur to him that most people are far more likely to risk their lives defending their own country than in fighting for a misbegotten bureaucratic monster like the EU.

It is not surprise that Schroder, Jospin and Prodi should propound their views as they, like all the peoples of Europe except the British, are fully aware of the intention to create a single European state. The true mystery is how the British political class succeeds in disguising this fact from their own electorate and is allowed to do so by a moronic media. The true choice for us is not the Schroder model, or the Jospin model, or the Prodi model but whether we want to be a province of the United States of Europe, or an independent nation. That should be the issue discussed at the General Election but instead our politicians talk about the level of taxes which they know will soon be decided in Brussels unless we leave the EU. They are not the selfless public servants they like to pretend but deceitful and motivated by self interest.

30/05/2001

The French Prime Minister makes clear the intention to create a single European State and the European Parliament issues a report calling for a European Intelligence Service to serve the European Army. The anthem to which British troops will march as part of that Army is revealed to be a German marching song and the intention to finally destroy the British fishing fleet by the creation of 'a single European Sea' is announced. The German economy is sinking and police anticipate fraud on a massive scale as the changeover to Euro takes place next January.

And yet! These are a few quotes from members of the public quoted in The Times on Saturday:

• Europe is the only policy that makes Hague stand out... it's not a major issue

• A lot of people don't understand the Euro and are nationalistic about it

• If business wants to go in we'll have to go in because business rules

• We are so committed to being part of Europe we have to stay part of it

Of course there were others who did recognize the reality of the peril in which we now stand but opinion polls seem to reveal that a large number of the electorate do not consider Europe a major issue at the election when in truth it is the only one worth discussing. The differences between the three major parties on other issues are minuscule compared to the question of whether Britain remains an independent, democratic nation state or becomes a series of regions within a European single state.

The generation who saved us in 1914 has nearly all gone and that which stood firm in 1940 will soon be following. If the current inhabitants of these island do truly wish to submit to rule from Brussels then that of course is their choice, but they should be aware that it is a step that cannot be reversed without an almost unimaginable upheaval. Once Britain chooses, by her own will, to cease to exist, then we may be sure that Arthur will never return from Avalon to save us and Drake's drum will never drum our enemies up the Channel, but that we shall face the destruction of everything that makes this nation a nation. There is only so much those who see the truth can do to awaken the people and willing victims should not complain once they begin to reap what they have sown.

We must also beware of the Conservative Party attempting to tie the future of the pound to their own fortunes in this election. Even if the polls are right and Labour is returned with a massive majority that does not mean that the referendum is thereby lost. That referendum will be the last chance for the British people to save themselves and, should they not take it, then they will seal their own fate. However that battle is for later and must not be conceded now, whatever the result on the 7th of June.

28/05/2001

The manifesto of the Socialist Labour Party gives the lie to those who claim that being in favour of British withdrawal from the European Union is a right wing position. Although CIB, as a cross party organisation, does not advocate voting for any particular party, it is instructive to see that our policies on Europe command support across the political spectrum.

The following are direct quotes from the SLP manifesto:

The Party is totally committed to complete withdrawal from the European Union...That is the only way Britain can begin to regain control of its economy, sovereignty and its political powers

The European Union is a capitalist club that makes it easy for multi national companies to exploit workers throughout its member states, while the sovereignty of those states is increasingly meaningless, and we are all at the mercy of a vast, faceless bureaucracy

...membership of the European Union means we suffer an annual net loss of at least £10 billion, simply because we are in the EU

Maastricht means still more public spending cuts dictated from Brussels, and thus even higher unemployment and deeper poverty. The so-called Social Chapter has not in fact helped Britain; it has not even restored the rights and benefits that workers enjoyed over a quarter of a century ago.

The true political nature of the European Union is now becoming evident; we saw this in the Summit which took place in Nice towards the end of 2000. The drive to establish a European Army (a concept first advocated by Adolf Hitler), the introduction of taxation policies such as VAT, laws which over-ride laws adopted by the British people, do not represent an advance in either economic or human rights. On the contrary, the laws now emanating from Europe mean that the British working class is infinitely worse off than it was in the 1970s.

Our Party is committed to Britain's complete withdrawal from the European Union. Only by coming out of the European Union can we begin to put things right economically and socially; everything from the health Service to child care depends on it.

We are opposed to joining the euro and committed to fighting to regain independence from a capitalist European super-state or a United States of Europe. We are committed to campaigning for true internationalism so that we can have fair and reasonable trading links with the rest of the world.

We want Britain to come out of Europe and into the world, developing and expanding links with nations in Asia, Africa, the South Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean.

There would be an immediate net gain of £10 billion if Britain left the European Union, with billions more income from international trade.

The above proves that the claims by Europhiles that only those on the right support withdrawal are clearly lies.

23/05/2001

In an interview in The Times Sir Leon Brittan, described as a 'Tory Grandee', claims that the question of UK involvement with the European Union should not be an issue at this General Election and that proposals for withdrawal would not be popular. However a Mori poll carried out in March showed 52% of respondents wishing to leave the EU now, while 75% were in favour of a referendum on continued membership. In addition a poll by NOP, also in March, showed that 61% believed a vote on EU membership to be as important as having a vote in the General Election.

How much longer will these ageing federalists be treated by the media as significant voices within the Conservative party, when Mr Hague's own internal poll showed the overwhelming number of party members disagreed with their stance on Europe. If that party did split over Europe it would be a split comparable to a rock falling off Beachy Head - the rock of Europhiles would be very small and the mighty cliff of Eurorealists would not even notice their departure. It is greatly to be regretted that the Tory party has lacked the courage to force that break as they could then have faced the general election with a clear and popular policy on Europe instead of the farce of 'In Europe, but not run by Europe'.

22/05/2001

While our political class continues with their pretence that they are involved in a contest in which matters of true substance are involved, those who are becoming the real masters of Britain, the functionaries of the EU, push forward with their plans for a single state.

Their latest ploy is so transparently undemocratic that even Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten feel the need to pretend to be opposed to it. The European Parliament has approved funding for political parties which are "a factor for integration within the EU and contribute to forming a European consciousness". This money will only be available to parties with members in five EU states and will be stopped if the party involved acts in a manner "that conflicts with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights". Naturally the decision as to whether they have done so rests with MEPs acting a judge and jury and the whole scam will ensure that no party which believes in national identity will be eligible for European taxpayers money - UKIP today, perhaps the Conservatives tomorrow.

The European Parliament has also approved a proposal that Eurojust, the EU's judicial co-operation unit, must become "the nucleus of a future European public prosecution service". Under current plans Eurojust will be able to "ask" a member state to start a criminal investigation or begin a prosecution, any refusal requiring "reasoned justification". The European Parliament is also insisting that Eurojust should be able to demand criminal records from members states, the EU anti-fraud office OLAF and the Schengen immigration data bank. All this means that unless the UK gets out of the EU before it is too late we can wave goodbye to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence and the whole of British Common Law.

The European Military Staff moved into its first headquarters this week, said staff to be divided into "political affairs", "operations and exercises" and an "external actions mechanism". This is occurring at a time when the Institute for International Strategic Studies has condemned EU foreign policy as amounting to little more than "protest diplomacy" driven by anti Americanism. Again, if this continues, the US will retreat to Fortress America and we shall be left in the same mess we were in after WWI. (The insanity appears to be infectious as today it was announced that New Zealand is scrapping the fighter wing of its Air Force.)

As all these matters progress smoothly towards the birth of the single European state our politicians compete with each other to offer the largest rise in pensions, the shortest waiting list for hospitals or the largest tax cut, knowing in their hearts that they will not be able to deliver any of these, but will be able to hide behind the fact that all such decisions are passing (or have already passed) into the hands of Brussels. If the electorate do not wake up to this truth soon then we may as well not hold any more general elections as the clowns at Westminster will have no more control of this nation than they do over the tides.

Today, not much more than a week after the German Chancellor unveiled his proposals for a federal Europe, the French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin produces his vision of the future shape of the single state, in which, inter alia, taxes are levied from Brussels, the European Army intervenes around the world, and that there should be harmonisation of spending, with a common budget day throughout the EU.

For the British people the question ought not to be 'are these various plans practicable and / or desirable?' but 'should the shape of our society be determined by decisions taken by those not elected to represent us at Westminster?'. To any Briton, who lived in the days before Heath forced us to become part of the European project, the idea that others would decide on the nature of our institutions, the use of our armed forces or the levels of taxation we pay would have meant that we had been conquered and were now subservient to outside dictatorship. This is in fact was is happening but, to paraphrase John of Gaunt's words 'we have made a conquest of ourselves'. Do we want this, did we ever vote for it, are we happy with it - these should be the questions addressed at the general election, not the fiddling around the margins that our political class wishes to pretend is significant politics.

Since the Prime Minister announced the date of the general election the more moronic parts of the British media have pronounced that 'the phoney war is over' as if we now faced the prospect of a contest between conflicting ideologies over the future of Britain. In fact, as we all know, it is nothing more than shadow boxing by different factions of the same political class, whose positions on the most important issue of all are practically indistinguishable. The Liberal Democrats love Brussels with all their little hearts, 'New' Labour seems determined to force us into a single European state and the Conservatives lack the courage to stand up and damn the EU but talk about renegotiating treaties they know cannot be changed without British withdrawal.

Items in the news today highlight just how serious is the European issue for the future of democracy in the UK. It is reported that the German government is becoming increasingly alarmed at the scale of support for Neo Nazis in the old East Germany, the Italians look set to elect a coalition government which includes supporters of Neo Fascist parties and perhaps most sickening of all, the Interior Minister in Belgium's Flemish regional government has been forced to resign after being photographed at a reunion of Nazi SS veterans, where he took part in the singing of Nazi marching songs.

This is the sort of political system that our Europhiles wish to embrace, sacrificing the true representative and accountable parliament at Westminster, which we have spent centuries building, in order to take part in the farce of Strasbourg which, should current trends continue, could become a quasi fascist dictatorship.

The political scene in the UK today bears comparison to Arnold's "darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night". We shall be subjected to acres of newsprint and hours of TV time which discuss the trivial and the meaningless while the demise of our country as an independent nation is ignored. The politicians talk endlessly about tax and spending while all the time intending that the real decisions on these matters will be passed to our masters in the EU. It is no surprise that so many people do not intend to vote at all, given the deceitful nature of the debate, but it is a tragedy that our great democracy has come to this.

The German Chancellor has put forward his plan for the future of Europe which, as one might expect, involves the creation of a single state. At least he is honest about this, unlike our own dear home grown Europhiles, who persist in saying that black is white in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

That most lunatic of pro EU rags, the London Evening Standard, had the effrontery to say that we now had two alternatives available: either continue with the current set up, and accept that there was a 'democratic deficit', or adopt the German plan which would lead to more democracy, but also to a superstate.

The stupidity of this position provoked the author of the these pages to send the following letter to the Standard:

Dear Sir,

In your leader 'The choices for Europe' you omit to mention the alternative that is not only the most obvious, but which would ensure that would we neither lose the right to hold our rulers to account, nor become embroiled in a single European state, namely withdrawal from the European Union altogether. Were we to take this course we would be able to restore Westminster to its rightful place as the supreme law making body for this nation, while enjoying the same sort of friendly trading relations with Euroland as we with do with the rest of the world, without the need to accept the diktats of the European Commission. This would have the added bonus of improving relations with nations such as France and Germany as we would no longer represent a brake on their federalist ambitions. If Switzerland and Norway can survive and prosper outside the EU then so can we as the possessors of the fourth largest economy in the world.

Needless to say it was not published. The concept of there being a 'third way' on Europe would obviously be too much for them to absorb.

In his speech to the CIB AGM yesterday the President of CIB, Sir Richard Body, referred to the appeal made by Bernard Connelly against his dismissal for revealing the truth about the endemic corruption within the European Union, and reported the comments made by members of the so called European Court of Justice. (This latter bears as much resemblance to what we in the English Speaking World would consider a court of law as does Juke Box Jury, its stated raison d'etre being to promote the creation of a federal state in Europe.)

Sir Richard retailed how one member has spoken of 'an act of treachery' while another describe Mr Connelly as being guilty of an offence 'akin to blasphemy'. Sir Richard had taken the trouble to look up the exact definition of blasphemy in the dictionary which was "to speak impiously of the sacred". That anyone could compare a bureaucratic construct such as the European Union to a sacred entity would beggar belief had we not already seen certain malevolent people do the same, most notably General Franco, who sought to wrap his rule in some sort of religious cloak, and of course, Adolf Hitler, who stated in Mein Kampf that the state was a higher creation to which the people owed a kind of sacred duty.

In a particularly moving passage Sir Richard made clear that he did not regard the Europhiles like Heseltine, Clarke and others as evil but pointed out that they were zealots and, as history shows, zealots have often done evil in pursuit of what they consider a good cause. This is what is warned of by the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.

For those of us listening it was instructive to see how a brave man who has been vilified by weak men like John Major, merely for sticking to his convictions, could be so objective when considering those who have grievously insulted him over the years. Very few of those politicians who are so ardent for the UK to become part of a single European state have truly malign intentions and this is also true of their apologists in the media and elsewhere. Nevertheless, such is the human capacity for self deception and rationalisation, they may yet see good men and women destroyed because of their honest objections to the undemocratic monster of Brussels, and be able to justify themselves on the ground that is in the interests of the greater good as they see it. This is the old argument of the end justifying the means and is doubly tragic as the end itself is in fact a chimera.

Before he died Orwell said that perhaps his illness had led his great novel 1984 being blacker than even he intended, but increasingly we become aware that he may have seen the future, albeit through a glass darkly. A dictatorship of an oligarchy is harder to overthrow than that of one man and the course of the EU is set towards such an outcome. Britain, shorn of its manufacturing, fishing and farming industries, and reliant upon only the chemical and support industries granted it by Brussels will not be Airstrip One of Oceania, but Call Centre One of Eurasia, and while its people, thanks to technology, may not live in the poverty envisioned by Orwell, they will lose their history, their right to determine their own fate and any sense of themselves as a nation. The generation which save us in 1914-18 are nearly all gone, and that of 1939-1945 is ageing rapidly, while those who have been borne since seem more concerned with the doings of celebrities and with their own selfish interests than in any higher aims. They have greater access to information than any previous generation but, like the proles of 1984 seem only interested in trivia such as the lottery and the football results.

Surely no great people will have been so thoroughly destroyed so quietly, and by their own elite, than will the British if they do not awaken soon.

Despite the threats by the petty dictators of Sunderland council Steve Thoburn has courageously decided to go ahead with his appeal against conviction for selling a pound of bananas (and in any age except this present one would any Briton have believed that such a charge could be brought, let alone won by the state? Henry VIII would not have been so bold in his repressions as those who now claim to rule us)

That he is able to do this is due to the outpourings of support from ordinary people and this support, particularly financial must continue and grow if this brave man is not to be a sacrificial victim of those who would destroy the British way of life. Do not forget that this is not really about bananas but about who runs Britain - Westminster or Brussels.

To repeat the appeal made earlier in this pages:

Two items this week illustrate how great is the threat to the British system of Common Law posed by membership of the European Union.

First, there was a letter in the Times last Tuesday from that hero of the cause, Lord Shore of Stepney, and it is worth quoting in full:

Sir, I was brought up to believe that the essence of British justice was that, in civil as in criminal proceeding, the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless proved to the contrary.

Michael Gove (Comment, April 24) rightly draws attention to the abandonment of this principle in the European Union Directive issued under Article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty. Unfortunately, it is not confined to employment cases where racial discrimination is alleged. It is now to be extended in a "framework" directive across the whole vast area of potential discrimination, direct and indirect - including sex, disability, religion and age (Select Committee on European Union, Fourth Report, December 19, 2000).

When I challenged this in the House of Lords, I was told that it was only "a shift rather than a reversal of the burden of proof" since such cases would not be proceeded with unless the complainant was able to establish a prima facie case (Lords Hansard, March 20, Col WA151). I did not find this particularly comforting. And further, the minister, Tessa Jowell, who gave her gave consent to this all-embracing new directive, flouted the scrutiny procedures laid down by Parliament that give MPs and peers at least a chance to object.

When is this process of the destruction of our laws and powers of self-government to end? If any issue was worthy of commitment and serious debate in the forthcoming general election - rather than the smears and counter-smears of alleged racism - it is this.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Shore, House of Lords, April 24

The second reference came in the speech to the CIB AGM yesterday by that other great stalwart of the cause, Lord Stoddart.

He raised the matter of the British man who had just lost his appeal in Belgium against his conviction for football hooliganism, despite the fact that the prosecutors were unable to produce any evidence against him, and that video footage showed him behaving quietly and lawfully. The reasons the court gave for refusing to allow his appeal was that they believed the police assertions rather than the man's protestations of innocence, As Lord Stoddart pointed out this disgrace is a direct result of the Continental system which lays the burden of proof on the accused, rather than on the state. A man who would have walked from a British court without a stain on his character has been vilified, lost his job and seen his life ruined. How many British people would be confident that they could positively prove their innocence to a charge if they had to do so in opposition to the power of the state and the police, who would only have to make the accusation, not prove it? Yet that will be the situation in this country if we stay within the European Union.

Once again we see the ancient liberties of Britain being sacrificed on the altar of the petty ambitions of pygmy politicians. How much longer will the people bear it?

It is reported that there is 'government outrage' over the instructions by the European Commission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should put a cap on public spending. That this should occur is of course an inevitable result of UK membership of the European Union and, should we ever be so insane as to join the single currency, the control of our economy would pass completely into the hands of the Commission, the Chancellor then being no more than their messenger boy. As this transfer of power is a direct result of their own actions one must wonder whether British Europhiles are conscious hypocrites or just plain stupid.

The fact that in his latest speech Robin Cook claimed that membership of the European Union enhances British identity would be laughable were it not so serious an indictment of those who worship at the shrine of Brussels. We see the more minor matters, such as our systems of measurement, and potentially our units of currency, being replaced, but these pale into insignificance when one looks at the changes being wrought to our entire way of life. The Common Law, evolved over centuries, is to be replaced by the Napoleonic Code of Corpus Juris, the essentially British view that what is not specifically outlawed is permitted is being displaced by the Continental view that everything is banned except that which the state deems permissible and, worst of all, our accountable system of parliamentary government faces destruction at the hands of rule by the unelected bankers of Frankfurt and bureaucrats of Brussels. If we remain within the EU then Britain itself will disappear, these islands becoming merely a collection of regions within a single European state. One must wonder whether Mr Cook is uninformed or just chooses to delude himself as to the reality of the situation.

General Gustav Hagglund, Chief of Staff of the Finnish Armed Forces chaired the first meeting of the EU military committee in Brussels yesterday and made clear his view of the European Army. He said "We are not talking about a subsidiary of NATO. This is an independent body. We are talking about co-operation with NATO."

This statement merely serves to confirm that we have been lied to about the significance of this so called rapid reaction force. On Tuesday, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published a report that was critical of the "different interpretations" of the Nice agreements and Francis Maude said that Mr Blair had pledged that the EU force would be "anchored" within NATO, not independent of the alliance, yet this was clearly not the case.

It is obvious that the Europhiles intend that this misbegotten creation of the political class should replace NATO and fulfil the French dream of destroying the links between the US and Europe which have kept the peace since the Second World War. If they succeed then the Americans will return to the isolationism which is never far from the surface (and who could blame them) and we will face a similar situation to that which obtained after the First War but this time without the strength we had then, with a mighty fleet and Empire. The destruction of NATO will make the world a more dangerous place and will leave us dependent upon a rag bag of European forces whose interests will not always coincide with ours. This will be a betrayal of all those who fought to keep our freedom and we shall be fools if we allow it.

So now we know for certain. The decision in the case against hero Steve Thoburn proves once and for all that our political class, aided and abetted by the bureaucrats, have betrayed the people of this country and destroyed the democracy which we fought so hard and for so long to establish. No matter what public opinion says, or that the British people elect representatives at Westminster to make the laws which govern them, Mr Thoburn has been found guilty of the crime of selling a pound of bananas, contrary to the diktats of Brussels, and those who run Sunderland council intend to pursue him for costs, knowing that it will mean he and his family lose their home.

Those petty minded politicians and bureaucrats, who seek to force metric measurements on this nation, making the use of Imperial Weights and Measures illegal here, as it is not anywhere else in the European Union, are traitors to their heritage and would be well suited to life in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

This disgrace takes place with scarcely a whimper of protest from the British media, whose claim to be the watchdogs of democracy is shown to be a hollow sham, while the mass of the people must now decide whether to show indifference to the fate of someone who bravely stood against the forces which seek to establish a dictatorship of the political elite throughout Europe or to rise up and tell their so called leaders that they will take no more. If they do nothing then they will deserve the fate which awaits them.

As we await the result of the 'Metric Martyr' case tomorrow, when Steve Thoburn will learn whether he is to lose his house and livelihood for the crime of selling a pound of bananas, we can again see that if you want a good, old fashioned dictator look no further than a liberal defied. A sorry collection of members of the House of Lords, including many Liberal Democrats, and Blairite cronies like Melvyn Bragg, have just voted to make it a criminal offence in nine years time for shopkeepers even to mention pounds and ounces as a guide for their customers. As Christopher Booker reports in today's Telegraph one of the most chilling features of the debate was the sneering determination of the metric lobby to stamp out any last vestige of freedom of choice. It will become a criminal offence even to speak to customers of "a pound of apples" because this counts as "a supplementary indicator", which is what the EU and its British quislings have decided must be made illegal.

We are rapidly moving towards Orwell's nightmare of a thought police for, if we do not rise up against this nonsense, in a few year's time your local shopkeeper could face prison for merely telling you that a turnip weighed about a pound. Be in no doubt that the Liberal Democrats of this country are moving closer to their namesakes in Russia, being neither liberal, nor democratic, while the 'useful idiots' like Bragg and the rest should look to their consciences and decide whether they really want to be party to such a suppression of free speech.

08/04/2001

In his column today Christopher Booker reports on Peter Mandelson's latest effort in his campaign to submerge the UK in a single European state. It is worth quoting in full:

"It was with a groan of recognition that on Friday we heard Peter Mandelson calling for "elected regional parliaments" for England, to match those already in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London.

In the relentless drive to bring Britain into ever-closer integration with the European Union, no policy has been more stealthily pursued than that to break up the UK into 12 "Euro-regions", to fit in with the vision of a "Europe of the Regions". In this system the EU's 111 regions relate directly to Brussels, downgrading the role of national governments.

What makes this process so devious that even Michael Heseltine has protested against it, is the way that, apart from Mr Heseltine and John Prescott when addressing the Committee of the Regions in Brussels, no British politician will ever admit openly what is going on. The strategy is already well on course, with our first four regional parliaments, our 12 regional constituencies for the EU parliament and regional development agencies. But it is vital to deny that this has anything whatever to do with any grand EU plan.

For some time now it has been clear that the last remaining piece of their jigsaw they needed was to drum up a bogus grassroots demand for eight regional parliaments in England. The whole EU-inspired template would then be complete. And what better way for that crafty Europhile Peter Mandelson to wheedle his way back into favour than to make it the theme of his first big speech since being cast into the wilderness?"

Not for nothing does the Bible warn that the Devil will use the language of morality while seeking the destruction of morals. We see the Europhiles claiming that their actions will increase democracy while all the time the ultimate aim of their plans is a pan-European dictatorship by an immovable political elite. Those who innocently advocate the regionalisation of the UK are like Lenin's "useful fools" whose good intentions will lead to their, and our destruction.

The government's new White paper (Opportunity for all in a world of change, CM5052. The Stationery Office Ltd.) on the competitiveness of the British economy is long (almost two hundred pages in two volumes) and detailed. It is a joint publication of the DTI and the DFEE (Department for Education and Employment).

What is striking is that insofar as the EU has any effect on British competitiveness at all, the government's view is that it is negative. The very few and very short references to the EU are usually about the "need for reforms in Europe" where the context makes clear that reform is needed "over there" rather than "over here". Indeed, apart from the tired old statement that "three million jobs depend on trade with the EU" (as they would continue to do so after UK withdrawal), British membership of the EU is implicitly justified on the grounds that the other member states need to reform their economies.

The authors say that "The UK now receives substantial funding from the EU" - without pointing out that that funding is provided by British taxpayers. Another example of the economy with the truth that governments have to descend to whenever they talk about the EU.

While their own letters page reveals that they often make errors of detail, the satirical magazine Private Eye is usually correct in the main thrust of their attacks and this week's issue serves to confirm that the British people have not been told the truth about the Foot and Mouth outbreak:

"There is growing evidence that the MAFF knew of the presence of FMD as early as 4 December last and that the original source of infection was sheep. Warning were sent in strict confidence to the European Commission and other EU member state governments, while the MAFF took secret steps to contain the problem, hoping it could eliminated.

The cover-up blew on 19 February when an inspector at an Essex abattoir discovered FMD in 27 pigs brought down from Northumbria. When the disease was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall pig farm four days later, the MAFF allowed this to be thought the original source of the outbreak. But already the epidemic was out of control, thanks to an unusual number of movements of sheep around the country, many originally bought by a small group of big dealers at Longtown market near Carlisle.

Many of these were "black sheep", bought to support a scam on EU sheep subsidies. Under EU quota rules, dealers and a small number of farmers had claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of subsidies and now needed the sheep to justify their claims. As infected animals were dropped off all the way from Cumbria via the Welsh borders down to Devon, FMD raced across the country. But because these movements were illicit, no records had been kept to show where the "black sheep" had gone.

By the time the outbreak "went public", the MAFF already feared that as many as 80 per cent of sheep in some areas could be infected. With diagnostic services breaking down under the flood of work, and a critical shortage of vets to carry out tracing work, officials feared these "black sheep" were now a vast but unknown reservoir of infection. With cattle soon due to be let out on grass from their winter quarters, they feared the epidemic could explode into the cattle population. Hence the unprecedented plan for a mass cull of up to one million "healthy" animals, in the hope of catching all the infected "black sheep" before it was too late.

By now, though, stage three of the MAFF shambles was also under way: the chaos it has made of the slaughter operation, ignoring every lesson learned from the last 1967/8 outbreak as to how to minimise the risk of spreading infection. The 1969 Northumberland report found two things were vital. First, animals must be shot as soon as a vet spots infection. second, they should be buried at once and on the spot. Even burning was ruled out as likely to spread infection.

This time, thanks to a complex raft of new EU rules, this has proved impossible. Clinical test have to be confirmed, often taking days. Burial is virtually prohibited. Many infected carcasses have to be trucked miles through uninfected countryside to rendering plants. The insanity this leads to was illustrated in Cheshire when one farmer identified FMD in his sheep on Monday and had to wait four days for ministry vets to arrive to shoot his flock. Still giving off infection the sheep were mot picked up for another two days. They were then driven across country until the van drivers got lost. Losing patience, they dumped the rotting corpses in a field full of live sheep and disappeared".

The fact that the above account confirms the article by Christopher Booker in last week's Sunday Telegraph presents a problem to those of us who do not subscribe to a conspiracy view of history. We now have a government party covering up the fact that corruption in the CAP, plus bureaucratic interference from the EU, is the root cause of the epidemic, opposition parties which decline to expose this and a mass media which chooses, in the main part, to ignore it. Outside a conscious conspiracy it seems likely that the reason is our political, bureaucratic and media elites are now so committed to the European Union that they are incapable of recognizing that membership is a disaster for the UK and have a mental block which prevents them seeing the truth. Unless the British people wake up and turn out these fools the entire country will follow the fishing and farming industries onto the bonfire of history.

Stop Press:The day after the above posting The Sunday Times finally reported, on the front page, that the government now acknowledges that the quota system is responsible. However the spin doctors (better known as liars) are stating that the blame lies solely with farmers when in fact it is the whole rotten system that is the cause. It is also worth noting that when Broadcasting House on BBC Radio 4 looked at the day's newspapers no mention was made of this truth about the EU, proving that the BBC is unwilling to publicise anything which contradicts their belief in the European project.

In his column today Christopher Booker enumerates the causes of the dreadful epidemic laying waste to our countryside, illustrating that the blame belongs in large part to the fact of UK membership of the EU:

1. The original infection was of elderly sows in Northumbria, almost certainly through imported meat. Under EU rules, meat can be legally imported from many countries where Foot and Mouth disease is endemic. One possibility is that the meat came from the nearby Albemarle army barracks, forced to use cheap non-EU meat under EU public procurement rules.

2. The movement of pigs from Northumbria to the abattoir in Essex, all nearer slaughterhouses specialising in cull sows having been shut down by absurdly complex EU hygiene rules.

3. Legitimate sales at Longtown market in Cumbria spread the disease further.

4. The true disaster caused by illegal sales needed to top up holdings already claimed for under the EU's "ewe premium" quota scheme. Yes, this is illegal and those concerned should be punished, but, this is the inevitable result of the Common Agricultural Policy which has spread corruption throughout Europe and could only work in the mind of a desk bound bureaucrat!

We are rapidly approaching the time when the people of Britain will have to wake up to what is happening to their country or see it destroyed. The fishermen have seen their centuries old industry almost eradicated by the Common Fishing Policy, the farmers are now staring doom in the face, thanks to the CAP, and everyone is threatened by the end of Common Law and of our system of parliamentary government.

There are silly people who claim that it would make economic sense to buy our food from abroad and use our countryside as environmental theme parks. Do these people have no sense of history? If we were confronted by another Kaiser or Hitler how long would we survive if we had to import all our food? Rationing would not save us then and the Navy has been reduced to a size which could not keep the sea lanes open. The destruction of NATO by the device of the European Army and French hatred of the Americans will deepen the danger.

Those who either shut their eyes to the reality or else claim, despite all the efforts made by the CIB, the Democracy Movement and others, that no one tells them the facts, will be judged by posterity as culpable as those of the political elite who know precisely what they are doing. We now see taking shape so many of the features Orwell prophesied as being necessary to allow a malign oligarchy to rule unhindered over a bovine proletariat. The media churn out what Orwell termed 'prolefeed' from that disgrace to broadcasting 'Big Brother' to mindless soap operas, while the popular press concentrate on the activities of so called celebrities, ignoring the ongoing undermining of our ancient institutions and freedoms by an arrogant political class. The distraction of a national lottery, as predicated by Orwell, is accompanied by an absurd pretence that it is of importance which big business, masquerading as a football club, succeeds in defeating its equally plutocratic rival. Another version of 'Bread and Circuses'.

We now have a society that is dominated by what, back in the forties, we called spivs, and by the adolescent values of people who have no thoughts beyond instant gratification, while, in the background, those who would hand our nation over to a dictatorship centred on Brussels, continue to thrive. Unless the British people take a more mature view of the world, recognize what is going on and force the politicians to change before it is too late they will come to deeply regret their apathetic refusal to confront reality.

The funeral pyres which are burning our animals today will tomorrow be burning our democracy and our nationhood, unless we wake up to the disaster EU membership represents for our country.

A recently published travel book contains comments which should be a warning to all those who wish to see the UK become part of a single European state, with a single legal area. Written by an American, who therefore has no political axe to grind, who loves France and Paris, as indeed does the author of these pages, it touches upon the administration of justice within the country and is worth quoting:

"...the peremptory, often arrogant justice handed out to ordinary citizens. There is no habeas corpus in France and perfectly innocent people can be held for months, even years, in preventive detention if a judge believes they know more than they are saying. As Mavis Gallant wrote of the judge in France He is free to hold you until you change your mind. If you turn out to be innocent, you can have no recourse against the law. You cannot even sue for the symbolic one franc in damages, though preventive detention may have cost you your job, your domestic equilibrium and your reputation. In the 1960s, in the wake of the Algerian War, hundreds of Arabs languished in French prisons for long periods, though they'd never been tried, much less convicted."

Next time a moron tries to tell you that we should be in the EU so that we can have cheap wine, or in order that he need not change currency for his fortnight's holiday, point out that the real costs, once the Napoleonic code of Corpus Juris has been imposed on every member state, could be liberty and justice!

The meeting was very successful. We heard two rousing speeches on the issue of UK membership of the European Union. Dr Alan Sked, a former parliamentary candidate for Romsey and distinguished academic, concentrated on the dangers which would threaten this nation if a decision were taken to adopt the Euro. He pointed out that the economic consequences would be as disastrous as those which occurred when we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990's, when interest rates were set to meet European, not British conditions: thousands of businesses went bankrupt, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost; and we suffered the worst recession since the 1930s. If we were to join the euro, this bleak situation would reoccur, but this time without any escape hatch. However, as Dr Sked pointed out, the main issue was not economic, but political, as to join the single currency would be to hand control of the fiscal levers of power to bankers in Frankfurt and end the right of the people to hold their rulers to account in the economic governance of the country.

In a letter to the daily Telegraph Bernard Connelly has shown how close we are now to the suppression of free speech within the European Union:

SIR - Keith Vaz writes that the case in which the European Court of Justice ruled that my sacking by the European Commission for writing The Rotten Heart of Europe had nothing to do with free speech (letter, Mar 8). But even the court recognised that one of the points at issue was that of free speech.

It paid lip-service to the notion, but made clear that free speech is not a value that can be allowed to get in the way of "Europe". The court ruled that anything "liable to prejudice the interests of the Communities" is "such as to justify restricting freedom of expression". Moreover, overruling the House of Lords, it defined a new offence of seditious libel in EC law as conduct "that seriously prejudiced the Communities' interests and damaged the institution's image and reputation".

According to the court, these heinous offences were proved though, in Star Chamber fashion, the offence was never alleged in the disciplinary proceedings - because my book argued that the ERM and EMU "are not only inefficient but undemocratic: a danger not only to our prosperity but to our freedom and, ultimately, our peace". Moreover, this new offence is to be prosecuted and punished in the arbitrary fashion of an Act of Attainder.

Mr Vaz argues that even your Brussels correspondent "can ply his trade in complete safety". For how long? Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights declares that all freedoms and rights can be restricted to "meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union". The rights that can be thus restricted include not only free speech and the right to life, but also the right not to be punished by retroactive legislation, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the absence of double jeopardy (a provision of which Jack Straw wants to take advantage already).

The court will seek to be the sole arbiter of the application of the Charter, and has shown how it will act.

The dictators of Brussels become ever more open in their imposition of their will upon the peoples of Europe. Unless we reject this vile organsiation soon we shall see the final destruction of all our ancient freedoms.

The result of the Swiss referendum on whether they should open negotiations to join the European Union has resulted in a massive victory for the 'No' campaign with 77 per cent voting against. This means that Switzerland, like Norway, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, has no intention of abandoning its own currency in favour of the euro while, at the same time, it enjoys the ability to trade freely with its European neighbours.

This result is a major rebuff to those who have argued that Switzerland, because of its size and geographical position, has no choice but to join the European Union. However, as Lord Shore of Stepney pointed out in a letter published in today's Daily Telegraph, the extent of the reaction by the BBC was to mention it briefly just before seven a.m. on the Today programme and to ignore it completely on World at One and the Six O'clock News. As he says "One can imagine what use the BBC would have made of this item if the Swiss people had voted by however a small majority in favour of opening negotiations to join the EU."

While the BBC continues to display its disgusting bias in favour of the Europhiles it is gratifying that the leader in the Daily Telegraph today goes further than perhaps it has ever gone before in admitting that the UK could have a successful future outside the EU. It is worth quoting in full as the arguments contained therein are precisely those which we in the anti EU movement have advanced for many years and are now becoming accepted by the mainstream media:

"BRITAIN, we are forever being told, is too small to survive on its own. A country of 59.4 million people apparently needs to be part of a large bloc, such as the EU. And yet Switzerland, with a population of just 6.4 million, has just voted overwhelmingly against closer ties with the EU. Such was the margin of the result - no less than 76.7 per cent voted "no" that it is difficult to see how the question can be put again.

Oddly, no one is suggesting that Switzerland is too small to survive on its own. This is because, on virtually every economic measure, Switzerland is outperforming the EU: its unemployment is lower, its per capita income higher, its surplus larger and its currency stronger. These happy statistics are no accident. They are the direct result of policies pursued by successive Swiss governments since their country rejected membership of the European Economic Area in December 1992.

On that occasion, many commentators rushed to predict that Switzerland would pay for its arrogance. In the event, however, the Swiss stock exchange surged and the country enjoyed sustained growth and low inflation. Instead of having to adopt the so called acquis communautaire - the accumulated mass of EU directives - Switzerland was able to craft its own policies, based on low tax and global commerce. British Europhiles, who like to claim that thousands or even millions of jobs depend on EU membership, might usefully reflect on the fact that Switzerland exports twice as much per head to the EU from outside as does Britain from inside.

As a non-member, Switzerland has been able to negotiate a series of bilateral treaties with the EU. On top of a comprehensive free trade accord dating back to 1972, Switzerland negotiated seven sectoral deals during the mid-1990s, mainly covering the free movement of peoples. All these treaties are based on mutual interest: outside the EU, Switzerland cannot be forced to adopt the Common Agricultural Policy or the Social Chapter. Swiss exporters must, of course, meet EU standards when selling to the EU - as must all exporters - but they are spared the cost of having to impose those same standards on their domestic trade. In saluting the Swiss for their independent spirit, we cannot help observing that Britain is an even more important market for EU exports. Surely we could negotiate a deal at least as favourable as Switzerland's."

And so say all of us!

The Nice Treaty, signed on Monday 26 February, will be opposed during its passage through Parliament by a new alliance of all grassroots eurosceptic organisations. This is the first time that the several eurosceptic bodies have united in a joint campaign. The new alliance CAN'T - the Coalition Against the Nice Treaty - comprises significant organisations across the political spectrum representing together around 500,000 voters. The list of organisations backing the campaign is:

• Democracy Movement

• Federation of Small Businesses

• Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign

• Conservatives Against a Federal Europe

• Anti Maastricht Alliance comprising:

  • Anti-Common Market League

  • British Housewives League

  • Campaign Against Euro-Federalism

  • Campaign for an Independent Britain

  • Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism

  • Cheaper Food League

  • Conservatives for an Independent Britain

  • Freedom Association

  • International Currency Review

  • June Press

  • Libertarian Alliance

  • Nelsom & Pollard Publishing

  • New Britain

  • Save Britain's Fish

  • Scotland Against Being Ruled by Europe

  • These Tides magazine

  • Voice for Britain

  • Youth Against the European Union

This widely-based campaign will be the main focus of opposition to the Treaty.

Labour peer Lord Stoddart of Swindon is Chairman of the Coalition, Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Conservative) is the Hon Treasurer and Russell Walters, Director of the Democracy Movement, is also to be Director of the Coalition.

Plans to oppose the passage of the Treaty through a nationwide campaign will be announced following the general election expected in the spring.

A program on Radio 4 is to discuss the question of whether the right of trial by jury should be eliminated, in advance of a report which "is expected to make this recommendation". At the same time the Home Secretary flies a kite relating to the abolition of no double jeopardy in, for the moment, murder cases.

These are not unconnected developments but illustrate how our political class is pushing ahead with the scheme to sign up to the European single legal area, which will involve accepting Corpus Juris and thus ending trial by jury, no double jeopardy and the presumption of innocence, among other rights that we have fought for, and enjoyed, in this country since the early Middle Ages.

If we stay within the EU we shall soon see the Napoleonic Code imposed upon us and the freedoms enshrined in Magna Carta abolished.

Amidst all the hysteria about the outbreak of Foot and Mouth we should all remember one important fact. The reason animals are being transported vast differences across the country is that EU regulations have resulted in the closure of hundreds of local abattoirs, thus making these journeys inevitable. Once again membership of this vile organisation is destroying British jobs, businesses and our way of life.

There are those apologists for the CAP who claim that all the ills of the countryside can be traced to the public demand for cheap food. This is an absurdity when one considers the fact that, were we outside the CAP and the EU, the average family would save about £1000 per annum on food costs.

The funeral pyres which are burning our animals today will tomorrow be burning our democracy and our nationhood unless we wake up to the disaster EU membership is for our country.

The CIB meeting held in Lancing, West Sussex last night was a resounding success. Despite having set out over 120 chairs we found that some latecomers were standing due to lack of a seat. The two speakers, Russell Walters and Dr Alan Sked, made excellent speeches, the audience included both the local MP and a number of local councillors, and the question and answer session lasted for well over an hour. Indeed several contributors did not actually ask a question but just wished to express their thanks for the quality of the speeches. There seemed to be a large number of people present who, although in sympathy with the aims of CIB, were not members but were there seeking information, and who felt that their time had been well spent. John Strange of the British Weights and Measures Association was present to answer questions about the metric martyrs and David Wilkinson, editor of These Tides was happy to discuss the situation in Eastern Europe, about which he is well informed.

The Mail on Sunday reports that Baroness Thatcher was intending to make a speech calling for Britain's withdrawal from the EU but that Mr Hague stopped her, claiming that she would split the Conservatives in two and destroy his leadership.

This pathetic response raises a number of points:

• Yes, it would split the Conservatives but into one piece containing 95% of supporters and one of 5% containing the remnants of the Heathites who captured the party in the 1960s, led it totally astray, and have now been almost expunged. Mr Hague should welcome this chance to eject the Europhiles like Clarke and set the party and country back on the course it should never have left.

• Baroness Thatcher no longer has to run for office and cannot be harmed by the Tory establishment. If she truly repents of her sin in signing the Single European Act she should ignore the bleatings of Central Office and make full restitution by declaring her outright support for British withdrawal from the EU. What has she got to lose?

• If Mr Hague is afraid of standing tall on the most important issue to face this nation since the defeat of Hitler what does that say about him and the Tory party. Are we once again to see them speak the language of Euro realism in opposition, only to continue the betrayal of the country once in office. Forget petty politics Mr Hague and Speak for England. If you do not then we who have never wavered in our opposition to the European project must question your true beliefs and motives in this matter.

The European Commission has ordered the Irish government to either raise taxes or cut spending, the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner being quoted as saying "Is it coherent for the country to have the advantages of EMU and avoid the inconveniences?".

Ireland's current spending is set to rise by more than 18 per cent this year, and capital spending at 29 per cent, while its inflation rate is running at more than double the euroland average. Any country not locked into an insane currency bloc would raise its interest rates to calm the economy, but of course the Irish cannot do this as the 'one size fits all' rate is set in Frankfurt. One of the effects of such a step would be to increase the value of the currency, making imports cheaper and putting downward pressure on prices but this is impossible within the euro.

The only alternative available to the Irish is a tightening of fiscal policy which would not go down well with their people. The deputy Irish Prime Minister has now said "Everyone should pull on the green jersey for this one". In other words exactly the situation has risen which opponents of the EU warned would occur and these idiotic politicians are now caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Ireland must make shift to solve its own problems but we in the UK should take their fate as a warning to never, never join euroland and give away our power to set our own interest rates. In a paper issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the USA it states that it took America 150 years to become an optimal currency area and that during much of that time the country would have benefited from more than one currency, to cushion different regions from economic shocks. The conclusion for us is sobering "For a country that is debating to join a monetary union the lesson is that the facile argument that the US has had a monetary union and that therefore monetary unions must be good things doesn't stand close scrutiny. Second thoughts are in order".

Is anyone listening out there?

If any were needed we have today further proof that this country is no longer a self governing democracy, thanks to membership of the EU. In his last budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that VAT on repairs to churches would be reduced from 17.5 to 5 per cent, a very necessary step in view of the parlous state of the finances of many of our parishes. However the dictators of the European Union have now decreed that this is not to be permitted and the government has no choice but to obey. What is the point of the British people electing any government if it is unable to enact anything that conflicts with the wishes of our masters in Brussels? Those who have led us to this have destroyed all that so many of our ancestors gave their lives to build and to defend.

Christopher Booker reports today on a new scheme from Brussels which will destroy the Britsh sugar beet industry, together with 23,000 jobs. The details need not be belaboured here, it being sufficient to say that once again the guns of Brussels are turned on British interests. However one point from the article illustrates once again the completely bone headed approach Europhiles take to their beloved European Union:

As one stunned beet farmer, Marie Skinner, writes in the current Farmers' Weekly: "I believe in Europe". However, she says its credibility fails when it indulges in such "blatant, anti-democratic processes".

"It is crazy," she writes, that "non-elected officials can destroy large chunks of the UK industry". As a Euro-enthusiast, even she finds it difficult to remain enthusiastic when her livelihood "is put at risk by the actions of an unelected technocrat". Can I hear countless fishermen, abattoir owners and the like sighing "Join the club"?

What can be done with these people who continue to express support for an organisation, even when it is destroying their own livelihoods? They are like children who continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and can be compared to turkeys who announce "I believe in Christmas dinners".

One thing is certain, business people with their tunnel vision of short term profits, should be ignored when they pontificate on matters of democracy or nationhood. Another good example is the lottery company Camelot which is quoted in today's Telegraph as planning to increase the price of its one pound ticket when, as the company expects, the Government drops the pound in favour of the Euro. It may have escaped Camelot's notice but the Government cannot do any such thing without the consent of the British people in a referendum, something they look increasing unlikely to gain.

Another piece of business arrogance is the demand from Nissan that all British suppliers should invoice them in Euros, not in the currency of the country within which they are working.

When we see big business interfering in the democratic process we should remember the results when companies like Krupp showed similar arrogance!

Peter Mandelson may feel that he deserves sympathy in that the various political offences of which he has been accused are trifles compared to the actual crimes of corruption, and even manslaughter, committed by so many politicians in Continental Europe. Nevertheless, his fate is a shining example of those who live by the sword dying by the sword, for he was prominent among those who have used the media to bring down others, and it is too late for him now to complain when the monster he helped to create turns on him.

However, his career is an awful warning to all who care for democracy in this country as he epitomises that breed of politician who regard politics not as a means of putting into effect deeply held beliefs and principles, but merely as a self serving profession, the main aim of which is to wield power and influence for selfish reasons.

Under a leader such as Clement Attlee, unprincipled careerists would never have made it beyond the back benches, but the current political establishment has abandoned any idea of principles in the pursuit of office. The last Conservative government was a disgrace and deserved the opprobrium it attracted for its failure to combat sleaze, the Liberal Democrats are notorious for their underhanded tactics when running for office, smearing their opponents at every opportunity, and for their authoritarianism when holding any sort of power, while the Labour Party has been hijacked by a group which is about as socialist as Harold Macmillan. The ideals on which these parties were built have been forgotten, except by a honourable few, such as Tony Benn and Sir Richard Body who refuse to compromise their beliefs to curry favour. It is notable how most of these who still remain true to themselves are to be found in the anti EU movement for, of course, they recognize that that organisation is designed to hand permanent power to the political elite, at the expense of the democratic rights of the people. This is of course why those such as Mandelson are so keen that this country should submerge itself into the United States of Europe. It would help them achieve their aim of power without accountability.

Mandelson's friend and ally Tony Blair is a decent, church going family man but one who, through stupidity or an arrogant belief in his own rightness, has done tremendous damage to our democracy. He has treated Parliament with contempt, preferring to rule through those for whom no one has voted, such as Alistair Campbell, while signing away the democratic rights of the British people to the dictators of Brussels. He almost certainly has no malign intentions but fails to realise that, once the well of democracy is poisoned, it will be very easy for those who do to use the structures he has left behind for their own ends.

Unless there is a return to principle in politics the spinners and ambitious careerists will fatally undermine British democracy beyond hope of repair. The career of Mandelson should be a warning to us all.

Last November the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was forced through Parliament by guillotine. This Act is another major nail in the coffin of British democracy, transferring even more power to the major political parties and seeking to emasculate pressure groups such as CIB and the Democracy Movement by tying them up in regulations which will make criminals of law abiding people and restrict free speech in a way we have never seen before. The independent MP Martin Bell commented "This is not a technical or non controversial Bill...in many respects it is profoundly undemocratic and militates against the independent and independent minded" (Hansard, 29th November 2000)

The following report appeared recently on PA news:

Tory leader William Hague today called for rapid expansion of the European Union and radical reform of its controversial Common Agricultural Policy. Former Soviet eastern bloc states should be admitted without having to conform to European social policy, Mr Hague told fellow centre-right leaders at a European Democratic Union conference in Berlin.

"We have always believed that a European Union worthy of the name had to include our fellow Europeans who were suffering under the tyrannical shackles of communism," said the Tory leader.

"Ever since they gained their freedom, the Conservative Party have been arguing that it is vital that the accession of the applicant states takes place as quickly as possible."

The EU has said it wants applicant countries to begin joining from 2002, once they have met the conditions for membership, in line with reforms embodied in the Treaty of Nice, which was agreed by leaders including Prime Minister Tony Blair last month.

Mr Hague said: "In setting dates for accession we must be clear about the obstacles that need to be overcome. I believe that the reasons for delay are twofold.

"First there are the unreasonable demands that continue to be placed on all countries by the EU, requiring them to abide by a rigid straitjacket of legislation, especially on social policy.

"Second, there is the stubborn refusal of the EU to reform itself, the most striking of which is the failure to consider far-reaching changes to the Common Agricultural Policy."

Mr Hague said there should now be "firm target dates for accession".

The Conservative leader added: "Today's CAP is indefensible socially, economically, ecologically, environmentally and morally. It needs drastic change."

New countries should be able to join the EU as long as they agreed simply to abide by its free-market provisions, only joining in other agreements "if they see this as in their national interest", he added.

Mr Hague stressed in his speech: "Nothing could be more disingenuous than the accusation levelled at us that Conservative opposition to Nice somehow implies opposition to enlargement itself. In fact, the reverse is true.

"It is our belief that the very pursuit of uniform integration is likely to delay, rather than bring about, the enlargement that we all passionately desire."

Much of what Mr Hague says makes sense within the context of accepting the desirability of the existence of the European Union. Clearly those of us who recognize that it is in fact an unreformable, undemocratic monster and want the UK to withdraw as soon as possible would be foolish to place our trust in Mr Hague, anymore than in Mr Blair. Unless the Conservative Party grasps the nettle and 'speaks for England' they cannot expect to attract the support of those who believe the future of their country is that of an independent nation state, not a province of the United States of Europe.

This week it was reported in The Mirror and the Daily Mail that Sainsbury's are adapting their 220,000 trolleys to accept euro coins and pound coins. Asda, Somerfield and Kwik Save are involved in similar schemes. Tesco has accepted euro travellers' cheques since 1999 and will accept coins and notes when they are introduced next year, as will Marks and Spencer. British Telecom is converting its 56,000 payphones, while euro accounts have been available from British banks for the last year.

Last night some 300 souls gather in the Stadium of Light, Sunderland for the 'Last Supper' in support of the Metric Martyrs before this Monday's trial of Steven Thorburn.

Excellent speeches included comment by Christopher Booker that, in his experience, those who sought to prosecute people using Imperial Measures were 'all tight arsed bastards with no sense of humour' - which was greeted with enthusiasm by the diners.

Michael Shrimpton said that Steve Thorburn and Neil Herron were 'national heroes'. In an entertaining speech he said that there was no question that Thorburn's bananas were bent; that the case was about the right of our Parliament to legislate for our country; and about our constitution.

Robin Paige made an entertaining speech which ended with him selling a pound of apples for 100 Pounds Sterling - an illegal act according to some in our country.

Those petty minded politicians and bureaucrats, who seek to force metric measurements on this nation, making the use of Imperial Weights and Measures illegal here, as it is not anywhere else in the European Union, are traitors to their heritage and would be well suited to life in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Residents of flood stricken Robertsbridge have been told that help may be available from the EU, provided that they can "find a partner in France similarly affected".

Here we see the cynical exploitation of misfortune and disaster to advance the project of European integration, our own money being proffered as the bribe.

The fools who run local government in the UK fall for this line every time, talking of "applying for funds" as if the EU was a fairy godmother, distributing largesse to good little federalists, when in fact it is a succubus, draining the life out of this country so that it can pay to keep French allotment holders in business, ensure that Spanish fishermen can continue to plunder British waters and subsidise industry on the mainland while British manufacturers are allowed to go under.

Withdrawal from the EU would save twenty million pounds a day, enabling money to be spent on flood victims, the NHS, schools etc., the only losers being the parasitical class of politicians and bureaucrats whose allegiance is to Brussels, not to Westminster. How much longer will the British people allow this situation to continue - if they do not revolt soon they will lose everything; their prosperity; their democracy and their nation.

Eurofacts, published by Global Britain, has some interesting articles in the latest edition:

The European Commission is working on plans for a single standard domestic plug across the whole of the EU. If it succeeds, the three-square-pin British plug and socket, the safest not just in Europe but in the world, will of course disappear.

Manufacturers of plugs and sockets in different European countries are not happy with the Commission's proposals, which would involve each country's electrical industry in huge and expensive upheavel.

It was Lord Tebbit, years ago, who observed that Chinese and Japanese manufaturers had no problem in fitting British plugs on their appliances for the British market and French plugs on their appliances for the French market. Strange that the Commission should still be inventing "problems" for itself to "solve". Perhaps it's got nothing better to do.

Comment: So now in the name of "harmonisation" British lives are to be put at risk - one notices that it is not harmonisation to the best, just to that which suits the Continentals.

The FT reports (3rd November 2000) that the European Commission has written a formal letter of notice to the government over plans for - wait for it - a cinema, in - of all places - Crystal Palace, South London, in the borough of Bromley.

The FT says that "the Commission found Bromley Council had not requested the environmental impact assessment required by a European Union directive. The case is now set for the European Court of Justice".

The local MP and Employment Minister, Tessa Jowell, is quoted as saying "The Commission's intervention is very good news".

Comment: How many of those who voted Yes in 1975 realised that they were agreeing to such gross interference in British affairs as is evidenced by reports of this sort. Let us hope that they will not be fooled again when the Euro referendum is called.

"The euro is not merely the result of a technical exchange rate arrangement but also an expression of willingness and determination to achieve further integration... Such progress is therefore the pre-condition for the credibility of the monetary union... ...an indication from France and the UK of their willingness to give up their seats on the UN Security Council in favour of a European seat on this body would be a very clear signal of willingness to make progress towards political union" Dr. Jurgen Stark, Deputy Governor of the Deutsche Bundesbank, speech in Frankfurt, 29th September 2000

Comment: Unlike British politicians those from the mainland are quite open about their federalist aims. Here however we have proof that the Germans intend to use the European Union as a means of destroying British influence in the world as a whole. If it were not for the Russians, British and the Americans the United Nations would neither exist, nor be able and willing to take action when required. Germany should not be so keen to push herself forward quite so soon after a century in which she twice provoked world war.

"Tax harmonisation presupposes the extension of qualified majority voting to fiscal matters. If not, member states would risk an alignment on the lowest level of tax rates. With a proposed corporation tax of 12.5 per cent, Ireland is attractive to firms and this fiscal competition is leading to relocations..." Laurent Fabius, French Finance Minister to the EU Committee of the National Assembly, Paris, 26th October 2000

Comment: This shows the pretence by the Europhiles that tax harmonisation is not on the agenda for the lie it is. The French are only happy with the EU when it serves French interests and they are determined to prevent electorates like the British and