In his speech today Wim Duisenberg said that the launch of the Euro signified a new dawn for the peoples of Europe. The truth is very much the opposite and calls to mind the words of Sir Edward Grey as the stormclouds broke over the continent in 1914 "the lights are going out all over Europe. I fear we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime".

Prodi admitted in an interview about the Euro this morning "...it is not economic, it is purely political." and this is the point. It is a vital building block in the construction of the single European state and must be imposed if the political class is to succeed in its intention of creating this state in the teeth of the opposition of the majority of the peoples of Europe.

While economic prosperity survives it is likely that the mass of the people will do little more than mutter about what is happening but, once problems arise, and the inhabitants of nations such as Italy, Greece or Ireland, realise that it does not matter for whom they vote, as the levers of financial power are no longer under the control of elected politicians, they will then have no option but to turn to other methods to make their will known. It is at this point that the prison door will slam, the mask will be ripped off and the real nature of Corpus Juris and the common European Army and police force will become clear. The politicians who have spent decades lying about the real intentions of European integration will not allow their project to be destroyed without a fight and the fascist nature of the European Union will become clear.

For most of the nations of Europe democracy is a late arrival, a tender plant and one which many have never taken to their hearts. For the British it is the cumulation of centuries of political evolution and a defining characteristic of our nation.

Far from tomorrow heralding a new era of peace and prosperity the truest image is that evoked by Wilfred Owen, one of the greatest poets of the Great War. What we see is a drawing down of blinds as darkness descends on Europe and democracy and freedom give way to dictatorship and servitude.

31/12/2001

In yesterday's Sunday Times Neil Kinnock is reported as saying that the euro will become the second currency of the UK and that it was not a case of, "if Britain joined, but when". In the same edition it is noted that Roy Jenkins, when president of the European Commission, was responsible for promoting the single currency at a time when others had recognized it for the idiotic idea it is, and later that it was Kenneth Clarke who suggested wide currency bands to salvage the project when its absurdities were exposed by the debacle of the ERM.

Now why would these three British politicians, supposedly of different parties, show such unamity concerning the euro. Neil Kinnock, originally believed to be a socialist, but who was the progenitor of "New Labour", a party which has abandoned the egalitarian ideals of the Labour party; Roy Jenkins, the working class lad from Wales who did not hestitate to stab the Labour party in the back when it looked like his supplies of claret might be threatened, and who oozes self satisfaction and complacency; Kenneth Clarke, arrogant, patronising and a true Heathite, who, together with his ally Heseltine, ensured that the Conservative Party kept to the path laid out by Edward Heath, putting European integration before country, and caused the enormous election defeat of 1997.

Of course the reason is that they are all members of the unprincipled political class who stand to be the only true beneficiaries of European integration, as they escape from the need to be accountable to their electorates and ensure that they can all keep their noses in the trough, taking highly paid jobs in the commission like Kinnock and previously Jenkins, become members of that pretend parliament in Brussels like Kinnock's wife, or just, like Clarke, enjoy the fruits of being the friend of the multi nationals who want the single European state for their own selfish reasons. Clarke is anyway a man who took a view on issues decades ago and never lets anything like facts, experience or events change his mind.

It is therefore easy to see why politicians who regard politics as a means of personal advancement will support the EU but, for the rest of us, it was, is and will be a disaster. If we allow the self interest of these people to determine our future we will indeed be insane.

31/12/2001

Once upon a time Westerners attacked the Soviet Union for its lack of democracy but many who had grown up in the USSR did not understand the problem. They would say "We can vote for Ivan, or Igor or Sergei so we do have a choice. All we ask is that all the candidates accept the primacy of the Communist party". Of course nations which allowed those who rejected the established order to nevertheless stand for election could clearly see the flaw in this argument. Now the European Union is seeking, both by its proposed financial support for Europe wide political parties, and its intention to outlaw what it describes as xenophobia to set up a similar system in Western Europe. The European Commission is aiming to define the offence as not merely an unreasoning hatred of foreigners, which is obviously deplorable, but to include those who oppose government by the European institutions. This latter definition will exclude parties such as UKIP, the Socialist Labour Party and even a Eurosceptic Conservative Party.

One of the many vile practices inflicted upon the innocent by the National Socialist Party during its twelve year reign of terror was the infamous 'Night and Fog' directive. Opponents of the regime just vanished, without charge, trial, the opportunity to question their accusers or any indication of their fate, and families were left not knowing whether their loved ones were dead or alive. The imposition of the European arrest warrant, while not yet as overtly evil, will result in innocent citizens being arrested and transported to a foreign jail, without the right of appeal, or of habeas corpus, leaving their families not knowing how long they will languish in prison before being charged with a crime that may not even exist in their own country.

When one looks beyond the jackboots, uniforms and outward show of the earlier tyrannies one sees that they shared with the coming EU empire the quality of being essentially bureaucratic dictatorships. As the citizens of Europe face a future in which democratic controls disappear to be replaced by the rule of an unaccountable oligarchy will they live happily ever after or will they come to bitterly regret allowing their freedoms to be lost? One only needs to ask the question to know the answer.

19/12/2001

On the 2nd January 2002, to mark the first working day of the Euro, CIB are holding an early morning leafleting exercise in the City of London, followed by a lunchtime meeting. The speeches will take place outside the Bank of England at 12:30 p.m., given by the following:

• Sir Richard Body, President of CIB
• Sir Teddy Taylor MP, Vice President of CIB
• Jeffrey Titford, MEP, Leader of UKIP
• Pam Bardon, Save our Sovereignty
• Peter Dul, Anti-Common Market League
• Geoffrey West, These Tides

As many Eurorealists as possible should try to make this event to show the strength of feeling against the Euro

18/12/2001

After the headlines of yesterday in which the Prime Minister declared that 'a European super-state was off the agenda' we see in the details of the Laeken Declaration that the reality is yet another major move towards exactly that end. The intention to have a directly elected EU president, a new EU constitution, EU wide political parties and to enshrine the 'Charter of Fundamental Rights' in any constitution are all intended to further, indeed more or less complete, the construction of the United States of Europe, or worse, the EU empire.

How can it be that the Prime Minister continues to argue that black is white when it comes to the EU. Obviously he suffers from the arrogance that is so prevalent among the British intelligentsia and political class, and which is so divorced from the wishes and aspirations of the people. They will push ahead with the European project, lying to the electorate, and probably to themselves, all in the name of some mystical Utopia which they think will result from the creation of a single European state.

If the British people are either too foolish to see what is happening, or too apathetic to oppose it, then they will see the end of their democracy, their freedom and their nation within ten years. Once the European arrest warrant can be issued in a foreign country, concerning an offence that does not even exist in Britain, and then applied to a British national in the UK, it will be possible for governments to dispose of their political opponents by proxy. A milder glimpse of their likely fate under the Napoleonic Code of Corpus Juris can be seen from the recent experiences of the plane spotters in Greece. Without habeas corpus and with a presumption of guilt those who oppose the dictators of Brussels will be held in foreign jails for unlimited periods of time. This is the reality of the European Union planned by the political class.

16/12/2001

A report produced by the European Union The Future of the European Union, which is to be discussed at the summit in Laeken, Belgium makes a number of admissions which are surprising, coming from an organisation which usually refuses to face reality. It is worth detailing some of these here:

• The EU is failing its people and the number of critics is growing daily

• It is facing an identity crisis and a wide gulf is opening between the people and Brussels

• It is involved too little in the issues that matter and interfering too much in matters best left to national governments and parliament

• Too much is being done behind closed doors, without the knowldge of, or democratic control by, the people

These points are being made by the federalists themselves!- How much worse must the reality be!

Of course, the usual answer is trotted out by the Europhilesnot to recognize that the EU is a disaster and abolish it, but to insist it needs more, not less, federalism. They propose:

• An all EU constitution

• The enshrining of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law

• Cross-European political parties

• The direct election of the European President

• Further extensions of majority voting

If a patient was dying of an excess of food these doctors would suggest stuffing even more down him!

The Director of Business for Sterling says "This document shows the extent of the problems facing the EU. The Euro economies are in trouble and the EU institutions are both ineffective and undemocratic. Our priority certainly should not be joining the flawed Euro experiment", while the Shadow Foreign Secretary states "I find increasing numbers of people who believe that the EU is alienating its citizens". Neither of these two gentleman speaks for bodies which believe in withdrawal from the EU but perhaps they should begin to consider whether their current policies go far enough.

A more usual kind of honesty from the political class was displayed by Charles Clarke, Chairman of the Labour Party who, in an interview with The Times concerning the Euro contends that "the crucial judgement is not if the British economy is at one with the Continent but whether it is closer to that of the US or Euroland" and also gives his "personal" opinion that "Provided the tests produced the clear message that it would not be in Britain's disinterest to abandon sterling and join the Euro, he would be in favour of a referendum" and that he would be happy to see such a major decision made on the basis of a "50 /50" call.

One hardly knows how to answer such nonsense. Britain is not faced with a choice between joining Euroland or the US but can quite happily continue with the pound sterling. Does Mr Clarke believe that, if one only has to prove no disinterest, if it was not in our disinterest to adopt the Australian dollar we should do that.

The reality, which cannot be stated too often, is that the Euro is a political instrument intended to force the independent nations of Europe into a single European state, that the only people who will benefit thereby will be the political class and that is why they are so keen to promote the single currency. With a few honourable exceptions our politicians are both incompetent and care for nothing but their personal self interest. They have succeeded in wrecking inter alia the education system, the health service and the transport network, and care nothing for the fact that they now stand on the edge of destroying our democracy and our nation itself, provided they can keep their noses in the trough.

09/12/2001

The government is complaining that the upper chamber is daring to obstruct their anti emergency legislation, accusing the Lords of undermining the fight against terrorism, but totally ignoring the fact that what they are attempting to force through is one of the most undemocratic measures ever put before Parliament.

If the bill passes then EU laws will be fast tracked, with just a ninety minute debate, rather than legislation. Given that the Commons is now dominated by careerists who care nothing for democracy we shall see measures forced through which will make those deemed to have committed ill defined offences such as xenophobia liable to arrest on an EU warrent issued by a judge in another EU state. They can then be transferred to that country and held for an unlimited time, without the right of appeal, or of habeas corpus.

If indeed these laws do reach the statute book then the right of democratic protest at the destruction of our independence will no longer exist and all Eurorealists will be at risk of arrest for doing no more than stating their opposition to dictatorship from Brussels. Democracy in the UK will effectively be dead.

07/12/2001

Those Eurorealists who live in London will have grown used to years of reading the disgusting editorials of the London Evening Standard, whose worship of the EU and all its. However even they excelled th,ss with just a ninety minute beemselves this week when they offered insults to the Gibraltarians and openly advocated handing them over to Spain, in the name of EU relations! It is to be hoped that every Eurorealist who lives in the London area will write to the Standard to protest. Shown below is the disgraceful editorial followed, for what it is worth, by the letter the author of these pages sent to the newspaper (if it can be called that)

Between the Rock and a hard place

The Government is right to have another go at resolving the dismal saga of Gibraltar by new talks with Spain, but it is hard to see how progress can be made. Trading on their bogus "kith and kin" image and on the unattractiveness of the Franco regime, the Gibraltarians were long ago accorded a veto over any transfer of sovereignty. Attempts by successive Spanish governments to browbeat them into submission have reinforced public objections in Britain to any change in status.

As a result, this festering anachronism continues to damage our interests and cause endless friction in the EU. Our position would be morally more defensible if Gibraltar were a place we could be proud of, like Hong Kong, but that is not so. We should remember what we are defending. The half dozen square kilometres we snatched from Spain nearly 300 years ago are now a scruffy little outpost of Empire up to its neck in money-laundering, smuggling and similar pursuits, and there is little we can do about it. Once again we are in a position of responsibility without power.

To speak of the Rock being ours in perpetuity, of the right of its inhabitants to self-determination, is scarcely convincing in the light of what Parliament did in Hong Kong. We never accorded the Chinese there a veto over Mrs Thatcher's deal with Beijing. To hand over five million Hong Kong people to a communist regime, then claim that the transfer of 27,000 Gibraltarians to a democratic government and Nato partner is unthinkable, reeks of cant.

Gibraltar is in no sense a classic colony and the United Nations has never endorsed its right to self-determination. The inhabitants have a right to remain British, though the best solution would be a gradual transfer of the Rock to Spanish sovereignty under EU auspices, with safeguards for all and financial compensation for anyone who wants to move to Britain.

Until some British Government is ready to spell out the realities of the position, we seem likely to be stuck indefinitely with this pestiferous possession.

Response

Dear Sir,

Is there nothing which your leader writers would not advocate should be sacrificed to their beloved European Union. We have seen the destruction of the fishing industry thanks to the Common Fishing Policy, the distortion of farming due to the Common Agricultural Policy, the devastation of manufacturing, as we exchanged markets in which our goods complemented our partners, with one in which they competed directly, and the undermining of our democracy by the bureaucrats of Brussels. Now, in an editorial which I found hard to believe, even from you, we see insults thrown at the people in Gibraltar and an open invitation to betray them to the Spanish, all in the name of EU relations with our so called partners.

If the British people allow this then perhaps they will deserve the fate that awaits them as a province of the new European Empire. It would be a disgrace comparable to Munich.

Yours faithfully,

25/11/2001

In his speech on Europe yesterday the Prime Minister reveals either historical illiteracy or a deplorable cynical calculation. The reason that British Governments have appeared half hearted in their efforts to embroil the UK in the single European state is not due to any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the political class, who are only too aware that their selfish interest would be served, but because the British people, instinctively, and rightly, recognize that they are being deceived.

At no point have British governments, openly and honestly, asked the people whether they wish to see Britain cease to be an independent nation and become instead a province of a new European Empire. They have sought to take us further and further down the road, without ever admitting the true nature of that which they seek.

Mr Blair speaks of missing the boat, but if that boat was the Titanic then one could do no better than to wave her off and turn to one's own true destiny. Britain is not now, and never has been, limited to narrow European horizons, our history showing that we are only true to ourselves when we look across the oceans, not the Channel.

With every day that passes it seems that while Orwell did not see the future in detail he certainly saw it through a glass, darkly. On the economic realities of the single currency the politicians seek to tell us that two and two equals five, history is rewritten at every step to credit the European Union with a success and influence that it has never enjoyed and the motives of those who dare to oppose are distorted. When one adds to this the way that cameras follow us as we walk down the street, the intention to introduce 'crimethink' via new, and ill thought out laws, and the obvious desire to impose identity cards on the British people, one can see all the elements of the world of1984 taking shape around us.

Indeed one can hardly believe the latest set of Government posters concerning benefit fraud, containing as they do a bullseye, a startled individual caught by a camera and the words "We're on to you". How long will it be before the bullseye is replaced by the face of one of our arrogant breed of politicians and the words become "Big Brother is watching you"?

Time is running out and if the British people do not wake up and recognize where the political class is taking them they will live to regret it mightily.

24/11/2001

Yet again a lunatic directive from the EU is set to damage further our already battered farming industry, farmers being banned from driving their tractors for more than two to three hours a day. As David Waller of UKIP reports in a letter to the Kent Courier, this directive will limit times a machine can be used; six hours for a road haulage truck, two hours for a dumper truck, one and a half hours for a chainsaw, forty seven minutes for a road drill, fifteen minutes for a brushcutter and three minutes for a stonecutter's hammer.

Gary Botton, a spokesman for the Engineering Employers Federation states that:

• The limits are set so low that "operating a standard angle grinder would only be allowed for minutes per day"

• Assessments to be required of employers will cost £1,000 per machine, the Health and Safety Executive estimating that it will cost British industry £9 billion in ten years

As Mr Waller concludes "the primary purpose of such a directive is not to deal with health and safety at all. Like everything else the EU does, its real purpose is to extend its powers over an ever-larger area of our lives. It's just one more step in its plans to create an EU superstate".

18/11/2001

Yet again the BBC proves that it is now dominated by the worst part of the chattering classes, whose hatred for their own country blinds them to reason. For the third time in recent weeks the fanatically anti Western, so called journalist, John Pilger was given a considerable time on the Sunday morning 'Broadcasting House' to propagate his twisted view of the world, to the point where even Polly Toynbee, hardly a voice of the right, was moved to protest at his slanted statements. During the rest of the program eight emails from the general public were read out, seven of which supported Pilger, despite the fact that every opinion poll shows that a significant majority of the British people oppose his view. How often are the reasonable leaders of the anti EU cause such as Lord Stoddart, Dr Alan Sked or Jeffrey Titford given even one minute to put the case against the single European state?

A further example is the way in which the march by anti War demonstrators this afternoon has been reported upon by BBC Radio, BBC Television and its Ceefax service yet, when the Democracy Movement march last autumn produced over 10,000 people, the BBC totally ignored it.

The bias of the BBC and the censorship it practices render it unfit to be regarded as the national broadcaster; it has joined the Foreign Office as part of the fifth column which seeks to end Britain's existence as an independent nation.

18/11/2001

As the attention of the world is focused on Afghanistan the depravations and deceits within the EU continue apace.

• The Times reported on 14th November that the French have barred foreign beef imports for the month of November. "The agreement by farmers, supermarkets and abattoirs is an attempt to shore up the price of home-produced beef and to pacify farmers complaining of a poor market after the BSE scares. The ban, which defies single-market rules, has outraged politicians and farmers across the EU. Franz Fischler, the EU Agriculture Commissioner, has launched an investigation into the ban, which has the support of Jean Glavany, France's Agriculture Minister."

  If the French were not members of the EU then Eurorealists would have no argument with their desire to put their own interest first. However, once again, we see that France just ignores EU rules when it feels like it, while British jobs and interests are always sacrificed so that our political class can ingratiate themselves with their continental counterparts.

• A report on fraud within the EU shows that it is still running at billions of pounds every year and that matters are no better than they were when the previous European Commission resigned. No matter what promises are made the fact is that the EU is irredeemably corrupt and that nothing will end the theft, short of the end of the EU.

• The war against terrorism continues to provide the EU with an excuse to advance the cause of further integration. Prodi, at the October EU summit in Ghent, declared "The current crisis could be seen as favouring integration by stressing the need for action at a higher level than a national one" while the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, current president of the EU council, now says that the EU summit in Laeken in December will declare the so-called European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operational, ignoring the fact that four EU member states are neutral.

  These events are proof that the EU will seize every opportunity to push forward with the creation of a single state and represents a greater danger to the survival of the UK than does Osama Bin Laden.

17/11/2001

Recent events prove that what we now know as the chattering classes, and what George Orwell knew as the Liberal Intelligentsia, have not changed their spots since he wrote of them in 1941:

"The immediately striking thing is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion.

There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power.

Another characteristic is the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality ... England is perhaps the only country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality."

These comments concerned the fight against the Nazis but of course we have seen the same attitude to every conflict in which Britain and her allies have engaged since that time. However the true disaster for the British people is that those who hate even the existence of their own nation are now in the ascendancy, both in the political class and the media, and see, in the European Union, the perfect device for finally extinguishing this nation.

Only today we hear talk of an agreement being reached between those great EU 'partners' Britain and Spain, to 'defuse' the centuries old argument over Gibraltar. Does anyone with any grasp of reality doubt that this will be at the expense of the people of Gibraltar, whose right to be British will be sacrificed on the altar of 'ever closer union'.

Unless we leave the EU the Gibraltarians will not be the last to be betrayed. Once the UK is no longer an independent nation we can be sure that the Falkland Islands will be handed over to Argentina at the behest of the Italians and the Spanish, while Mr Blair's friendship with the USA will not survive the desire of the French to exclude 'Anglo Saxons' from Europe.

Those who so consistently work against their own nation, from the fifth columns which helped decide the Spanish Civil War to Quisling in Norway, would be proud to count the British 'liberal' Europhiles among their number.

09/11/2001

On the 11th October Tribune published an article by Marc Glendenning of the Democracy movement which should be required reading for all Eurorealists. As well as making the case for a broad based alliance of democrats from across the political spectrum to oppose the European Union, Marc points out that the terrible events of the 11th September are being used by Brussels as a modern version of the Reichstag fire. In the same way that the Nazis used that latter event as an excuse to push through the Enabling Act and to finally snuff out all legitimate opposition to their dictatorship, so the European Union is using the terrorist emergency to transfer more and more power to the centre, and to impose their illiberal system upon all.

As Marc says, the architects of the New Europe are not directly comparable to the Nazis in that they are not totalitarian fascists, aiming at the destruction of ethnic minorities, but they are nevertheless seeking to construct a state that will be ruled by an unaccountable and unelected elite.

Marc's article makes clear that the anti EU movement need support from the left as much as from the right of politics if our democracy is to survive.

04/11/2001

An article in today's Sunday times reveals that a report, commissioned by New Europe and Business for Sterling, has concluded that the five tests laid down by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, for determining whether the UK is ready to join the Euro, have not been met and will not be met over the next two years. The report also concludes that Britain's economy would become more unstable within the Euro. The report has received the backing of the following senior figures:

• Sir Douglas Wass, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 1974 to 1983

• Lord Croham, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 1968 to 1974

• John Fleming, Chief Economist at the Bank of England from 1984 to 1991

• Sir Bryan Hopkin, Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury from 1974 to 1977

• Professor Charles Goodheart, Member of the MPC from 1997 to 2000

• Sir Alan Budd, Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury from 1991 to 1997 and subsequently a member of the MPC

When one considers that these tests are really only a smokescreen which the Government intended to use until they thought they could deceive enough people into voting Yes in a referendum, it is significant that even these pathetic and subjective criteria cannot be met. How much harder to meet the real economic objections to joining the single currency! (Indeed, as Eurorealists know, impossible)

04/11/2001

The CIB and the Democracy Movement are holding a meeting in Exeter on Friday 9th November in the Thistle Hotel (opposite Exeter central station). It will begin at 7:30 p.m. and will be chaired by Russell Walters, Directory of the Democracy Movement. The speakers will be Angela Browning, the Conservative MP, Dr Alan Sked, Senoir Lecturer in History at the LSE, and Lord Stoddart, Labour Peer and Chairman of CIB.

All are welcome, admission is free and the opportunity is there to hear the case for opposition to the EU put by significant people.

14/10/2001

The Prime Minister has many good qualities but he is undermining his position by lending his support to the decision not to sack Stephen Byers' senior aide, who suggested that the dead of the World Trade Centre should be used to bury items of bad news which the British government wished to sneak out unnoticed.

Great men of the past like Churchill and Attlee would have rejected the use of spin doctors with contempt and, should anyone in their governments have made such a sickeningly cynical suggestion, would have thrown them out forthwith.

One must not forget that the patron saint of spin doctors is that murdering criminal Josef Goebbels and perhaps one should feel sorry for people who have been brought up in a moral climate that has allowed a profession to arise dedicated to lying.

It is particularly disgusting that senior civil servants actually took the part of this dreadful woman when she sort to force a subordinate to smear Bob Kiley and that a man who stuck to the honourable position was forced out.

Of course it is this cynicism which so distinguishes the political class of today, most of whom have no principles save that of remaining in power, and it is because they share the attitude with their colleagues in Europe that they are so keen on the European Union, which will allow them to escape from the need to be accountable to the people. It is this, not stupid arguments about petty regulations, that is the reason the UK must withdraw from the EU so that the political class, and the increasingly politicised Civil Service, may be prevented from destroying our democracy. If we do not then lying politicians, backed by officials who have no understanding of integrity, will succeed in their aims.

14/10/2001

As reported earlier (posting 16/09/2001) the BBC continues to prove that its allegiances lie outside these islands, with those who hate our nation. Eurorealists have seen, or heard, so called debates on Europe, in which the only participants are those who accept British membership of the EU as a given, and merely argue about how fast the creation of the federal state is to proceed. Those who dominate the BBC would have a fit of the vapours at the thought of allowing someone like Alan Sked or Lord Stoddart the right to take part in a prime time debate and put forward the policy of outright withdrawal from the whole mess.

Support of Brussels is accompanied by an overt anti Americanism which is now being given a full airing as the war against terrorism progresses. A debate on this morning's 'Broadcasting House', overseen by the usual sneering, smug presenter, consisted of John Pilger, the high priest of anti Americanism, a Muslim lady who, while infinitely more balanced than Pilger, was not likely to support the Anglo-American position, and Terry Jones, who seemed to think that everything could be traced back to the crusades and who acted as a 'me-too' to Pilger's attacks. That the BBC could think that this was a fair debate shows how deep the poison has penetrated, and the few emails read out later showed that many listeners could hardly believe that such a farce had been perpetrated.

It is a disgrace that a national broadcaster is now run by those who will use every underhand device available to present one sided arguments on every major issue, and always on the side of those of want to destroy the British way of life. Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave.

14/10/2001

As already noted here Europhiles are using the present terrorist emergency to advance the cause of federalism. First we had the Prime Minister, in a speech which contained much that was sensible about the need to oppose the terrorists, nevertheless introducing the question of the Euro in such a way as to imply that anyone who did not want to enter the single currency was in some way in the same camp as Osama Bin Laden.

Foolish people claim that one of the reasons why the European Union should exist is to provide a supranational authority to deal with environmental problems which cannot be dealt with by single nations. However, two stories this week show that, far from being a benign influence, the EU is itself a great polluter.

• The iniquitous Common Fishing Policy, enforced by officials who will spend all night searching British trawlers for illicit fish, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of tons of dead fish being thrown back into the North Sea, causing massive pollution.

• The European Parliament is about to pass a law which will prevent the sale of chainsaws and petrol-driven strimmers anywhere in the European Union, the declared intention being reduce emissions of certain gases. However the result will be that millions of fallen trees will be left to rot, giving off vast quantities of methane, which will add substantially to global warming, while parks, gardens and woods will be denuded of trees, as it will no longer be possible to prune them for safety reasons.

The morons who run this joke of an organisation are therefore polluting both the seas and the atmosphere because of their inability to recognize that the majority of the endless regulations churned out by the bureaucrats of Brussels are totally impracticable. This is the reality of the EU which the Europhiles are so keen to promote.

02/10/2001

The fanatical supporters of European integration are, as always, using an unrelated crisis to push forward with their plans for the creation of the single European state. As a result of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington the Europhiles have succeeded in rushing through changes which will allow such things as EU wide arrest warrants, while they are once again trying to impose ID cards on those countries, such as the UK, which have so far refused them.

This goes to prove that the Eurofederalists will use any excuse to advance their beloved superstate and it rests with the people to refuse to accept these impositions if democracy is to survive.

23/09/2001

All Eurorealists must be pleased that that arch Euro federalist Clarke failed to win the leadership of the Conservative Party. It now lies in Duncan Smith's power to take the final step of totally rejecting UK membership of the EU and to lead the Conservative Party back to a policy of conserving Britain, not seeking her destruction. It must be hoped that he will not allow himself to be persuaded to compromise with those who have done so much damage since Heath became leader but will remain true to a vision of an independent and democratic nation. If he does then he will deserve the chance to lead the country out of the EU. If he does not then the Conservatives will forever have forfeited the right to claim to stand up for Britain.

16/09/2001

We in the anti EU movement have long known that the BBC, which was the voice of the nation in World War II, has long since died, to be replaced by an organisation dominated by the so called liberals of the chattering classes, motivated by a loathing for their own country and all who share its values. Never was this fact better illustrated than in the coverage of the tragedy which took place last Tuesday in the USA. Most commentators seemed more anxious to criticise any suggestion that the West should respond firmly than in condemning the perpetrators, while the edition of Question Time was so biased against the United States that even the BBC director general felt compelled to apologise for its content and tone.

One does not need to look far for the reasons these so called liberals can be relied upon to attack the UK and the USA while worshipping everything which emanates from Brussels. The EU is an undemocratic organisation which seeks to establish rule by an unaccountable elite and of course the chattering classes see themselves as that elite. This is not a matter of left and right as the vast majority ordinary British people react in the same way to attacks on the USA. These pseudo fascists who dominate so much of the media, particularly the BBC, have shamed the nation by their constant equivocation, support of appeasement and failure to support Britain's friends in their hour of need. True liberals must feel angry that their name is taken in vain by these people.

Of course not all those in favour of EU membership subscribe to these views as can be seen by the way the Prime Minister is standing firm at the side of the US.

16/09/2001

The meeting held at the TUC fringe was severely disrupted by the tragic events in America and the belief of TUC delegates that all meetings had been cancelled. A very small audience attended to hear excellent speeches from Lord Stoddart, Denzil Davies MP and Brian Denny, Foreign Editor of the Morning Star. They all made the point that opposition to the EU was not a matter of left and right and that, indeed, the main fault for embroiling the UK in the organisation may be placed at the door of the right, it being Conservative governments who has signed all the relevant treaties. They also pointed out that it was the ordinary working person who suffered most from the destruction of democratic accountability consequent upon the creation of the single European state and that the EU was nothing more than the creature of the large multi national corporations. It is only through the democratic nation state that electorates may hope to have control over their lives and rule by the European Commission, Brussels bureaucrats and Frankfurt bankers will destroy the right of the people to hold their rulers to account.

The meeting gave the sentiments expressed their support but many questioned how the seemingly inevitable progress of the process could be halted. The speakers made clear that it was up to every individual who recognized the dangers to fight for their views in whatever forum was available to them. It was essential that the Labour movement took a full part in this struggle as the rights of trade unionists were under threat from the corporatist state being constructed.

The meeting concluded with the hope that another, better attended one will be held next year when, hopefully, cataclysmic world events will not overshadow everything else as happened this year.

16/09/2001

This article, by Tony Benn, the veteran Labour politician and former Cabinet Minister, appeared in the September issue of the 'Weatherspoon News', published by the owners of the Weatherspoon pubs who have joined the campaign against the euro. However the views of Mr Benn are not necessarily those of Weatherspoons.

The debate about the future of Europe has been re-awakened by the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder. He is supporting a plan that would absorb all the nations in the European Union into a Federal Superstate controlled by its own central government.

The plan, which is based on the German model that unites and controls its regions, would convert the parliaments of Britain and the other European Union countries into a mixture of regional assemblies and glorified local authorities, all of which would be subject to a central authority.

In this Superstate the real power would be in the hands of the appointed and unelected President of the Commission. He in turn would then have the right to appoint the other unelected Commissioners to form his Cabinet.

The Prime Ministers from the separate nations would be bundled together in a Second Chamber. Although part of the European Parliament, this Chamber would have no executive authority over the countries that elected them. As such, the whole concept is political and not economic.

This is the boldest plan yet produced by a European leader and its implications need to be publicly debated. new Labour attempted to avoid the issues of Europe and the euro in the run up to the general election earlier in the summer knowing that the public remained strongly opposed to the issue and the Tories would present themselves as the sole defenders of our independence and the pound sterling.

This is why the Government has cooked up five economic tests that have to be fulfilled before Britain can join the euro, as if some Treasury computer could tell us when to give up the democratic control of our own economy.

The integration of Europe is a political and not an economic question and must be seen as such since each step taken in that direction shifts power from the elected to the unelected, raising fundamental democratic questions.

It is very important that those who oppose this do so for the right reasons, because it represents a steady erosion of the power of the electors, and not because they are taken in by crude nationalism that the Right uses with their dislike of foreigners.

In theory it would be possible to have a genuinely democratic United States of Europe based on the American model with an elected President, Senate and House of representatives all rolled into one.

But to do so would involve the complete abolition of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. For that reason it would be totally unacceptable to the European establishment as it would reveal their deep dislike of democracy and would in practice be both unwieldy and unworkable.

What Europe should be working for is a Commonwealth that includes all European, nations, both East and West.

They should be committed to co-operating and harmonising their policies step by step with the consent of each of their parliaments, rather like a mini-United Nations.

An Assembly and Council of Ministers could then be put in place to oversee the co-operating countries, albeit with no power to impose on any of those countries that want to pursue policies that meet their own particular circumstances.

What we do not want is to go back to the old hostility between the individual countries that led to two World Wars and that is the danger of following the Tory party line.

Internationalism is the proper response to globalisation. Those who believe that a federal Europe would protect us from the power of the multinational corporations are completely wrong as the European Commission is little more than a regional agent of globalisation, enforcing the diktat of the bankers in our own continent.

If Britain is persuaded to join the single currency we shall, forever, have lost the right of self government through the ballot box and all key decisions will be taken by those we did not elect and cannot remove.

11/09/2001

In 1995 Peter Hain, principled campaigner of the left, said of the single currency

"The policy, legally enshrined in the Maastricht treaty of a European Central Bank independent of democratic control and dedicated almost exclusively to price stability must be reversed. It is economically disastrous and politically dangerous...why should monetary policy be taken out of democratic control and left to bankers?"

In 2001 Peter Hain, minister for Europe, said of the single currency

"I have always thought that the single currency is a logical development of a single market and there is a need for it to introduce price transparency and the harmonisation of costs"

Now the nature of the European Central Bank and the European Union has not changed so why has Mr Hain totally changed his mind? Answers on a postcard please.

05/09/2001

In seeking economic, not political reasons for joining the euro, Britain is asking for trouble according to an article in the Financial Times on 29th August 2001. The writer, a former Belgian permanent representative, negotiated the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam.

"The current debate on the euro has all the ingredients of a serious misunderstanding between Britain and its European partners. For several years now the British government has stated that the decision on whether or not to join would be based on five tests relating to employment, investment, flexibility, financial services and convergence. The implication is that if Britain were to join the single currency, it would do so for reasons of economic and financial self-interest, not on the basis of political considerations.

Everyone knows and understands why Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, has taken this line so consistently. But it is worth reflecting on the consequences: joining on these grounds would be totally at odds with the reasoning that led other leading European countries to opt for the single currency. If Britain joined, that difference in approach would prove a long-term source of misunderstanding and friction.

It is often argued that having a single currency is the logical consequence of the single market; it would lower costs and eliminate the risk of competitive devaluations. Of course, these arguments are important. But it is also clear that the leading European countries decided to join primarily for political reasons. When France made the decision in the late 1980s, its main concern was to bind a reunified Germany ever more closely to the European Union through the single currency and to sideline the growing predominance of the D-Mark. For geopolitical reasons, Helmut Kohl, then German chancellor, went along with this view and sought in the Maastricht negotiation a political vehicle to justify to the German public the decision to abandon the country's cherished currency and symbol of post-war success. Countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland, which had linked their currency to the D-Mark since the early 1980s, had, in effect, already surrendered monetary policy to Germany's central bank.

Nonetheless, they clearly considered it politically advantageous for that bank to be European in nature rather than strictly German. The enormous efforts made by Spain, Italy and, more recently, Greece, to satisfy the criteria for joining the euro could well have been justified on macro-economic grounds. Yet, here again, popular support in these countries was galvanised not by economic arguments but by the desire to be part of what they considered, rightly or wrongly, would become the inner circle of the EU.

This political approach to monetary union should not come as a surprise - it has been present since the very beginning. It was the European Council in Rome, in October 1990, that took the initial decision. Its conclusions (from which Margaret Thatcher dissented) read: "The Community will have a single currency which will be an expression of its identity and unity." The formulation could hardly have been more political.

It was thanks to this strong underlying political commitment that economic and monetary union managed to weather the storms of the early 1990s when the European monetary system was falling apart.

Now it would not, of course, be the first time that Britain entered into a European compact with motives entirely different from those of its partners. In the accession referendums during the 1970s, British - and Danish - voters were led to believe that entry into the Common Market was a purely economic decision, a matter of trade and customs duties. Words such as "ever closer union" in the preamble of the treaty were dismissed as mere rhetoric with no real significance. The supra- national character of the institutional framework was downplayed.

Yet by then it was already clear that most of Britain's partners were indeed aiming at something quite different: not a centralised superstate but a form of polity going well beyond free trade and customs union. In the words of Peter Ludlow, of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels: "(British) leaders justified acceptance on the basis of a false prospectus." Continental leaders, who could have publicly challenged the position taken, did not do so because they did not want to make life any harder for the British or Danish governments. In that respect, they share some of the responsibility.

The resulting contrasting approach has plagued and frustrated at least two generations of politicians on both sides of the Channel. And it goes a long way towards explaining why, contrary to the initial hopes and expectations of Belgium and the Netherlands, successive British governments have never been able to exert an influence on European affairs comparable with that of France or Germany. Leadership presupposes shared aspirations. In the case of Britain, there were none or too few.

It would surely be unwise to risk repeating the same mistake today. The euro is about politics and that requires a political assessment of whether or not to join, quite apart from Mr Brown's economic and financial tests.

He must be right when he says that joining on the wrong economic basis cannot be in Britain's interest. But joining on the assumption that politics can be ignored would be in neither Britain's nor Europe's interest."

03/09/2001

Today Christopher Booker illustrates once again how every pretended benefit of EU membership turns out to be an illusion, while every cost is absolutely real.

The EU claims that the 'free movement of capital' is one of the positive features of membership but perhaps one should ask the London businessmen who had £43,000 confiscated by French customs under an obscure French law forbidding the importation of more than £4,500. He eventually recovered his money, less a charge of £900 and lost the contract he was seeking. A couple from Teeside had an even worse experience at Spanish customs, who are still holding the proceeds of their perfectly legitimate house sale, despite the totally open fashion in which the money was declared. Again an obscure local law is being used to penalise those who, probably foolishly, believed the EU lies about the free movement of capital.

The sacrifice of our economy interests and democratic rights in order to belong to the EU are real enough, it is the supposed benefits which always melt like the morning dew.

02/09/2001

The French President has again called for a constitution for the European single state while the British government continues to support the idea of a European army. One must wonder whether the British people have realised just where this insanity may lead.

The motives of those who wish to see the creation of the United States of Europe include a visceral anti Americanism and the desire to act as a rival to the USA on the world stage. The British political establishment may be happy to support this but sensible nations such as Australia and Canada will not turn their backs on America. If things continue as they are we could see young men from Bradford, Coventry or Sunderland sent into battle against young men from Boston, Canberra or Sydney at the behest of the rulers of the sort of European superstate which was the dream of Goebbels and Mosley.

Is this what the Allied Armies fought for when they drove into Nazi Germany in 1944 and is it what the British people are prepared to risk in pursuit of the chimera of a federal Europe? If not then the solution is obvious - we must leave the European Union.

02/09/2001

An article in today's Times by Jim McCue is a clear exposition of the case intelligent opponents of European Union membership have been making for years:

Perhaps Iain Duncan Smith really does believe we should withdraw from the EU, but why do the Conservatives treat the idea as a political perversity? Nothing could give them a better electoral chance than advocating withdrawal. It would harness a latent force much stronger than they are, since far more people believe that Britain should withdraw than voted Tory in June. A MORI poll in March found that more people (52 per cent) wanted Britain to come out than wanted us to stay in. Three months later, only 32 per cent of those voting at the election voted Tory. If the large numbers who despair of the EU began to believe that the Tories represented them, they could readily be translated into a parliamentary majority.

The old slogan about being in the EU but not controlled by it is utterly unconvincing. To believe that we can stay in the club without accepting the rules is a fantasy that the other members will (rightly) not indulge. It gave Tories the worst of both worlds. Those who want European integration didn't vote Tory, but neither did those who are sick of Britain's propitiation at the Brussels altar. Coded messages about the undesirability of the euro are not enough. Certainly the euro is undesirable, because it would mean the loss of our economic independence, but the loss of British sovereignty over legislation, the judiciary, the police, the Armed Forces and many other matters is also much resented.

There is at large a great deal of responsible anger about particular EU diktats, as well as a visceral suspicion of the whole project. Yet these feelings are disenfranchised, waiting for a mature political party to give them voice. The main parties and the media have colluded in the pretence that only a tiny band of fanatics wish to leave (the MORI poll, for instance, was scarcely reported). Yet more and more people want to escape. They cannot see what benefit we derive from our membership fee of œ1 million an hour. They distrust the endless weaselly summits. They see that the progress towards a superstate is inexorable, because they have been watching it for 27 years and haven't yet seen a single step taken in any other direction.

If the Tories dedicate themselves to the campaign for withdrawal, the case will virtually make itself. Voters who feel that Europe is not a priority would soon realise that ending our payments of œ20 million a day to the EU could make a big difference to nurses, teachers and the rest of us, through public spending or tax cuts. The alternative is to continue to watch as the EU takes ever more powers - even though it is so hugely corrupt that no accountant can be found to endorse its annual accounts.

Outside Britain, the leading EU politicians say with startling explicitness that they are intent on creating a superstate with its own legal and taxation systems, its own judiciary, anthem, flag, currency, foreign and social policy. Interference of that kind is inimical to the free market that was supposedly the purpose, and from the EU's record we can only imagine what kind of mess such powers would cause. Power is being exercised over us without our consent, in ways we scarcely appreciate. England has already been divided geographically into administrative Lander, which are to be given their own local assemblies to match the Scottish and Welsh. Parliament will be squeezed out from above and below, losing its vital place in Britain's life after more than seven centuries. If voters knew this, they would be outraged. It is the Tory party's job to tell them.

Why, then, do the Eurocredulists still say we need to be in the EU? None of their arguments is positive, and most are built on fear. First: security. The EU has kept the peace in Europe. Quite untrue: it is not a military organisation. Second: we need the EU to trade with. No: as the fourth most successful trading nation in the world, with most of our commerce taking place beyond the EU, we need no such prop; we would do better without the restrictions and bureaucracy. And since we import more from other EU countries than we export to them, they would be foolish to impose tariffs.

Mostly, though, the arguments for staying in Europe beg the big question. We are told it is essential for us to increase our influence so that the EU does not do yet more things to us that we would rather avoid. But the best way to avoid its directives is simply to be outside it. The Tories' European policy has long resembled Whitehall's dealings with Northern Ireland: a desperate attempt to prevent the situation getting worse, by compromising with people who make ever more unwelcome demands. If the new leader adopts a policy of withdrawal, he may lose "the middle ground", but he will not have to pose as a better Blairite than Blair. By appealing to a ready-made majority he will maximise his chances of winning the election - and for a clear purpose.

However, excellent though this article is, it does still leave a need for the debunking of a number of myths concerning our position which are endlessly propagated by Europhiles.

Our cause is not motivated by mindless xenophobia, a ridiculous claim as many of our colleagues are themselves continental Europeans, but by a genuine concern for the preservation of democracy within Europe. It is not a right wing issue as illustrated by the fact that many of the most consistent supporters of withdrawal have been on the left, including Labour MPs such as Tony Benn and Labour Peers such as Lord Shore. Above all it is not a reactionary view, nostalgic for a vanished past, but a forward looking philosophy which sees the future as bright for democratic and independent nation states which do not immerse themselves in fossilised monoliths such as the EU.

Those other commentators in the media who appear to believe that to ridicule Eurorealists is a way of establishing their progressive credentials merely show how uninformed they are as to the reality. To support the European Union is to support a corporatist state which seeks to destroy the democratic rights of ordinary people and to elevate the interest of multi national companies above those of nation states. The apologists for Brussels are the true right wingers, promoting a cause which was conceived by fascists such as Goebbels and Mosley. When so called liberals act as cheerleaders for this bureaucratic dictatorship they show themselves to be either deeply illiberal or else pathetically ignorant.

That an article such as Mr McCue's can now appear in a serious newspaper shows the extent to which the validity of our arguments is gaining recognition and holds out hope that we may yet escape the grip of Brussels.

23/08/2001

European leaders have ordered police and intelligence agencies to co-ordinate their efforts to identify and track the anti-capitalist demonstrators whose violent protests at recent international summits culminated in the shooting dead by police of a young protester at the Genoa G8 meeting last month.

The new measures clear the way for protesters travelling between European Union countries to be subjected to an unprecedented degree of surveillance. Confidential details of decisions taken by Europe's interior ministers at talks last month show that the authorities will use a web of police and judicial links to keep tabs on the activities and whereabouts of protesters. Europol, the EU police intelligence-sharing agency based in The Hague that was set up to trap organised criminals and drug traffickers, is likely to be given a key role.

The plan has alarmed civil rights campaigners, who argue that personal information on people who have done no more than take part in a legal demonstration may be entered into a database and exchanged.

Calls for a new Europe-wide police force to tackle the threat from hard-line anti-capitalists were led after the Genoa summit by Germany's Interior Minister, Otto Schily. Germany has long pushed for the creation of a Europe-wide crime-fighting agency modelled on the FBI.

Germany's EU partners rejected Mr Schily's call, judging that a new force to combat political protest movements was too controversial, but ministers agreed to extend the measures that can be taken under existing powers.

Central to the new push is the secretive Article 36 committee (formerly known as the K4 committee) and the Schengen Information System, both of which allow for extensive contact and data sharing between police forces.

Under the new arrangements, European governments and police chiefs will:

1. Set up permanent contact points in every EU country to collect, analyse and exchange information on protesters;

2. Create a pool of liaison officers before each summit staffed by police from countries from which "risk groups" originate;

3. Use "police or intelligence officers" to identify "persons or groups likely to pose a threat to public order and security";

4. Set up a task force of police chiefs to organise "targeted training" on violent protests.

The new measures will rely on two main ways of exchanging police information. The Schengen Information System, which provides basic information, and a supporting network called Sirene (Supplementary Information Request at the National Entry). This network (of which Britain is a member) allows pictures, fingerprints and other information to be sent to police or immigration officials once a suspect enters their territory. Each country already has a Sirene office with established links to EU and Nordic law enforcement agencies.

Civil liberties campaigners are dismayed by the plan. Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch magazine, said: "This will give the green light to Special Branch and MI5 to put under surveillance people whose activities are entirely democratic."

Nicholas Busch, co-ordinator of the Fortress Europe network on civil liberties issues, added: "People who have done nothing against the law ought to be able to feel sure they are not under surveillance ... By criminalising whole political and social scenes you fuel confrontation and conflict."

Thomas Mathieson, professor of sociology of law at the University of Oslo, said police could have access to "very private information" about people's religion, sex lives and politics. "It is a very dangerous situation from the civil liberties point of view," he said.

Is it not obvious that these measures directed today at anti globalisation protesters will tomorrow be directed at those who dare to question the existence of the European Union. Using the excuse of defending democracy the dictators of Europe will criminalise those who oppose the creation of the monster which is seeking to be borne in Brussels. Today the crocodile will eat the protesters, tomorrow it will be us.

22/08/2001

Tory Leadership Campaign. "Mail backs Clarke" is a much trumpeted news headline in the media today. The Mail has declared for the man who, famously, did not bother to read the Maastricht Treaty (if he had he would have known about Britain's loss of sovereignty, the pound etc), a well known Europhile and supporter of Mr Blair's push to the Euro.

Yet the "Comment" says: "This paper is opposed to the single currency and will continue to be so", and "the people will have a chance to make their voice heard in the referendum...."

Only the most naive of papers, and the Mail is not normally one of them, would repeat this myth about the referendum. Most people accept that Blair will not hold a referendum if he cannot win it and take us into the Euro. He needs the support of the likes of Clarke to achieve that aim and should he succeed Britain will have no currency of its own and no powers of independent government. Britain will have lost what little sovereignty it still retains.

If that is not enough perhaps The Mail should be reminded that Clarke, writing in the International Currency Review, Volume 23 No. 4 in Autumn 1996, said, "I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe".

Tory activists all over the country are already saying they will resign if Clarke is returned as Leader. Is the Mail really supporting the possible break up of the Conservative party and the end of Britain as an independent nation, or has it swallowed the Europhile propaganda hook line and sinker?

22/08/2001

According to a report in today's Sunday Times the EU is planning an armed police force for world hot spots:

A paramilitary police force is being established by the European Union to intervene in conflict areas across the world to protect the community's political and economic interests. Brussels has drawn up plans for a 5,000-strong armed police capability able to carry out "preventative and repressive" actions in support of global peacekeeping missions. Critics say it is a deliberate challenge to the United Nations.The new body, which may be given the name European Security and Intelligence Force (Esif), would work alongside a 60,000-strong EU defence force that is also being set up. The security force - likened to France's gendarmerie or the Royal Ulster Constabulary and made up of policemen from Britain and other EU members - would be intended primarily for use in trouble spots such as Kosovo.Although it is not clear when recruitment to the force will begin, it is expected to be fully operational by 2003.

Critics fear, however, that its units, armed with light machineguns and trained to operate alongside EU ground troops, may eventually be used to suppress disorder within member states. No restrictions on its sphere of operations have been placed in the regulations so far agreed by EU governments, and detailed "rules of engagement" have not yet been drawn up.

"This is an appalling development," said Timothy Kirkhope, the former Home Office minister and now Conservative chief whip in the European parliament. "Although they say this police force would be used only in places like Kosovo, once the structure is in place there is an implied threat to deploy it anywhere, including on home soil."

Tony Bunyon, the director of Statewatch, a civil liberties group which monitors the EU's security policy, said the creation of the force was part of a broader drive by the EU to enhance its powers: "The European Union is working hard to become a player alongside the United States in policing the world." It was of particular concern, Bunyan added, that details of the new structure would be kept secret, under regulations quietly agreed by EU governments during the summer that end the right of public access to information about both military and civilian crisis management.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the need for an international policing ability had been revealed in Kosovo when British troops found themselves engaged in police work to "restore and maintain law and order". "There is no attempt at all to reduce the role of the United Nations," he said. There was also "no question" of the force being used within the EU.The new police units, like the EU's defence arm, will be under the control of a political and security committee, composed of ambassadors from each EU country. Effective operational command, however, will be in the hands of Javier Solana, the Spanish former secretary-general of Nato who is now secretary-general of the council of ministers.A spokesman for Solana said last week that the police units would be modelled on such paramilitary forces as Spain's guardia civil, the Italian carabinieri, and the French gendarmerie. There were already more than 3,000 policemen from EU countries deployed abroad, in the Balkans, Guatemala and East Timor, making the target of 5,000 a modest one.The big change was to organise things collectively, the spokesman said. "We cannot tell where a crisis may occur and EU assistance is requested, so there is no geographic limitation being placed at all."

Experts believe deploying a police force of 5,000 would require more than 15,000 men committed and trained for service with the EU. The impetus for the creation of the force has been the perception of Britain, France and Germany that the UN failed to act effectively in preventing bloodshed in the Balkans. But the present plan is considerably more ambitious, calling on the EU to intervene on the world stage either in co-operation with or instead of the UN.

The above should be read in conjunction with a different report which appeared in the Express:

THE LONG ARM OF EURO POLICE STRETCHES TO UK

European police are to be allowed to operate in the UK with the same powers as British officers. They will have authority to stop and search suspects and make arrests under a mutual assistance deal being negotiated by the Home Office. The government is also thinking of abolishing a 40 year block on European police requests for search and seizure of property in the UK. The proposals, which build on informal arrangements, are certain to cause controversy at a time when parliament is getting anxious about a number of Europe-wide law enforcement deals. These include a British application to subscribe to the EU's immigration database and detailed negotiations about the "remote" tapping of European telephone and Internet links....this is a potentially worrying development - the gradual emergence, unnoticed and by stealth, of a European police state. Without the need for new powers or legislation, EU police forces now have the power to operate in Britain...." (Actually, of course, the legislation is in the Amsterdam Treaty, but don't expect the press to know that)

The day which will see the end of democracy in Britain draws ever closer!

12/08/2001

The following letter is from one Eurorealist who works in Norway and has seen for himself how even membership of EFTA allows the petty dictators of Brussels to impose their will on unwilling peoples:

For anyone studying the effects of the EU on neighbouring non EU countries and the insidious spread of EU influence, I have a personal example of how they are getting their claws into every aspect of European life.

I live in the UK and work in Norway. I pay Norwegian taxes and am liable for British tax so I fill out my tax return every year. However I pay no actual tax to the UK government as they have a reciprocal agreement with Norway and my Norwegian taxes are so high I already pay some 20% more than I would if I were paying in the UK. (Not of course that I can claim any of that back.)

Until this year I have not had to pay the social part of the Norwegian tax (equivalent to our National Insurance) because of course I get nothing from them - no state pension, free health care, unemployment or other benefits. However the EU is apparently not very happy about this and would like to see some sort of uniformity of tax collection even with countries that are outside the EU but inside EFTA.

Therefore as of the beginning of this year I am now liable to pay an additional 7% tax in Norway (which puts me up to about 45% basic tax). When I enquired with the tax office and my colleagues why this had been introduced now I was told very clearly that it was because the EU had enforced this on Norway. The Norwegians have no love what so ever of the EU and even though this measure doesn't directly affect Norwegians (just the foreign nationals working here) they are pretty unhappy about it.

If Brussels can do this to nations outside the EU just think what they can do to those within!

12/08/2001

German doctors are saying that millions of people in the eurozone will be at risk from January, especially shop assistants and bank clerks who are handling coinage all day long.

A German professor told a Berlin-based reporter from a British newspaper: "Nickel allergies are the number one contact allergy in the world. I don't understand why the coins have so much nickel in them."

The best response an EU spokesman could manage was: "The nickel is high quality".

Yet another example of EU bureaucratic incompetence, coupled with their usual arrogance.

12/08/2001

On behalf of the association "Notre Europe", chaired by Jacques Delors, Brigid Laffen of Dublin University recently undertook an analysis of the Irish referendum which rejected the Nice Treaty.

Among the reasons which Ms Laffen gives for the "No" were:

• opposition to majority voting for enhanced co-operation

• opposition to the re-weighting of votes in favour of the large Member States

• concerns regarding loss of sovereignty and independence

• opposition to Irish participation in the European Army

• anger at Brussel's reprimand of the Dublin Government concerning its economic policy

From the above it seems fairly clear that the referendum result was not a temporary aberration on the part of the Irish people but a statement that they are questioning some of the fundamental principles upon which the EU is built and which cannot be changed without dismantling the entire rotten structure. The Europhiles may find it harder than they think to reverse this referendum.

04/08/2001

One of the favourite myths propounded by Europhiles is that were the UK to leave the EU it would mean a disaster for the British people. However, in two uncharacteristic outbursts of political honesty both UK EU Commissioners have admitted that this is simply not true.

First Neil Kinnock, the Vice President of the European Commission, while being interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme on 1st February 2001 said, in relation to the proposal that the UK withdraw It wouldn't be terminal...and there certainly wouldn't be retaliation by our fellow democracies". He also agreed that the rest of the EU would not turn its back on trade with the UK, its nearest, and biggest, market.

Second Chris Patten, EU Commissioner for External Relations, in an essay called "Legitimacy gap", published in the July 2001 issue of Prospect says "We could, like Switzerland and Norway, prosper outside the EU".

If even these arch federalists admit that we can prosper outside, and in so doing we would save our democracy, what the hell are we waiting for?

04/08/2001

Recent events within the Conservative Party have emphasised the importance to the anti EU of opposition cross party bodies such as CIB and the Democracy Movement. After years of claims that the Conservative party had renounced its Heathite ways we now see the Conservative MPs choosing Kenneth Clarke as one of its two contenders for leadership, while polls indicate that the party membership may very well elect him in preference to Iain Duncan Smith. The argument put forward by many that 'he is a winner' is flawed on two counts. First, it is just not true, as he was one of the architects of the 1997 Conservative defeat. Second, what is the point of winning if it requires the policies in which one believes to be jettisoned? The position that what counts is the possession of power, not the use to which that power is to be put, was the apologia used by Orwell's Inner Party in 1984. To win the election, only to see democratic control pass irrevocably to Brussels would be totally self defeating for those who desire to preserve the British nation.

This apparent loss of nerve by the Conservative Party shows that we must rely upon those organisations which reflect the wider opposition to the EU within the nation, rather than hope for salvation to come from fickle party politicians.

29/07/2001

As shown on the events page CIB is holding a public meeting on the fringe of the TUC on the 11th September. This will be chaired by Lord Stoddart and the speakers will be Denzil Davies M.P. and Brian Denny, the Foreign Editor of the Morning Star. All are welcome to hear the case for opposition to the EU from the perspective of the left. The meeting will focus on the Nice Treaty and on the impossibility of improving public services in the face of the financial constraints imposed by the EU in the interests of big business.

29/07/2001

Everyone who loves freedom and respects those who fight to preserve it should be aware that one of the heroes of the anti EU movement, Lord (Peter) Shore, is seriously ill in hospital after collapsing while speaking in the House of Lords. He has now had a heart by pass operation but faces a long period of convalescence. Lord Shore has never weakened in his determination to see the UK leave the EU and we can ill afford to lose all that he gives to the cause. All CIB members will wish him a full and speedy recovery.

29/07/2001

Robert Theobald, CIB leaflet distributor was threatened by an official of the Luton Borough Council for daring to put up a Keep our Pound sign on his shop car park. This arrogant official gave Robert a phoney police type caution and asked how he would like a criminal record. Robert appealed, received assistance from, among others, CIB Vice-president Leolin Price QC, and when the case was heard he was granted three year's consent for the sign.

At a time when pro EU propaganda is allowed, and actively supported by the government, it is a disgrace that small minded petty dictators should treat law abiding citizens in this way, because they dare to disagree with the political class, and it is a warning as to what we may expect if we do become part of the single European state, run by people like this for their own benefit.

07/07/2001