As stated in these pages last week the dictators of the EU
have not given up on their plans to force through the EU
constitution. In an article In Brussels, they don't have a
Plan B in today's Sunday Telegraph Danial Hannan MEP
(and CIB member) details the dangers that confront us:
********
First he summarises the situation as seen by the somewhat ill
informed British media
"Having been slow to wake up to the danger of the
Euro-constitution, we have been quick to dismiss it. Over the
past week, the eurosceptic British Press - with the exception of
The Telegraph - has let out a long, collective sigh of relief.
The Poles, say commentators, have saved us.
Like their gallant forebears hurtling horse-borne at the
Panzers, they have shown a courage that shames our own leaders.
Tony Blair was ready to sign away our birthright, but his Polish
counterpart, Leszek Miller, had a stiffer spine (literally as
well as figuratively: he attended the summit in a body-brace
following a helicopter accident). Thanks to the stubbornness of
this ex-apparatchik, the constitution has failed, and our
independence is
secure, said the media".
Then he recalls similar situations in the past
"We have seen similar headlines before. When the Danes voted
No to Maastricht, when the ERM broke apart, when Ireland
rejected Nice and on a dozen other occasions, we have been told
that the European Union has suffered a terrible setback, and
that its leaders will have to go back to the drawing board.
In fact, they always respond in the same way: by carrying on
until they bludgeon their way through. There is no Plan B in
Brussels. Whenever Plan A is rejected, it is simply resubmitted
over and over again until it wins acceptance".
Finally he warns of the likely outcome of this latest so
called setback for the EU
"Something similar will happen with the constitution. It was
never likely that the document would go through nem con at the
first attempt. Indeed, I wrote here in June that the IGC would
not conclude before the middle of next year. Already, the Irish,
who take over the EU presidency, are preparing to do their bit.
Their foreign minister, Brian Cowen, says he detects 'a mood of
cautious optimism'. His French counterpart, Dominique de
Villepin, told
Liberation on Thursday: 'We want to have a constitution for all
European states before the end of 2004'.
And why not? Every state, after all, supports the
constitution's main provisions: the supremacy of Brussels law,
the establishment of a European criminal justice system, the
creation of an EU foreign minister and so on. As Mr Blair told
Parliament on his return, the heads of government had agreed on
most of what he termed - in his characteristically precise way
"the stuff". The summit broke down only because Poland, and to a
lesser extent Spain, wanted to cling on to their inflated voting
rights.
Already, there are attempts to wear these two nations down.
Immediately after the summit, the main contributors to the EU
budget demanded a cap on Brussels spending - something far more
alarming in Warsaw and Madrid than an abstruse row about voting
weights.
By linking these two issues, whether overtly or implicitly,
European diplomats hope to find a way of winning over the
recalcitrants. In any case, the Spanish leader, Jose Maria
Aznar, is retiring in March. If a deal can be reached on voting
weights, the constitution will be signed with virtually no
discussion of its other provisions.
The concentration on this one row has allowed Mr Blair to get
away almost unchallenged with his claim that he secured
Britain's "red lines": taxation and foreign affairs. He is not
the first prime minister to indulge in such legerdemain. It is a
well-worn British tactic: pick one or two fights that you are
confident of winning, focus exclusively on them, and hope that
no one notices what you are conceding in other areas.
Yet, even in his own terms, Mr Blair has failed. His defence
of fiscal sovereignty is 30 years too late: the EU already has a
say over VAT, corporate taxation, permissible deficits and how
to define tax evasion.
As for foreign affairs, it is worth quoting exactly what Mr
Blair has agreed to: "The Union's competence in matters of
common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of
foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's
security. Member states shall actively and unreservedly support
the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of
loyalty and mutual solidarity." If this is a red line, I hate to
think of what would constitute a concession.
The constitution will be back, make no mistake - conceivably
as early as March. Let us not be caught off guard a second time".
********
We have been warned - those who run the EU will never give
up trying to create a single European state unless and until
the whole organisation is dismantled
21/12/2003
CIB is producing factsheets on the European Constitution as a
source of information to those who desire to know the truth
Click here for notes on the draft
while click here to read the
alternative constitution produced by those members of the
Convention who refused to sign up for the Brussels plan
If anyone claims there is no alternative to the pseudo
fascist constitution on offer from the dictators of Brussels
just refer them to these factsheets
21/12/2003
A great many political commentators are claiming that the
failure of the talks on the EU constitution have meant that the
whole issue has been kicked into the long grass for at least
several years but anyone who believes this is either very
gullible or wishes to lull Eurorealists into a false sense of
security.
However, the Irish Foreign Minister has let the cat out of
the bag by his statements yesterday in which he first stated
that he believed the constitution could be approved before
Ireland's presidency ends on June 30th and secondly warned that
no agreement had been reached on the much vaunted "red line"
issues which Mr Blair claimed had been settled.
These statements by the Irish Foreign Minister shows clearly
that the European elites will not be deflected from their course
by their failure to agree in Brussels. They have been working
towards a single European state for decades and are not going to
abandon their ambitions because of a temporary set back.
Mr Cowen's confirmation that the British "red line" issues
had not been agreed illustrates that we have had no more than a
stay of execution. Indeed, once the Poles and Spanish have been
bullied into acquiescing to the new voting weights, it will be
certain that Mr Blair would not then prevent agreement if he
were unable to win the concessions he claims to desire.
The pressure for a binding referendum on this most important
of matters must be maintained if our democratic rights are not
to be surrendered by self interested politicians reaching a
shabby backroom deal.
19/12/2003
The author of these pages has been conducting an argument
with a bureaucrat, currently seconded to Brussels, via the
pages of our union magazine. Eurorealists may be interested to
see details as it illustrates how basic facts are ignored by
apologists for the European Union:
Original letter, appearing in response to ludicrous
assertions by Europhiles:
Dear Sir,
Those correspondents who responded to the previous month's
letters on the European Union are deceiving themselves as to
the reality of democratic control exercised within that
organisation.
When I joined the Home Civil Service in the early 1960s I was
proud to become part of what I saw as an efficient body,
untainted by political bias, which worked impartially to
implement the policies of the elected representatives of the
British people. We are all sadly aware of the extent to which
politicisation has since undermined that position but this is as
nothing compared to the situation in the EU.
In the absence of a European identity, possessing
constituencies numbering in the hundreds of thousands and
apparently motivated more by their expense accounts than a
concern for good government, the MEPs are nothing more than
passengers on a gravy train designed to present the illusion,
not the substance of a democratic body. That they may only speak
for a maximum of ninety seconds on subjects placed before them
by the European Commission makes a complete mockery of the idea
that the latter are held accountable in any real way to elected
representatives.
The argument that the Council of Ministers provides a
safeguard is ludicrous, given that thousands of directives and
regulations pour out of the EC every year. These directives are
given the force of law in the UK, but how many are scrutinised
by UK ministers as, were they to attempt to do so, they would
not have time for any other activity.
Experience shows us that true democratic accountability is
the only protection against institutionalised corruption and the
history of the EU, where endemic fraud has prevented the Court
of Auditors from approving the accounts year after year, proves
that it is an organisation run without concern for democratic
values.
Yours faithfully,
Response from a British bureaucrat, currently seconded to
Brussels:
I apologise for intruding in your pages again on the subject
of the EU but Mr Bullen's latest letter cannot be left
unanswered. Unable to deny the fact that UK voters can change
their representatives, he resorts to knockabout and caricature.
He implies that the Council of Ministers, in its capacity as
a law-making body, seldom scrutinises the legislation that it
enacts. I challenge him to name one UK minister who is guilty
of such dereliction of duty. Even if it were true, and it isn't,
the electorate has the right both to ask its politicians why
they ignored their responsibilities and to vote them out of
office if dissatisfied with either the volume or the content of
the laws that they have approved.
Mr Bullen refers to "thousands" of directives "pouring out"
every year and asks how many are scrutinised by UK ministers. In
fact, between them, either the Council, or the Council and
Parliament acting as co-legislators, or the Commission issue
about 100 Directives each year. In 1998 there were 101;
1999-105; 2000 - 84; 2001 - 114; 2002 - 100. All of these are
scrutinised, line by line, by UK civil servants, working in
their departments and sometimes attending meetings in Brussels,
until they are satisfied that the measure should be recommended
to their minister or blocked. Just as they do with domestic
legislation, those civil servants consult interested parties on
the points of detail and whether the measure is needed at all.
Other community legislation undergoes the same process. If he
considers the laws to be so bad, Mr Bullen must have a very low
opinion of our FDA colleagues who examine them before advising
the UK minister. The facts simply do not support the
allegation, in his July letter, that EU laws are the result of
"bureaucratic diktat" and free of any democratic accountability.
If the calibre of MEPs (or ministers) is as low as he
asserts, this might be the fault of the electorate, by not
voting when given the opportunity. Perhaps we get the
politicians we deserve. The fact is, unlike one of the UK's
legislative chambers, they are elected and we are entitled to
remove them if we think that they are just "passengers on a
gravy train". If there is a lack of democratic control, as Mr
Bullen asserts, it is surely caused by three out of four people
note exercising their right to vote. It is unarguably the case
that the electorate has the power to change its
representatives, both in the European Parliament and in the
Council of Ministers,. should it so wish.
That there is fraud on the EU budget is undeniable. However,
over 90% of the budget is allocated to and managed by the Member
States and not the Commission. The European Institutions are far
from being perfect but any debate about them should be based on
facts rather than comic fiction.
Letter in response to the Eurocrat:
Dear Sir,
I hope that I may be permitted space to answer the attack
made upon me by Bernard Duffy concerning the lack of democracy
within the European Union, a subject which, contrary to his
implications, I do not regard in a spirit of levity, but rather
as a matter of the utmost seriousness.
Mr Duffy challenges me over the Council of Ministers, secure
in the knowledge that their deliberations are conducted in
secret, and that Qualified Majority Voting makes it impossible
to confirm what positions were taken. Unfortunately for him
however, a very senior ex Cabinet Minister, who now recognizes
the EU for what it is, informed a public meeting that, when he
attended, the vast majority of decisions were left to the
unelected officials, and that he read a newspaper until called
upon to sign that placed in front of him.
As far as community legal instruments are concerned Mr Duffy
seeks to avoid the issue by referring only to directives when
the vast majority of these are regulations which the EU's own
website says "are binding in their entirety and directly
applicable in all member states". On the 13th January 2003
Baroness Symons, in response to a question from Lord Stoddart
of Swindon confirmed that the number of directly applicable
regulations gaining the force of law in the UK for the period
1973 to 2001 was 100,299, an average of over 3,400 every year.
Does Mr Duffy expect us to believe that our elected
representatives scrutinised these? Those Eastern European
nations joining the expanded EU are confronted with 25,000
pages of such regulations which they must accept without demur.
That, as Mr Duffy claims, the majority of the electorate
refuse to vote in European elections is a sign of their
recognition that the European Parliament is merely a fig-leaf
for democracy. Its vast, unwieldy constituencies and the
limitations on the powers of the members to initiate
legislation, or even to speak in debates, makes it no more than
the tool of the bureaucrats. Even were it otherwise the fact
remains that were all British MEPs to oppose a measure they
could easily be out voted by the rest, given that in the
expanded EU we will have only 78 votes out of over 700, while
our own parliament has now yielded so much power that, as in the
case of the fishing protection measures, Britain was forced to
pay £100 million to Spanish fishermen, even though the vast
majority of British politicians and British people supported
the action initially taken by Westminster.
If, as Mr Duffy claims, corruption is mainly found in the
member states, how is it that the European Commission was
forced to resign amid accusations of nepotism and venal
behaviour? Clearly Mr Duffy is a true acolyte of Jean Monnet
who openly admitted that the single European state could only be
built by deceiving the mass of the people as to the reality.
Yours faithfully,
The above just proves that there are none so blind as
those who will not see
11/12/2003
The latest edition of the ACML's
Britain contains a very important report on the debate in
the House of Lords on Lord Pearson's attempt to obtain a full
discussion on the real advantages / disadvantages to the UK of
remaining within the EU. Everyone who cares about the truth
should read the statements made by serious men, some of whom,
like Lord Stoddart, have given a lifetime to public service.
The clock now stands at one minute to midnight and unless the
British people wake up from their celebrity obsessed daze and
realise that a self interested, incompetent, and frankly, not
very intelligent, political class, is in the last stages of
handing Britain over to a bunch of pseudo fascist bureaucrats in
Brussels, then this country is finished.
Now is the time for the mass of the people to cry "Enough"
and to demand that their so called representatives stop this
betrayal, before the EU constitution turns the key in the lock
and our democracy and independence finally disappears.
07/12/2003
The reports last weekend that France and Germany are
contemplating full political union are given added weight by the
manner in which those two countries have now conspired to break
the rules they chose to impose on the European Union relating to
the Stability and Growth Pact. It is not clear that the EU is
destined to be no more than an appendage to a Franco-German
state, with nothing to offer to other nations which elect to
remain within it.
This outcome was foreseen by General De Gaulle in his
Memoirs of Hope, published in 1970, when he said that
Germany was ambitious for the European project to succeed in
order that it could "acquire the overwhelming weight that
will follow from its economic capacity and achieve a situation
in which its quarrels concerning its boundaries will be assumed
by a powerful coalition."
As stated earlier in these pages one can be in doubt as to
what the General's reaction would be to the surrender of La
Belle France to a union of Teuton and Gaul.
26/11/2003
The latest news from Europe makes one wonder why we bothered
to fight twice alongside France to prevent Germany taking over
the continent. It now appears that France and Germany are
contemplating a full union of their two countries, which will
inevitable lead to Germany ruling France, as the former is much
the larger in population and economic strength. One of France's
EU commissioners, Pascal Lamy, has proposed a Franco German
parliament and a merging of the two countries armies, while
Chirac actually represented the two countries at a summit
Schroder had to leave early. One can only imagine that General
de Gaulle is spinning in his grave as he sees his successors
handing La Belle France over to the Teuton.
If this is what the French and Germans want then so be it,
but it makes crystal clear that the EU has nothing to offer the
British. Do we want to be a province of a European Empire ruled
from Berlin for, if so, then we could have had that bargain in
1914 and saved ourselves much blood. The future of the EU is now
openly revealed as to be nothing more than the appendage of a
Franco-German state and the British people must force their
political class to remove us from this vile organisation
forthwith.
One French diplomat revealed the way the continentals think
when he said The British must choose. Either they are with
us, united in Europe where they should be, or they are destined
to become united with America, something like an American
state". It is obviously beyond him that a country may wish
to remain independent of any large bloc, much as most nations in
the world are, rather than joining some supranational
organisation. Even if we did wish to become part of a larger
state, which we do not, why should he believe that we "should
be" in Europe, rather than in something composed of the English
Speaking world with whom we share values not shared by the
continentals.
The UK can manage very nicely as the independent nation state
it has been for centuries thank you. We do not need others to
take part in our internal affairs.
23/11/2003
Once again we see apologists for the European Union refusing
to face up to reality. For the ninth year in a row the European
Court of Auditors has refused to sign the accounts, something
that for any normal business would spell the end. However the
Europhiles just ignore the evidence of continued incompetence
and corruption and tell us that we must join their beloved Euro
as soon as possible
The Prime Minister, when addressing the CBI gave a 'stern
warning' that the EU fixation with regulation and harmonisation
has to end. As he has no power to achieve this and as he would
rather be shot than draw the logical conclusions about British
membership one can be sure that in fact nothing will change.
The CBI itself sticks to its lunatic view that Britain must
remain in the EU but then complains about the burden of red tape
which is an inevitable consquence of that membership. It just
shows that businessmen are incapable of understanding politics.
However ordinary people also bear the responsibility for what
has happened to this country since it joined the EU, as they too
refuse to confront the reality. Michael Rivero sums up the
situation thus:
Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just
and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because
once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which
they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what
he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of
corrupt Government risks harm to life and loved ones. To choose
to do nothing is to surrender one's self image of standing for
principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that
choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the
critical thinker, but only to give the moral cowards an excuse
to think nothing at all.
He has also said:
To know the government is corrupt and to do nothing is to
surrender one's self-image of having the courage it takes to
stand up for freedom and justice. Many people do not want to
know that about themselves, so they refuse to look too deeply at
current events because they are afraid of what they may learn,
not about the government, but about themselves. Most propaganda
is not designed to survive careful analysis but only to give the
majority of people an excuse not to look any further or think
any more about what is going on.
The truth contained in these quotes is that unless the people
stand up for themselves and their democratic rights, and soon,
they will lose everything
18/11/2003
In the matter of Iain Duncan Smith those who are not members
of the Conservative party may be better placed to perceive the
reality of the situation. Is it not obvious that the most
implacable enemies of Mr Duncan Smith are the minority within
that party who still cling to a vision of the UK as part of a
single European state and is it not equally clear that they take
as their model for democracy the machinations of those who run
the European Union. When the latter are confronted by the
results of referendums not to their liking they insist the
question is asked again and again until they achieve their aims.
The federalists, having being thoroughly defeated by the party
in the country when they sought to foist Kenneth Clarke upon
them, have continued to plot and scheme in order to reverse that
democratic decision.
It is a myth that the divisions in the Conservative party over
Europe have been laid to rest as it is impossible to reconcile
those who wish to see Britain as an independent nation-state
with those who desire her to be a province of the United States
of Europe. Resolution can only be achieved by the withdrawal of
this country from the EU or its total absorption within the USE,
after which domestic political ambitions would be irrelevant.
31/10/2003
The German defence minister has stated that British armed
forces should be put under the control of the European
parliament, adding to the furore generated by the leaking of a
Berlin defence ministry report that called for Britain's nuclear
deterrent to be placed under European control.
This document speaks of only 'token' forces being left under
the control of nation states.
Despite strong British objections the Germans say that such
moves should not be held back by British 'taboos'.
So now it has come to this. The traitors, for only that word
is strong enough, who wish to subsume the UK into a single
European state, are now allied to those who wish to hand over
control of British Armed Forces to that figleaf for democracy,
the European Parliament, full of corrupt and selfish politicians
who are content to serve in a so called parliament whose members
are nothing more than time servers operating at the behest of
the bureaucrats of the European Commission. Are our young people
to risk their lives on the orders of this sorry bunch and is our
ultimate defence to be in the hands of those who have themselves
threatened our existence as a nation.
The British people should rise up and say that enough is
enough and that we want no more of this organisation which puts
the very existence of our ancient nation in peril.
31/10/2003
Jack Straw, the well known fantasist, has described the
proposed EU constitution as a 'prosaic' document. For pure
cynicism this stands alongside the German description of their
treaty with Belgium, which they described as 'a piece of paper'
and, not content with that, he further declared the issue as one
that should be decided by Parliament. It seems not to occur to
him that the democracy of this country belongs to the people,
not to here today, gone tomorrow, politicians and that only the
people have the right to change the fundamental manner by which
they are governed.
Mr Straw achieved his hat-trick by also declaring that "the
Eurosceptics' claims of the creation of a superstate were
yesterday's fantasy, not tomorrow's reality".
As anyone who reads the oft repeated statements made by
continental politicians is well aware, everywhere within the
EU, except Britain, both the politicians and the people know
that the aim of the European project is a single European state.
Only the British political class continues to lie about the
truth, because they know that the British people do not want to
submerge their country within the United States of Europe.
All the arguments advanced by Europhiles against holding a
referendum are due to one thing, and one thing only - They
know they would lose it. The British people must demand to
be heard and reject the dead hand of Brussels in favour of
indepedence, democracy and freedom.
24/10/2003
In a letter to The Times Dennis MacShane, the
'Minister for Europe', showed yet again how the British
political class lives in a world of its own, totally divorced
from reality
He seeks to respond to the recent advertisement by the
Vote2004 campaign and his theme is that the British will be
'isolated in Europe' if we do not join the rest of the European
lemmings in signing up to Valery Giscard d'Estaing's blueprint
for a single European state. He has the effrontery to aver that
opponents of the EU have 'endless funds' to pay for big
campaigns, when the reality is that it is the EU which uses tens
of millions of pounds of the people's money to pay for pro EU
propaganda and to corrupt the democratic process throughout
Europe by ensuring that every referendum or political campaign
which threatens the plans of dictators of Brussels is distorted
in favour of the latter.
His final sentence would have been worthy of Josef Goebbels
himself, so totally does it invert the truth: "If we listened
just to the people who have endless funds to pay for big
advertising campaigns we would be at the exit door of the EU
marginalised, isolated, and looking foolish in the eyes of our
people and the entire world". In fact, if we were to leave
the EU altogether, we would be able to protect our rightful
place as one of the major powers, the fount of the English
speaking world, the centre of the Commonwealth, a leading member
of the G8, one of the few countries with effective nuclear
weapons and a member of the UN security council, all of which
are threatened by our membership of the misbegotten EU. If we
were to be 'isolated' in Europe then so what: that Continent is
doomed by demography and stupidity to sink further and further
behind the US, China and India, as the latter develop and Europe
decays. This very weekend the French bank Societe General has
declared that France has followed Germany, Italy and the
Netherlands into recession while Goldman Sachs reports that the
Chinese economy will overtake France in 2004, the UK in 2005 and
the USA within 40 years. They also state that India will become
the third largest economy in the world, after China and the USA
within thirty years. We can see that Europe meanwhile will lose
population, financial strength and economic prosperity over the
same period. Long live isolation from such a disaster area!
Mr MacShane also protests that EU does, and should take
precedent over domestic law in order that British businessmen
can be shielded from national protectionism. Perhaps he would
like to explain why France, having blatantly and openly breached
the Stability and Growth pact, is to be allowed to get away with
it, and why it is necessary to replace British Common Law with
the Napoleonic code of Corpus Juris merely in order to
sell more widgets to consumers on the Continent.
He also makes what are plainly foolish statements, as when he
says "No EU foreign minister is going to tell Jack Straw what
British foreign policy should be". Of course he is for, once
the EU constitution is in force, no individual nation will be
able to gainsay the arrogant Commissioners of Brussels.
He claims that in 1997 and 2001 the people "had a clear
choice between a pro-European Labour Party and the isolationist
Conservatives". This is utter bilge as the 1997 Conservative
party was dominated by Europhiles like Major, Clarke and
Heseltine and in no way offered the people the opportunity to
vote for freedom from Brussels and nor did the policy on offer
from Hague in 2001 did not come near to giving us the chance.
Even now the Tories refuse to grasp the nettle so how can anyone
say the people have been offered the choice of voting to leave.
Mr MacShane is merely a fully paid up member of that
political class which has its tickets on the EU gravy train and
will say and do anything to keep them. It is purely, and only,
personal self interest which motivates the Europhiles in this
country, who care nothing for the democratic rights and
prosperity of the British people. Indeed in the very same
edition of The Times is a report that Michale Schreyer,
the Budget Commissioner is proposing that there should be a new
Continent wide VAT to raise money for use by the European
Commission. The British government claims that it opposed such
an idea but one can be sure that they will surrender on this, as
on everything else, if it threatens their beloved EU.
If the British people do not wake up to the truth and reject
the MacShanes of this world then they will see every democratic
right they thought they possessed disappear like the morning dew.
12/10/2003
Perhaps the idiots who claim that membership of the EU is
economically beneficial to the UK might like to explain the
following:
It should be obvious even to the most blinkered that the so
called economic benefits of the EU do not exist, except for the
politicians and the bureaucrats who have their assured places on
the corrupt gravy train
01/10/2003
Yesterday's treatment of the buffoons of the European
Parliament by the tyrants of the European Commission shows once
and for all just where the true power lies in the EU and it
isn't with elected representatives.
The MEPs were shown a copy of a report on the massive
Eurostat scandal under the following conditions:
Of course no self respecting democrat would stand for such
fascist conditions imposed by a corrupt and tyrannical regime of
unelected bureaucrats, but then there are very few democrats in
the European Parliament. Once they had been allowed to read the
report they were to be granted the opportunity to question His
Highness Romano Prodi for two hours today, but only behind
closed doors. In addition, half of the MEPs, including most of
those on the Budget Control Committee, who know most about the
scandal, have been banned from asking His Highness any
questions. This is the man who took office promising openness
and transparency.
Many wish to see the Commissioner responsible for Eurostat,
Pedro Solbes, and the Commissioner responsible for stamping out
fraud, Neil Kinnock, resign but, as these two claim to be
Socialists, the socialist group of MEPs are fighting to protect
them.
This is the reality of the EU. A corrupt regime, led by
pseudo fascists who will do anything to protect their personal
tickets on the gravy train and give not two hoots for democracy
or accountability. This scandal involves phantom bank accounts,
inflated contracts given to favoured companies, a Eurostat slush
fund and a special set of accounts produced to cover up what was
going on.
The fate of those honest officers of the EU who have been
sacked or forced into resignation for trying to reveal the truth
about EU finances makes it obvious that the whole organisation
is mired in institutional corruption, nepotism and is incapable
of reform. We in Britain should leave this foul nest of vipers
to destroy Continental Europe, if that is what those nations
wish, and escape now. Otherwise we might as well hand our nation
over to organised crime forthwith.
25/09/2003
Hard on the heels of Estonia the people of Latvia have also
voted to jump from the frying pan of Moscow to the fire of
Brussels. One does wonder why they bothered to struggle for
independence and democracy if they value it so little.
For the British the eagerness with which these states without
a history of democratic self government embrace Brussels merely
serves to emphasize how foolish we are to risk political union
with nations who do not share our deep seated love of freedom.
Clearly we must rely upon ourselves and our recognition of the
true nature of the EU and not hope that others in Europe will
help us escape from the clutches of Prodi and his friends. The
history of Europe illustrates how little the values we espouse
are shared. The SS division raised in Latvia during the Second
World War was known as one of the most brutal in the Waffen SS,
the anti Semitism of nations like Poland is legendary and the
merciless civil wars conducted in Eastern Europe show how the
ancient prejudices are present, only just below the surface.
We have so much more in common with those across the oceans
who share our beliefs, from the USA and the old dominions such
as Canada through to democracies such as India and South Africa,
that we are mad to turn our backs on them to join hands with
those who prefer the certainties of rule by unelected elites.
25/09/2003
The Swedes have delivered a blow to the ambitions of the
federalists by voting No to the Euro and we should all be
grateful to them for their courage in the face of a united
establishment. No doubt we shall soon hear calls for another
referendum and the federalists will seek to use the EU
constitution to impose the Euro on all members of the EU but,
for the moment, we can rejoice that the right has prevailed.
On the other hand Estonia has voted for extinction. It seems
that these small states of Eastern Europe just love their
chains. First Moscow now Brussels.
15/09/2003
Reports in the national media indicate that some who claim to
be Eurosceptic are applauding the murder of Anna Lindh. The
Campaign for an Independent Britain wishes to make clear that it
abhors such sentiments and has only contempt for those who make
them. That anyone could defend, and even acclaim, the cold
blooded murder of a defenceless wife and mother is almost beyond
belief and such people have no place in the Eurorealist movement.
We seek to defend democracy and regard those who would use
the methods of the fascists to advance their cause as completely
beyond the pale. No one should imagine that such people speak
for any part of the Eurorealist movement and we are sure that
all democrats will join the Swedish people in mourning the
tragic death of their foreign minister.
14/09/2003
For those still naive enough to believe British politicians
here are a couple of quotes to explain away:
On 7th July 2003 Valery Giscard d'Estaing gave an interview
to the Wall Street Journal in which he said "I knew the word
federal was ill perceived by the British and a few others. I
thought that it wasn't worth creating a negative commotion,
which would prevent them supporting something that otherwise
they would have supported. So I re-wrote the text replacing
intentionally the word federal with the word communautaire,
which means exactly the same thing".
On 29th May 2003 Valery Giscard d'Estaing, in a speech in
Aachen, accepting the Charlemagne prize for European
integration, said:
"Our constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for
co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped
this fact deserves to wear the dunce's cap...Our continent has
seen successive attempts at unifying it: Caesar, Charlemagne and
Napoleon, among others. The aim has been to unify it by force of
arms, by the sword. We, for our part, seek to unify it by the
pen. Will the pen succeed where the sword has finally
failed?"
Clearly a bulk order of dunce's caps is called for, the first
to be given to Peter Hain and Jack Straw.
10/09/2003
Once again that political joke Peter Hain is peddling the
tired old line that the EU Constitution is either 'a tidying up
exercise' or 'streamlining the EU' or, most ludicrously of all
'a triumph for Britain'.
The truth is very different as is expertly explained by Lord
Stoddart, Chairman of CIB:
"This is a polar shift in the development of the EU as
giant single state and the White Paper is the first step in
bringing Britain into line with it.
The Government is talking about the 'red lined' areas which
it claims won't be conceded including taxation, defence, foreign
policy and extending majority voting. The problem is that we
have heard all this before. It is a cover for swallowing the
whole of the rest of the Constitution, while maintaining the
pretence of holding on to an ever-decreasing list of key
competences. Even if the Government succeeds in holding on to
the 'red lined' areas, which is far from certain, these powers
will be gradually eroded in other ways or taken away in the next
EU treaty. Sadly, the Government's red lines tend to be drawn
in very soluble ink.
However, the most disturbing aspects of the Government's
policy on the Constitution are the speed with which it is being
forced through and its refusal to allow the British people a
referendum. What's the rush? The referendum is being refused
because the Government knows it cannot be won
and represents a double dishonesty, in forcing through an EU
Constitution it knows full well is strongly opposed by the
electorate. Whatever happened to democracy in this country?"
The political class must think we are all mad if they believe
that they can continue to deny the truth, even when it is
becoming obvious to all that Brussels is making its final bid to
take over all effective government within this country. Hain
proved how little he believes in democracy when he again refused
the British people a referendum on the Constitution saying
"Fewer than half of the 25 member or future member states are
to hold referendums so we are in good company". It is
instructive to know that Hain thinks that if half Europe is run
by arrogant dictators then so should we be. Thank God he wasn't
around in the 1940s.
09/09/2003
As reported in today's Times France has decided to
ignore the fact that its budget deficit already exceeds the
limits laid down by the Stability Pact and to cut income tax
next year.
Now this is probably a sensible move by the French, as far as
far as promoting growth in their economy is concerned, and in a
sane world it would be a matter for them. However, as the
Europhiles are so fond of telling us, France is part of
Euroland and their beloved Euro is supposed to be supported by
the agreement all those taking part in the single currency made
not to allow their budget deficit to exceed 3% of Gross Domestic
Product.
No Eurorealist will blame France for ignoring the mad rules
of the Euro but will condemn all those who are so insistent
that the UK should join this doomed experiment, whose basic
rules do not even have the backing of one of the major
countries which first promoted it.
With every day that passes, as Germany, Italy and soon France
are in recession, the British people can see that to join this
joke of a currency would be absolutely insane.
04/09/2003
The French economic downturn has pushed the entire economy of
euroland into the red for the second quarter of the year.
The facts are:
This is the resounding success that the idiotic Europhiles in
the UK are so anxious for us to join. There are none so blind...
21/08/2003
The latest issue of "Independence" can now be accessed
by clicking here. It contains a report
on the debate in the House of Lords initiated by Lord Pearson
relating to his bill European Union (Implications of
Withdrawal) Bill. Eleven out of fourteen speakers suported
the bill and their comments are well worth reading.
17/08/2003
As noted earlier the British political class care nothing for
the destruction of Britain's economy as long as their own
sinecures are protected. A report in today's Sunday Times
concerning the manner in which the Ango-French company Alstom is
cutting fifty per cent of its skilled British workforce and
downgrading the status of the British operation from an
exporting centre to a service centre, notes how, only last week,
the company was refused a £30 million export credit which would
have brought a £100 million contract to the Manchester
operations.
So the politicians are prepared to pay £20 million per day,
and rising, in membership fees to the EU, in order that they and
their bureaucratic friends may continue to enjoy all the perks
offered by life in Brussels, but they would not spend a day and
a night of that money to save worker's jobs and exports in
Britain.
Unless the British people wake up soon the means by which
they live will disappear and the UK will become an
underdeveloped, impoverished backwater of the European Empire.
We truly face meltdown in our economy unless we start to put
British jobs and prosperity before the empty rhetoric of the
apologists for the EU, which is doing more damage to this
country than did the Luftwaffe.
10/08/2003
The latest edition of Britain is now available here and is well worth reading as it
contains some excellent pieces:
27/07/2003
We constantly hear politicians parroting the cry that the UK
has benefited greatly from entry to the EU but these same useful
idiots are unable to answer, except in the vaguest of terms,
when one asks 'What benefits'. The CIB has just produced a
leaflet revealing the truth about such claims and it is well
worth quoting here:
* * * * * * * *
We made almost everything we needed and exported to the rest
of the world via our major ports like Glasgow and London, using
our vast merchant fleet
We had reliable rail and postal services, and efficient and
thriving fishing and farming industries
* * * * * * * *
All the above must be perfectly clear to the political elite
of this country but still they talk of BENEFITS. Why?
Because the destruction of the shipyards, the steel works,
the coal mines, the car factories, the fishing ports, the rural
economy etc., etc. means nothing to the pampered inhabitants of
the so called 'Westminster Village' and their creatures who live
in Hampstead and other enclaves of the so called great and good,
reading their Europhile newspapers, watching the Brussels
Broadcasting Corporation and no doubt thinking they are such
good little liberals
The result of this betrayal of the British people will be to
turn Britain into a country where a privileged few enjoy a
comfortable lifestyle while the great majority are impoverished,
attempting to exist in a country where nothing works and there
is no hope for the future. Even those jobs which were proclaimed
as replacements for those lost in manufacturing, such as IT, are
now being rapidly exported to the Third World, leaving nothing
for our children, as we cannot live by taking in each other's
washing! No wonder that those on the left like Arthur Scargill
recognize the EU for what it is and join with those who base
their opposition to the EU on other, but equally valid grounds,
in calling for us to leave before it is too late.
26/07/2003
Today, Valery Giscard d'Estaing will present his draft
Constitution to Silvio Berlusconi in Rome. This marks the close
of the European Convention. However, Bruges Group Constitutional
adviser Dr Lee Rotherham says it is "A catalogue of missed
opportunities. Fishermen have been dumped; the CAP has been left
to seed; EU whistleblowers stay out in the cold; national
parliaments find a mere fig leaf to cover their impotence.
But when it comes to giving more roles to Brussels, it's
Presidents a go-go and a blancmonge of new power structures,
like the President of the Euro Group, and the powerful EU
Foreign Minister our government negotiators have turned out like
our tennis players - we're rooting for them, but it all goes
horribly wrong for the Brits before the final showdown.
I count 38 more vetos lost. Add to the 19 from Amsterdam and
43 from Nice. That's a running total of around 100 vetos lost
since Labour came to power. Is Tony Blair aiming to become the
100 veto man before he retires - the man who will have handed
over one hundred ways to say no?"
Dr Rotherham is quite right - at this rate the complete
takeover of the UK by Brussels will happen before the next
general election
17/07/2003
Once again, as we listen to the propaganda being pumped out
by the government, we are enduring the farce of those in favour
of Britain joining the single currency pretending that the issue
is economic, when in fact it is a purely political matter.
In so doing, these people are merely following the course
laid down by Jean Monnet, the founding father of the EU, who
knew only too well that the peoples of Europe would not agree to
the suppression of their individual nations, were it clear to
them that that was indeed the aim. In a statement made decades
ago he stated "Europe's nations should be guided towards the
superstate without their people understanding what is happening.
This can accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as
having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and
irreversibly lead to federation".
Rarely can such a cynical ploy have been admitted so openly,
and it is to the eternal discredit of our political class that
they have chosen to pursue it so avidly.
When looking at the detail of Gordon Brown's statement one
can see that even his most optimistic projections relating to
joining the single currency would benefit the UK by a mere £3
billion per annum. However, were we to withdraw from the EU, we
would, at a stroke, save the approximately £10 billion per year
we pay in membership fees, plus gaining immeasurably from
reasserting our control over our fishing grounds, farming
industry and fiscal policies.
The reactions to the Chancellor's statement, both here and
from within the EU, illustrate how false is the position in
which we all find ourselves. It would be much more honest, and a
relief to everyone involved, if it were to be admitted that the
marriage of the UK and the EU is a complete mismatch and that an
amicable divorce is the only solution. We should then be able to
pursue what Churchill called our different destiny while they
would be able to create their single European state unhindered
by British carping.
Our future relations with the Continent would be far better
if we deal with each other as friends, rather than pretending
that we are lovers. No matter what Gordon Brown and Tony Blair
may assert about Britain and the European Union they will never
be able to convince the people that we are, or ever will be,
prepared to give up our freedom for dubious, indeed illusionary,
economic benefits.
11/06/2003
On Monday of this week, when reporting the result of the
Polish referendum on entry to the EU, The Times stated
"Poland voted overwhelmingly in favour of entering the European
Union in an historic turning point for a country that has for
centuries been invaded or occupied by its neighbours".
One must wonder how on earth the writer thought that this was
a turning point for, in the words of John of Gaunt, Poland has
"made a conquest of itself". This time the Poles themselves
have, by their own free will, chosen to throw away their
country's independence and placed themselves in the grip of the
bureaucratic dictatorship centred in Brussels.
It has often been said that the Poles have shown themselves
to be their own worst enemy and one does not need to be much of
a prophet to know that in a few years that "overwhelming"
majority will be crying out for release from the clutches of the
EU. However, it is now too late so, once again, Poland will
vanish as a sovereign nation, only to reemerge when the single
European state breaks up, as it inevitably will. Until that time
it is "Goodbye Poland"
11/06/2003
In his speech to the Polish people yesterday Mr Blair kindly
presented us with a problem to solve:
If one considers the political position of two British
citizens, let us call them Citizen A and Citizen B, which of
them is the patriot and which the traitor:
Citizen A believes that Britain should cease to be an
independent nation and instead become a province of a single
European state. He feels that the democratic system evolved in
these island over centuries, whereby the people enjoyed
sovereignty via their freely elected representatives should be
replaced by the rule of unelected bankers and bureaucrats,
presided over, though not controlled by a political elite whose
propensity to corruption is immense. He is happy that all
decisons about British economic policy should be taken by
Brussels and that our Common Law, where those accused have the
right to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence, no double
jeopardy and habeas corpus should be disposed of and the
Napoleonic system of Corpus Juris, which offers none of
these safeguards should be put in its place. He is also quite
happy that foreign police should be allowed to operate within
Britain and be immune from any sort of prosecution for their
actions, however unacceptable. He is anxious to give up the
British seat on the UN Security Council, to see the end of NATO
and to allow British servicemen to die in wars fought on behalf
of the EU.
Citizen B on the other hand thinks that Britain should
remain a free, independent and democratic country where
bureaucrats do what they are told by accountable representatives
of the people and bankers are not allowed to decide economic
policy. He wants the legal system we have been evolving since
the days of Henry III to continue and the police to be held
liable if they overstep their authority. He believes in the need
for this country to run its own foreign policy, any decisions as
to where troops are to be used to be in the hands of the British
Government alone. He recognizes that power without
accountability leads to massive abuses and is concerned that the
British fishing, farming and manufacturing industries should be
rescued from the disasters visited upon them by membership of
the EU. He also knows that the corrupt influence of the EU is
already poisoning the British body politic but that this can be
reversed once the country withdraws from the organisation.
Given this choice Mr Blair announces that of course it is
Citizen A who is the patriot, while Citizen B clearly is the
traitor.
What can one conclude from this? Perhaps Mr Blair has been
moonlighting as a Victorian milliner and has now taken his
rightful place at the Mad Hatter's tea party, or perhaps all
that expensive public school education and time at Oxford was
wasted on someone who is not very bright.
In reality, as Mr Blair is clearly neither clinically mad,
nor a moron, he makes these statements because he knows that
the game is up and that, at last, the ordinary British people
has realised what has been done in their name by the political
class since the 1960s. He is aware that he cannot possibly win
any fair referendum on either the Euro or the EU constitution so
is resorting to the policy of O'Brian in 1984 - 'the truth is
what the party says it is'.
When Mr Blair holds up two fingers to the British people and
tells them that it is actually five he should be treated as the
representative of the self interested political class that he is
and not as one deserving support in his crusade to subsume this
nation in the single European state.
31/05/2003
The reactions to the draft EU constitution have made clear,
once and for all, just how many mendacious and self serving
careerists now infect our body politic. We have heard politician
after politician state, with a straight face, that black is
white and that, even if it's not, it doesn't matter anyway.
Even without going into every line of the document one can
see that it is intended to extinguish nation states within the
EU and that, if implemented, it will create a single European
state, run by bureaucracy, not democracy, policed by a police
force that will be immune from prosecution and operating under
laws that would bring a smile to the face of those well known
democrats Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin.
The following are the areas in which EU jurisdiction is
specified:
This is the culmination of a process that was always intended
to destroy the independence of nations such as Britain but about
which our political class has lied and lied and lied again. How
many of those who voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum would have
done so had they appreciated just what it was that was being
planned?
It is instructive to look at a few of the articles included:
The effect of these articles would be to reduce the
constituent member states' autonomy to much less than that
enjoyed by the individual states of the USA.
Under further provisions the EU will be provided with:
Never forget that when one speaks of "the EU" one is not
speaking of some all seeing, all wise oracle but an
organisation which is undemocratic and deeply corrupt. We shall
be ruled by a European political class that is so deeply
immersed in sleaze that it makes ours look clean and our economy
will be run in the interest of bankers and big business, not in
the interests of the people
The whole document can be read by clicking here, provided you have an Adobe reader. 29/05/2003
With the publication of the draft of the EU Constitution the
stark truth of all that the Eurorealist movement has said is
plain for all to see, except those who, for their own selfish
reasons, remain wilfully blind. If this goes through then it
means the end of a thousand years of British independence and
the betrayal of all those generations who fought to create and
preserve our democracy.
In The Times William Rees-Mogg makes the point that
John Locke stated, apropos the American Constitution, that no
constitution is valid without the consent of the people. As
Rees-Mogg says The British people want "to be preserved one
entire, free, independent, society, to be governed by its own
laws", that this will no longer be the case if our political
class sign up to the proposals, and that therefore the whole
people must be given the choice by referendum.
However it is asking too much that our politicians should
accept this duty. Kinnock, that supreme example of failure to be
elected at home being translated into power via the EU, stated
on the TV only last weekend that, while the people of Hartlepool
should have had a referendum on an elected mayor, the people of
Britain should not have one on the ending of their nation.
That the Government should pretend to believe that to remove
the style of 'federal', while retaining the substance of
federalism, is a victory speaks volumes, as this constitution by
any other name would smell as rank.
Orwell should be living at this hour as New Labour achieves
ever closer union with NewSpeak. It can now only be a matter of
time before the Ministry of Defence is renamed the Ministry of
Peace and HM Prisons become Freedom Hotels.
Were this constitution to be ratified by the UK then the lock
would have turned in the prison door and Britain will cease to
exist. It is nearly midnight and we must fight this final
betrayal by the political class or we shall never see the dawn
as a democracy again.
27/05/2003
The Eurovision song contest is a crass and embarrassing
product of popular culture, only made partially tolerable by the
sardonic commentary from Terry Wogan. However it is generally
recognized that it is politics, rather than any perceived
artistic merit, which decides the voting, even more so now that
many votes are based on telephone polls within the countries
concerned. We witness the Scandinavians voting for each, the
Eastern Europeans acting as a bloc and the old alliances of
Iberia or central Europe at work.
The result of the competition is of no importance whatsoever,
except to sad types who think pop music has some significance,
but last night's competition spoke volumes about the attitude of
Europeans to the UK. However poor the UK entry it was not
deserving of receiving absolutely no votes when laughable
entries from countries such as Austria did well. The treatment
of the UK was a deliberate insult from those who resent the
Anglo Saxon islanders and think that we are not really part of
Europe. The question is "Should we care?"
The answer is "No, not at all" as those who see us as
outsiders are absolutely right. Our history and our destiny
binds us to the English speaking world, the Commonwealth and to
those around the world with whom we have always enjoyed better
relations than those which we have endured with those on the
Continent of Europe.
We have no need of these inward looking, decaying nations,
many of which have no understanding of democracy, often being
thoroughly infected with anti Semitism, or, as in Eastern
Europe, consumed with hatred for each other.
Far from taking offence we should just take note that saving
nations from the ambitions of Gaul or Teuton gains us nothing,
withdraw from the EU, and leave them all to stew in an
organisation which is doomed both demographically and
economically. Our true friends are to be found outside Europe so
we should maintain correct relations with the latter, trade with
them as we, and they, wish, but remove their sticky fingers from
our affairs. Unfortunately the political class will not
relinquish their tickets to the EU gravy train so easily and one
suspects that we have much further to fall before the worm
finally turns and the inevitable parting of the ways takes
place. It would be better for all nations concerned if the break
takes place sooner rather than later but take place it will.
25/05/2003
The Spring
2003 issue of "Independence" is now on the website. It is
well worth reading, not least because of the excellent article
by Tony Scholefield, which shows clearly how the UK would
benefit by withdrawing from the EU.
24/05/2003
Bernard Connolly, the author of The Rotten Heart of
Europe, has yet another excellent letter in The Times
today, which is worth quoting in full:
Sir,
Mr Peter Hain, who represents the Government on the
Convention on the Future of Europe, has been attempting to play
down the enormous importance of the so called EU constitution
now being framed by the convention.
It is both ironic and disturbing that his comments come so
soon after the release by the Public Records Office of foreign
Office documents from June 1971. These documents briefed the
Foreign Secretary of the day, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, and the
chief negotiator with the EC, Mr Geoffrey Ripon, that entry into
the European Communities would mean a withering away of
democracy, the loss of Parliament's power and the abandonment of
national control over defence, foreign policy and the economy.
The Foreign Office forecast that the final abandonment of
"last resort" powers to act in the national interest would come
at the beginning of the 21st century. yet the White paper
submitted by the heath Government notoriously stated that entry
would not entail any loss of "essential sovereignty".
Ten years earlier, the Macmillan Government had assured the
country that EC entry had purely economic implications. It did
so despite the existence of a letter from the Lord Chancellor,
lord Kilmuir, advising Mr Edward Heath, who was then chief EC
negotiator, that entry would have extremely far-reaching
implications for parliamentary sovereignty and for the primacy
of the country's courts.
Yours faithfully
From the above we can see that the British people had been
deceived and lied to by their politicians for decades about the
reality of the European project. Many still regard Macmillan as
a clever and successful PM but he was in reality an arrogant
elitist who was quite prepared to hand this country over to
foreign domination because he and his effete class had lost
confidence in their abilities and were not prepared to believe
that the British people could run their affairs without their so
called wise guidance. As for Heath, he is beyond parody and
beyond the Pale. Never forget that, while we now face the Labour
and Liberal Democrats determination to bow the knee to Brussels,
it was these Tory "Grandees" who began the process. No wonder
they have lost the support of their natural constituency.
Always remember that when these deceitful politicians were
seeking to destroy our right to rule ourselves they were also
betraying those in the Commonwealth who sprang to our side in
both World Wars. One wonders if Canada, Australia, South Africa,
New Zealand and India, among others, would have sent their
people to die for the mother country had they know that a few
decades later she would turn into a harlot who smiled upon those
with whom she had fought so many wars over so many centuries. We
have been disgraced and shamed by the political class who have
acted in their own selfish interest to destroy so much that made
us proud to be British.
23/05/2003
As the truth of everything the Eurorealist movement has been
saying about the EU for years is beginning to penetrate the
consciousness of the mainstream media it would be instructive to
see what was written about these matters only eight short years
ago:
As these predictions have either come true, or are in the
process of doing so, would one not think that the author of
these words would now be preening himself and saying to all and
sundry "I told you so"?
Unfortunately you would be very wrong as the blushing prophet
was none other than Peter Hain, who now, from his exalted
position as Welsh Secretary, chooses to berate those who still
believe in the threat he so ably exposed, with the words,
apropos the proposed EU constitution, "Those campaigning for
a referendum might as well put away their placards and stop
wasting their money, because we are not going to do it".
Nothing has changed about the EU except Mr Hain's perception
of it, and that has changed because he is now a fully paid up
member of the EU elite, with his nose in the trough and his
ticket for the EU gravy train once his time at Westminster is up.
This is the man who once led anti apartheid campaigns with
the slogan 'one man - one vote' but now he would deny the
British people the right to decide upon the future of their
nation because he is so concerned to protect his own self
interest. What a hypocrite!
Let no one be in any doubt - the pro EU politicians are
against a referendum for the simple reason that they know that
they have been rumbled and that they would lose it hands down.
The British people have at last woken up to what is going on and
want none of it.
We often talk of politicians as if they were all immoral
chancers, without principles, and this is clearly unfair. In the
days when Churchill and Attlee faced each other across the
dispatch box they, and a large majority of those sitting behind
them, really believed in political principles and in the
interests of the British people. How different it is now for,
with a few honourable exceptions on both sides of the House, our
politicians are careerists who care only for their own
advancement and would sell this country down the river if it
meant they could enjoy the benefits of office, preferably
without the tiresome need to be accountable to the electorate,
whose interests and opinions they hold in contempt.
One can only hope that the tide of outrage in the media
produced by Hain's blatant arrogance will help sweep people like
him from any sort of power in this country.
20/05/2003
The last couple of weeks has seen a barrage of letters,
articles and appearances on the broadcasting media, by virtually
every leading member of the pro Euro fraternity. Clearly they
are running scared that a British referendum on their beloved
single currency is not going to happen, possibly for years.
In The Times an article by Chris Patten was nothing
more than special pleading by a member of that group of
politicians who, having been rejected by the electorate at home,
have found power without the need for accountability in the
halls of the European Union.
The arguments he put forward have been constantly debunked,
yet are continually resurrected by the political class to
obfuscate the truth about the European project. He compared
membership of the EU with that of NATO but the latter does not
detract from the sovereign rights of a nation, which can, as did
France, withdraw if it so wishes, but existence as a province of
the single European state would destroy any claim that a nation
still possessed the right to govern itself.
He claimed that the Eurorealist movement had been silent
about the recent rise in the value of the Euro, but we have
never regarded the level of the exchange rate as an argument
for, or against, rather concentrating on the folly of
transferring the levers of fiscal control from elected
representatives to bankers in Frankfurt.
Patten made ridiculous assertions about the relevant
strengths of the economies within the EU, totally ignoring the
desperate straights to which the German are being reduced by
their inability to set sensible interest rates for themselves.
Later in the week The Times business section reported on
the fact that Italy, Germany and the Netherlands were all now in
recession and that Euroland as a whole was on the verge of a
slump, while the British economy is expected to enjoy a period
of increasing growth.
Of course, what Patten refuses to acknowledge is that the
real reason Europhiles wish to join the single currency is in
order to ensure that the UK becomes so deeply embedded within
the single European state that we shall be unable to escape,
thus handing permanent power to an unaccountable political
elite. His motives are as suffused with self interest as would
be the support by one of Stalin's Commissars for the Politburo
or by Robespierre for the Committee of Public Safety.
The serious anti Euro commentator Anatole Kaletsky also wrote
an article for The Times but unfortunately was too
sanguine about the results of a referendum on the
single currency. Obviously, if a Eurorealist party were to hold
the Euro referendum it could insist on a majority of the actual
electorate voting 'Yes' on the question "Do you support
abolishing the pound and adopting the European Single Currency
(the Euro)" or something very like it. If however a
Europhile party runs the referendum it could say a simple
majority of those voting would be enough and the question could
be something like "Should a majority of your elected
representatives in the House of Commons decide that it was in
the interests of the United Kingdom to become part of the
European single currency would you oppose such a move".
If that happened the 'No' campaign would have to change its
name to the 'Yes' campaign and how does one imagine the vast
armies of apolitical citizens, who are encouraged to regard
matters concerning the EU as arcane irrelevancies to their
lives, would react to such a question. Most would not bother to
vote and of those that did a great many might vote the wrong way
by accident, thus transforming an anti EU majority into a
minority by default.
The Europhile weasels who controlled the country would also
claim that it was more in the spirit of parliamentary democracy
to allow our honourable members to decide and many would believe
that they should support such a concept. Once the matter was in
the hands of the MPs we can have no doubt about the result.
Rather our strength is that, barring a complete betrayal of
previous promises, the Government cannot join the Euro without
first winning a referendum. Therefore, instead of pushing for it
to be held, as many in the Eurorealist movement are doing, we
should try to ensure that it is delayed for, without it we don't
join, and the passage of time increases the chance of the entire
single currency project collapsing because of its own internal
contradictions.
On the other hand there is no referendum barrier to the
adoption of the proposed EU constitution, a fact Tony Blair is
intent on using to embroil us in the mess being cooked up by the
federalists to end all hope of escape from the United States of
Europe. That we are to be denied a referendum on the EU
constitution is an affront to democracy. Members of Parliament
do not own our political system, being merely players who enjoy
their little hour and then leave the stage, but now they propose
to hand away that which is not theirs, without even consulting
the true owners, the British people.
If the Constitution is accepted by this country then it would
change the whole nature of the EU, making it a legal
personality, with common citizenship and establishing a 'duty of
loyal co-operation' with Brussels. Under the proposals being
considered we would lose, inter alia, our seat on the UN
Security Council, our individual membership of NATO, our right
to control of our foreign policy, police force and courts and
even our right to determine the levels of taxation we are
expected to pay.
If Parliament does indeed accept this constitution without
any reference to the electorate then they will be committing the
ultimate act of betrayal and will also thereby have rendered
themselves irrelevant, as all effective power will pass to
Brussels and Westminster will have no role in the future.
Much of the media appear to regard the question of the Euro
referendum as some sort of macho contest between Tony Blair and
Gordon Brown, whereas in reality, when the Lords Blair and Brown
have long departed the scene, the results of these deliberations
will still be shaping the lives of the inhabitants of these
islands. A mature democracy should be debating the real issues
about sovereignty and the continued existence of Britain as a
nation state, rather than obsessing over which particular
politician happens to occupy 10 Downing Street.
That platform for the Europhile chattering classes, the BBC,
continues to give air time to those whose contempt for the
British people is only exceeded by their hatred for their native
land. This morning, on that sneering program Broadcasting House,
we were treated to the usual rubbish that either the people were
too ignorant to vote on matters such as the Euro and the EU
constitution, or that it was a matter that should be left to
elected representatives. This latter point might have some force
if the MPs were voting in a dispassionate manner and with the
interests of the British people at heart. In truth the
politician's views are informed by their own self interest as to
oppose the EU would cut them off from all the perks that can
enjoy as members of a Europe wide political elite, running a
corrupt and undemocratic organisation.
As far as the arrogant remarks about the ignorance of the
people is concerned, is it sustainable to claim that a 25 year
old MP is competent to vote on the matter, given that their
background has probably been university politics and hours spent
in drafty committee rooms when the rest of us were leading
normal lives, while a woman who may have raised a family, or a
company director who has made a success of business are
incapable of holding an informed opinion.
The politicians hate the idea of this referendum because they
know they will lose, their decades long lying about the EU
having been finally exposed. If we are forced into the USE
against our will then the results will be disastrous for our
country and our democracy.
18/05/2003
Britain in Europe, that collection of idiots and fellow
travellers, have been whining that, if the Government does not
call a referendum within this Parliament, their organisation
will fold.
After a decent pause in which we can listen to the violins
playing to mark such sad news we should consider just what these
people mean. They are saying that, despite the Treasury
concluding that to join the Euro would be against Britain's
interests, the Government should try to con the people into
voting for it anyway. So much for their often expressed concern
about the welfare of the British people.
In reality they know that the only reason to join the single
currency, either now or in the future, is to benefit the
political class of which they are members. That Tony Blair still
persists in believing that a referendum should not be ruled out
before the next General Election shows that he is as blind as
ever to the truth about the EU, despite his experiences during
the war in Iraq.
We must hope that sanity prevails and any suggestion of
joining the Euro is kicked into the long grass. After all, the
more time passes the more likely it is that the whole Euro
project will collapse, as have all such currency experiments in
the past. The Germans cannot be expected to put up with the
economic disasters they are now experiencing for much longer and
if they go, so will the Euro, and with luck the whole EU.
For the moment the prospect of Britain in Europe shutting up
shop should be worth at least two cheers.
11/05/2003
Dougal Watt, the British accountant who blew the whistle on
widespread corruption and nepotism in the European court of
auditors, will be sacked by one of the EU's kangaroo courts
within the new few weeks.
Despite the fact that, in the year since Mr Watt first made
the allegations, many have been substantiated, and even acted
upon, he faces charges of making "unsubstantiated allegations".
This totally ignores the fact that a former member of the court
has been recommended for prosecution for nepotism and fraud,
while the "weighting system" of overpaying commissioners has
also been stopped, almost entirely due to Mr Watt's allegations.
Mr Watt has spent months trying to gain support for his
position from various political bodies but, as one might expect
in the EU, without any success. The main British parties in that
standing joke, the European Parliament, don't want to know; the
European budgetary control commission has failed to act and the
Commons public accounts committee has refused to involve itself,
referring Mr Watts back to the very European institutions which
are at the heart of the corruption. His efforts to interest HM
Treasury were equally unproductive.
Paul Van Buitenen, whose exposures led to the fall of the
previous European Commission, has described Mr Watt's work as a
"very good overview of many issues which should get everyone of
commonsense interested to investigate". However the most likely
result is that Mr Watt's will be dismissed, lose his pension and
be blacklisted by all employers whose allegiance is to the
political class, rather than to the any principles of honesty.
One after another accounting professionals who have
experienced the inner workings of the EU condemn its endemic
corruption and make clear, precise allegations about what is
going on. One after another they are rubbished by the creatures
of the EU and end up losing their jobs and future, while those
who perpetrate these crimes go scot free.
The ordinary citizens of the EU, whose taxes are being stolen
by this corrupt entity, should realise that, given the lack of
democratic accountability and the self interest of the political
and bureaucratic classes, there will never be an end to these
crimes. It is a stinking pit of corruption which will not be
reformed and indeed cannot be, given its structure which is
built upon an arrogant elite who have no intention of removing
their noses from the trough. The only solution for the British
people is to demand that the UK leaves the EU, a solution that
should be followed by all those nations who believe in democracy
and freedom.
25/04/2003
Yet again we had to endure a wail from the political
graveyard as a set of Heathite Tories wrote to The Times
advocating their "vision" of the EU. All it did was show once
again that they are obsessed with the desire to see the creation
of a singleEuropean state and are determined not to learn the
lessons of history.
Far from being, as they claim, a boon to the UK, membership
of the EU has resulted in the
destruction of our fishing industry, the distortion of our
countryside, the demise of much of our manufacturing sector and,
worst of all, the continuing replacement of our democratic
system of government by bureaucratic diktat.
These people who worship at the altar of Euro federalism
ignore the economic failure of Euroland, as evidenced by the
disastrous German experience, and pretend that the proposed
constitution is intended only as a clarification of relations,
when in fact it signals the final destruction of the
independence of the nation states unfortunate enough to be
members of the
EU.
If the Conservative party wishes to make a credible claim to
represent the interests of the British nation it should
repudiate this coterie of yesterday's men who represent no one
but themselves.
17/04/2003
The Times reports that, although the government seems
to be accepting that the verdict on joining the single currency
is "no", there are euro obsessives within number 10 who are
encouraging a backbench Bill to force "dual pricing" in both
sterling and euros on retailers for two years, either side of a
change to the single currency.
Apart from the obvious rejoinder that, given the opposition
to the British people to the idea of joining the Euro, how can
anyone predict the start of the two year period, this is an
arrogant and devious proposal.
Arrogant because the Europhiles are anticipating the result
will go their way, when the overwhelming likelihood is that it
will not, in which case the Euro is, and will remain, just
another currency. Perhaps those of us who trade with the United
States and not the EU should ask that prices also be set in
dollars, while those with ventures in the Far East should insist
on the yen not being forgotten. This could go on forever - how
about North Korea and Chile?
The devious nature of this suggestion is obvious. After a
while Europhiles hope that British people will have no
difficulty in relating the pound to the Euro in value and that
this will then somehow translate into support for adopting the
single currency. They hope that the real reasons for rejecting
the Euro, from acceptance of the straight jacket of the
stability pact to the yielding of democractic control of our
economy to bankers in Frankfurt will, of course, be ignored.
No doubt this dual pricing would be enforced with the full
rigour of the law, adding to the costs of retailers and
therefore to the prices charged to customers. Is there nothing
these Euro obsessives will not do to promote their beloved
bureaucratic dictatorship?
17/04/2003
The truth about the European Union is beginning to penetrate
even the skull of Neil Kinnock. In a statement preceding the EU
summit in Athens Mr Kinnock has said that "Europe's plans for
a joint foreign policy are pie in the sky - useful only for
generating employment for PHD writers", and the French
action in blithely ignoring the budget limits set by the
stability pact mean that they wanted to "impress people that
the French can do what they damn well like".
It is a pity that Mr Kinnock has taken so long to realise the
truth but if even he can see the writing on the wall perhaps the
whole charade will not continue for much longer.
17/04/2003
Today's Sunday Telegraph reports that the Treasury is
about to confirm what we all know to be true - the UK is not
ready to join the Euro (and never will be if Eurorealists have
anything to do with it).
This should come as no surprise to those not in thrall to the
EU. That even German companies are abandoning their home market
as it slowly sinks beneath the waves is shown by the fact that
the German retail chain, Lidl, is planning a massive expansion,
totally outside Germany, and almost entirely outside euroland.
Meanwhile a recent report shows that between 40% and 50% of
profits earned by the top 100 companies in the UK comes from the
US. As it states "That makes the dollar the key curency for
British companies competing on world markets, as well as those
with subsidiaries in the US".
If our political class, supported by the institutionally
Europhile BBC, were not so in love with the insane European
project, they would have acknowledged that joining the Euro
would be an act of madness, now, and at any time in the future.
13/04/2003
The hopes that the people of Malta might yet avoid EU
membership by electing a Labour Government have come to nothing,
so they really have now voted for the extinction of their
nation. Well, we warned them.
13/04/2003
Many excellent speeches were made at the CIB AGM on Saturday
but two points made by the Chairman, Lord Stoddart, deserve wide
exposure:
Although even the devoted slaves of the EU would find it
difficult to force every citizen to swear allegiance to their
beloved organisation, one can imagine a situation where every
public employee, including the Armed Forces and the police, plus
everyone seeking any benefit such as unemployment pay or a state
pension, could be obliged to swear.
The last time such an idea was used to enforce obedience by
an unwilling populace was when Hitler made the German Armed
Forces swear an oath to him personally. That it could be
suggested by a member of the upper house is a disgrace.
06/04/2003
Despite the fact that many leading anti EU campaigners are
Catholics some have asserted that Catholic opinion is in favour
of the EU. The fact that this assertion is untrue was shown by a
recent article in The Catholic Herald, entitled
Morality, lying and the European Union, which related the
many moral failing of the EU, and which is worth quoting:
It is this type of lie that sustained the Nazis and
Communists in power and which now underpins our 'great' European
project.
What can one say except "Amen to all that"?
06/04/2003
It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth but
that now being fought in Iraq has exposed the truth about one of
the greatest falsehoods ever inflicted upon this country - the
idea that the members of the EU are partners, indeed friends.
As we learnt this morning British and American war graves in
France have been desecrated, the resting places of soldiers who
died to liberate that nation being defiled by many insults,
probably the worst being "They are soiling our land".
Naturally one must not blame the people of France for the
actions of a few and, indeed, a number of senior French
politicians have expressed outrage at the vandalism. However
what must not be concealed is the result of an opinion poll in
France which shows that over one third of those questioned hope
that Saddam Hussein's forces will win the war in Iraq.
As noted elsewhere in these pages there are many in Britain,
both inside and outside the Eurorealist movement, who disagree
with the action taken against Iraq. However the number of those
resolutely opposed to military action who would wish to see the
defeat of the coalition are a vanishingly small minority.
What we face is the fact that a third of the citizens of one
of our so called European partners wants a fascist dictator,
whose forces deliberately burn children alive, purposely machine
gun women and torture endless people to death, to be victorious
over the armies of their fellow democracies and supposed allies.
This truth gives the lie, both now and forever, to the
assertion that the member states of the European Union can come
together to make a single European state, with, inter alia, one
army and one foreign policy.
Terrible as the war is it has at least revealed one of the
founding myths of the EU for the total rubbish it has always
been.
02/04/2003
Europhiles must be outraged by the following forecast for
2003, circulated to its clients by Morgan Stanley, the City
stockbrokers:
Starting with France, several countries lose confidence
in the European Monetary Union and threaten to pull out. They
believe that Germany, once the economic envy of everyone on the
continent, is dragging the system down. Sensing a lack of
confidence Gerhard Schroeder resigns. European equity markets
badly lag the US and Japan.
Morgan Stanley are hardly at the forefront of the Eurorealist
movement and they may of course be wrong. Nevertheless who would
have believed when this misbegotten currency was launched a few
years ago that a serious City firm would be issuing a forecast
of that sort in 2003? Of course the answer is that we at CIB
would have believed it and weren't we right!
30/03/2003
Unemployment in Germany reached a total of 4.62 million (11.1
percent) in January, its highest rate during Schroeder's term of
office. This figures coincide with the worst data on retail
sales for twenty years and a cut in the forecast economic growth
for 2003 to 1 per cent, following the 0.2 per cent last year.
Since Germany accounts for at least one third of eurozone
output, its continuing economic malaise is bound to have
implications for the eurozone generally, for the countries
dependent on German trade, and for the Euro.
Figures for growth in euroland have already been adjusted
downwards in December by a full percentage point to 1.1 per cent
and, according to Matti Vanhala, a member of the governing
council of the ECB, the estimates may soon have to be lowered
again.
Aren't the British lucky not be be part of euroland, and
wouldn't they be foolish to ever join?
30/03/2003
Marta Andreasen, the civil servant hounded from office after
trying to expose continuing fraud in the EU, has been vindicated
by a confidential report commissioned by Kinnock himself. It has
emerged that, at the time Andreasen was suspended, Kinnock had
already seen this report that backed her views, yet he he did
not disclose its contents to other commissioners when he case
was discussed.
One quote from this report shows how widespread the culture
of corruption is, and how little those on the gravy train care
"The core problem is a top down managerial culture, with a
director general who only recently told the European Court of
Auditors he did not see the need for any accounting system at
all".
MEPs now say that the 2001 budget is highly unlikely to be
signed off, while Marta Andreasen is thinking of standing
against Glenys Kinnock as a MEP. Should she win the Brussels
establishment would have a real problem, as they have banned her
from entering any Commission buildings!
What a stinking mess it all is, and what fools we are to
continue to send so much of our money to the people responsible.
10/03/2003
Despite all the warnings of those already trapped within the
EU the people of Malta have voted for the extinction of their
nation. As noted elsewhere in these pages large countries like
the UK may be able to fight their way out of the single European
state if necessary but the the small states have no escape route.
There remains a slight chance that a change of government at
the next general election could yet save Malta but it is a slim
one. The probability is that in ten years time we shall be
reading of opinion polls saying that 75% of the Maltese wish
that they had never joined the EU, but by then it will be far
too late for them.
That this reversal of opinion is likely can be seen from the
Irish experience. In one of this month's business magazines, The
Sunday Business Post, published in Dublin, are reports that as
Ireland enters its second year in the Eurozone commentators are
staring to question the wisdom of joining and feel it may have
been a huge economic mistake.
Friends First Economist, Jim Power, described it as a victory
of politics over economics and said that even to question
Ireland's entry was politically taboo.
Bloxham Stockbroker, Alan McQuaid, argues that Ireland should
have kept its alignment to the British pound.
"Ironically, he said, "at the time we joined the Euro,
we were moving politically closer to Britain".
At least the Maltese had their chance to vote and their
decision must be respected. Let us hope that if the British get
any more opportunities to vote on EU matters they are not so
foolish as to believe the dictators of Brussels.
10/03/2003
The Eurorealist movement is as divided as the rest of country
on the issue of what to do about Iraq, so obviously the CIB
cannot take any position on the matter. However, regardless of
individual views on the subject it has become increasingly
obvious that the concepts of a Common European Foreign
Policy and a Country called Europe are laughable.
As the insults and threats fly, and become more blatant with
every passing day, it is clear that the different interests of
the European nations ensure that they do not, and never will,
share a common view of matters of such weight. While France and
Germany may be able to count upon the support of their small
satellite states of Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, they now
find that the UK, Spain, Italy and many of the Eastern European
nations do not agree with them.
It will never be possible for a common foreign policy to be
agreed, unless great nations are prepared to abandon their own
vital interests, and that is not going to happen. The Iraq
crisis is proving that the ridiculous ambitions of the
federalists to make one country out of the ancient nation states
of Europe is a chimera.
07/03/2003
Extracts from an article, published in Scotland, and written
by a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP, shows that not every member
of that party is a devoted slave of Brussels. If only more well
intentioned people will open their eyes and see the truth, and
brave newspapers be prepared to publicise their views, perhaps
we will yet escape the closing trap.
"We seem to be on a treadmill as far as our dealings with the
EU are concerned. There is so much about the way European
institutions work that is flawed, but nobody is prepared to
tackle the problems head on for fear of being hurt. The current
tensions over the Common Fisheries Policy demonstrate much of
what is wrong about the way the European Union currently works.
The argument for a Common Fisheries Policy has always been
that "fish do not recognize national waters". It is not at all
clear that they recognize European waters either, but such
simplistic arguments miss the real point. What's important is
that we have an effective and competent approach that comes up
with the right answers to protect fish stocks. The EU Commission
has proved that its over centralised and bureaucratic approach
to fisheries management is wholly inappropriate and damaging.
It has attempted to impose arbitrary quotas on catches which
are virtually impossible to enforce on a pan-European level, and
its decisions on restricting fishing vessels have been dominated
by political horse trading rather than a sensible regard for
what is the best way forward.
The conduct of the most recent negotiations at the Fisheries
Council has been a disgrace. It has shown the EU Commission, and
Franz Fischler in particular, in the worst possible light.
Scottish fishermen have been fishing for the last eighteen
months using nets with the largest mesh sizes in Europe and with
square mesh panels which allow more small and young fish to
escape. They are hammered in the name of conservation while
Danish industrial fishing boats which hoover up anything with
scales remain unscathed.
Our whitefish fleet has already decommissioned 20 per cent of
its capacity and more is now to follow. At the same time Irish
and Spanish fishermen are given grants to build even bigger new
boats.
The decisions taken in Brussels had little to do with science
and everything to do with politics. As a result, the people I
represent in Shetland, where one third of the local economy is
dependent on fishing are left staring into the abyss."
"The EU Commission is engaged in micro management for which
it is ill equipped. It is trying to do too much but is not
really doing anything properly. Much of what it attempts to
achieve would be better done at a national or regional level.
This has been known for a long time. We have talked about the
importance of "subsidiarity" for over ten years now but have
still not managed to find a way of making it happen in practice.
If the concept of subsidiarity were to be applied, then the
Common Fisheries Policy would be replaced by something far less
centralised. The concept of regional management of areas such as
the North Sea must now be given some meaning.
The decision to establish Regional Management Councils was a
step in the right direction. If they could be given meaningful
powers then we might be seeing some sign of humility on the part
of the Commission. Sadly the opposite is true and the early
signs are that yet another good idea will be sacrificed on the
altar of centralisation and control freakery."
"We Liberal Democrats desperately need to re-appraise our
approach. For too long, otherwise highly intelligent people have
simply abandoned their critical faculties where the EU is
concerned. If it comes from Brussels then it must be right.
Wrong. We need a reasoned debate on the future shape of the
European Union. Constructive engagement in Europe should mean
having the courage to press for real change, not just going with
the flow.
If discussion continues to be dominated by meaningless
platitudes about "historic destiny" and "influence" then we will
never achieve the sort of reform that pro-Europeans like me want
to see. We risk sleepwalking towards a situation where
government is something that is done to us from afar by people
who keep themselves out of the reach of voters. As a liberal and
a democrat that can never be acceptable.
Partly, the answer is historical. The Liberal Party argued in
the 1950s that we should have been part of the communities as
they then were set up. Since then we have argued that things
could have been so much better if we had been there right at the
start.
The EU is a highly centralised bureaucratic institution which
inevitably comes up with solutions on the basis that one size
will fit all. In fact one size rarely fits anyone. Government
that is remote from the people - geographically or politically
is bad government.
The EU has only a nodding acquaintance with the notion of
democratic accountability. Politicians may not be held in the
highest regard by the general public but at least our services
can be dispensed with if the electorate are of a mind to do so.
Sadly this is not true of those who call the shots in Brussels.
All of which is why if a referendum on our membership of a
single European currency was to be called tomorrow then I for
one would be urging my constituents to vote no. We can not go on
indefinitely giving up control over our lives in the hope that
reform will follow eventually.
The correct order must be reform first and then talk about
the euro. There would be exchange rate stability and lower
exchange costs. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the
costs outweigh the benefits.
The euro Emperor is sadly lacking in clothes. There is no
shame in pointing it out."
Hooray for this MP and the paper brave enough to publish
his article. Let us hope he continues his voyage towards the
light and comes to realise that, in the final analysis, there
really is only one solution that will work.
27/02/2003
Today we have proof positive that the BBC is in the hands of
a narrow, bigoted group formed of the pseudo liberal
intelligentsia, who will not tolerate the expression of views
other than their own.
In today's Sunday Telegraph Ron Liddle, who resigned
as editor of the Today programme in September, revealed
that BBC executives ordered him to end the fortnightly
broadcasts by Frederick Forsyth because they objected to his
anti EU political stance.
Mr Liddle, hardly a right winger himself, claims that the
bias within the BBC was "more a reflex than something
consciously partisan" and states that a "senior editorial
figure" dismissed Eurorealists as insane.
As CIB vice Chairman Lord Pearson, himself a target of these
BBC bigots, says "It's absolutely par for the course. Not
only is the coverage biased but the BBC doesn't allow any
debating of the issues".
In addition to these people being responsible for the BBC
ignoring its responsibilities to be impartial, and no doubt
causing Lord Reith to spin in his grave, they are also extremely
foolish if they think support for the EU makes them left wing.
Some of the greatest opponents to the EU are on the left, Trade
Unions Against the Single Currency and CIB affiliate the
Campaign Against Euro Federalism being but two which spring to
mind. The actions of these people show just how far the poison
has penetrated into our national life and confirms that if you
scratch those who claim to be 'liberal' in today's Britain you
will find a pseudo fascist underneath.
02/02/2003
Thanks to more lunacy from Brussels farmers have been told
that it has been agreed as part of a new package of controls on
livestock movements that, as from 1st February 2003, they must
ear tag all new born lambs and ewes. The tags must contain an
origin mark, an id number (example UK 654321 000001) and, each
time a lamb is lost its number must be recorded.
As usual these idiotic ideas produced by the parasites of
Brussels and enforced by their fifth column in the UK are
unworkable and seem designed to drive more hard working farmers
out of business. It is hard enough to put tags in full grown
sheep, who anyway lose 20 per cent of them every year as they
scratch their heads along hedges, but how much more difficult
will it be to do the same to lambs, with their smaller ears,
leaving aside the fact that it will inflict unnecessary
suffering on these innocent creatures.
Even more ridiculous is the idea that the farmer can account
for every animal lost, as lambs may be taken by foxes, leaving
no convenient corpse with an attached tag. The farmer would be
obliged to round up his flock every day and check them all
against his original list to find out which have gone. Yet any
farmer found not to be recording all deaths will be guilty of a
criminal offence, liable to a fine of up to £5000 or
imprisonment.
Faced with this bureaucratic stupidity some believe it is
just the result of laws being produced by those who have never
seen a sheep in their lives, but others suspect that it is a
deliberate attempt to force more farmers out of business, thus
saving on subsidies, which can then be spent on more bloated
bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels. What is does prove is
that, as the leading Eurorealist Dr Alan Sked says, we must be
mad to pay billions to these people to produce endless laws
which do nothing but damage to our country.
21/01/2003
The government is conducting a rather well hidden survey of
public opinion, supposedly to ascertain the degree of support
for compulsory identity cards and is already claiming that the
majority are in favour. This is typical of the deceit practised
by our political class, who are very much mistaken in their
belief that there would be few public protests at the
introduction of such. cards. They have clearly forgotten the
reaction of middle England to British governments seeking to
extend their use beyond the period of the wartime emergency as
it was in the early fifties that a court case, resulting from a
refusal by an unsung hero of freedom to carry such an item, led
to their abolition.
Those who use the puerile argument that, if you have done
nothing wrong you need not object to carrying ID cards, should
think of the reaction of respectable citizens who may be quite
legally stopped by the police three times in the course of a
walk to the shops, in order that they may see their cards, while
the reaction of some quite innocent person, penalised for the
offence of having forgotten to bring theirs with them can be
imagined.
The pressure to introduce cards comes from those who wish to
bring this country into line with the rest of the European
Union, making it easier for unelected bureaucrats to control our
lives. This nation fought the last war to prevent, among other
horrors, the spectacle of a free people being faced with the
peremptory demand 'Papers!' from the minions of the state and
all free born Britons should always refuse to carry such a card.
If enough people do so the idea will fail.
To vote against identity cards either go to
http://www.stand.org.uk or
ring 0845 330 7246 (you will need to give address details and a
summary of your views). You have until the end of January.
21/01/2003
The latest issue of Private Eye contains a piece which
illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the European Union, and of
much of our own political class.
A council in northern England has just signed a contact with
a Japanese company to act as a partner in their PFI school
development program. Nothing wrong with that you may say, except
that the company in question ran a slave labour camp during the
last war, in which fifty per cent of the inmates died in the
first year, and they now maintain close links with the military
regime in Burma.
Protests against this contract have been led by human
rights activists and prisoner of war organisations but, even
when the Conservatives replaced Labour as the administration in
the town hall, they refused to listen. The local councillors
chose to hide behind a letter from the government which said
EU rules and the government's own competition act
"require local authorities to exclude from the contracting
process consideration of non-commercial matters"
As Private Eye remarks "You cannot rule out a contractor
just because it does business with fascists and torturers.
Heaven forbid!"
One can only assume that, according to EU rules, one could
not exclude those who built the gas ovens in Nazi Germany if
seeking a contractor for school showers. What a bunch of immoral
charlatans now run the affairs of this nation, and of the
European Union.
10/01/2003
A Warning from Daniel Hannan
Factsheets on the European Constitution
Don't believe a word of it
Argument with a bureaucrat
Lords' debate
One law for them...
Why did we bother?
None so blind
Tory Europhiles show their true colours
British Army to be run by EU
A 'prosaic' document
More rubbish from the Europhiles
And these are benefits?
A truly corrupt Empire
Goodbye Latvia
Well Done Sweden but Goodbye to Estonia
A Statement by the Campaign for an Independent Britain
The truth that British politicians deny
They must think we are mad
Stability Pact? What Stability Pact?
Euroland in the red
Debate in the Lords
Melt Down
ACML - 'Britain' - Summer 2003
What benefits?
When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 it was a major
industrial country:
Then came the accused EEC with:
As a reult we had to:
And now?
Abject Surrender
What a farce
Goodbye Poland
The Mad Hatter
The EU constitution - Europhile lies
Five minutes to Midnight
European attitudes to the UK
Latest "Independence"
The lies of politicians exposed yet again
Hypocrites
Referendum thoughts
Europhiles whine about the Treasury
Another whistle blower persecuted
Yesterday's men
A deplorable suggestion
Kinnock sees a glimmering of the truth
The five tests give the right answer
It now is definitely Goodbye to Malta
Some points from the CIB AGM
Catholic attitudes to the EU
Partners in Europe? - The End of a Myth
The End of the Euro?
German unemployment means trouble for the EU
Kinnock in trouble
Goodbye to Malta
A Common Foreign Policy?
Some Lib Dems can see the truth
Fisheries debacle proves EU big government fails
On fishing:
On subsidiarity:
On democracy:
BBC bias confirmed
We must be mad
Papers!
Rotten to the core