The latest insanities to emanate from Brussels take some
believing. Unfortunately they are true.
These bureaucratic maniacs have now produced a regulation
ordering that, if there are puddles of water anywhere in a field
more than 60 feet from a gate then it is illegal to enter that
field with any machinery, including tractors. One Cornish farmer
has described this as 'farcical, unethical and unacceptable' but
our gutless government has just accepted this latest madness
without question.
Of course the real reason for this is that the EU want to
make it impossible for farmers to claim any subsidies, as
failure to obey every one of their idiotic regulations means
that one loses any payments due under the Common Agricultural
Policy. So our farmers can go hang while the EU uses the money
to bribe the farmers of 'applicant countries' to make sure that
even more people fall into the power of these Brussels fascists.
On another front the arrogance of the dictators of the EU in
making all their creatures, including the police, immune from
prosecution, has led to the people of northern Holland being
exposed to nuclear waste at the Euratom centre at Zijpe for,
when action was proposed against these polluters, the Dutch were
horrified to find that the plant enjoyed the legal immunity
common to all European commission establishments. They can
therefore poison thousands of Dutch citizens if they choose and
nothing can be done about it.
Those idiots who always insist that we must have the EU to
protect the environment 'as no single country can do so' might
perhaps wish to re-examine their position in the light of this
outrage.
We must be insane to stay with this mad hatter's tea party of
an organisation. Of course we will all the time the political
class has any say in the matter.
26/12/2004
When the European Parliament voted last week to adopt
biometric passports it did not include the UK, as we are not
party to the Schengen agreement. Nevertheless the British
government specifically requested that Britain be included, in
order that these cowardly hypocrites could hide behind the
excuse that they had to introduce ID cards because Brussels had
ordered it.
The EU did not agree to this request, not for any democratic
reason, but because it wants to force the UK to sign up to
Schengen.
That the government of the UK is run by people like this is a
disgrace. They have no concept of democracy but only care about
advancing their own self interest. The abdication of
responsibilty they seek would enable them to continue to draw
their inflated salaries while handing all power to Brussels.
They are beneath contempt.
23/12/2004
Christopher Booker has pointed out that those in politics and
the media who should know just how far the government of this
country has been taken over by Brussels are either stupid and
ill informed or they are part of a deliberate attempt to cover
up the truth. The examples he gives are frightening:
These people, including MPs and those who lecture us daily on
our shortcomings, must either be knaves who know very well that
the EU is to blame, or fools or refuse to acquaint themselves
with the facts before laying down the law.
Is it any surprise that the Europhiles have succeeded as well
as they have when the chattering classes are either unwilling or
incapable of recognizing the truth if it was served up to them
on a plate.
20/12/2004
Thanks to furious opposition from some within the European
Parliament the Commission has agreed to withdraw a so called
history book they had approved, which was supposed to educate
children about Europe. Incredibly this book did not contain any
reference to the involvement of the UK in World War I or World
War II.
We are used to the lies emanating from the European
institutions but once again we can see that, not content with
distorting the present, they wish to rewrite the past. It is
inconvenient for the Franco German Axis that memories of the
fact that the British played a pivotal role in saving the World
from German agression in the wars of the 20th century should
cast a shadow on their cosy little alliance so they just try to
adjust the history books to suit themselves, ignoring the
insults to the hundreds of thousands of British dead who saved
civilisation by their defeat of the militarists.
This should be a warning to the British people that, if we
lose the current Battle of Britain to the Europhiles, our
descendants will think we lost the one in 1940 as well - at
least that is what their history books will tell them.
20/12/2004
The EU commission is very annoyed with the Greeks for having
deceived them as to their economic situation in order to gain
membership of the Euro. It appears that the figures they
supplied about public debt were at variance with tyhe truth.
That the poor old Greeks should be criticised is laughable,
given that a number of the larger, and older members of the EU,
also fiddled their accounts in order to met the requirements.
Ironically, all it has gained for Greece is membership of an
economic experiment which most responsible commentators now
agree is in deep trouble as the falling American dollar prices
the Europeans out of one of their major markets.
It is however no surprise that the Commission will take no
action against its erring partner, the Greek political class.
08/12/2004
In an editorial today the Sunday Times warns of the
fate that awaits this country unless we rapidly change course.
Next year China will overtake Britain's gross domestic
product and she will become the world's largest economy by the
middle of the century. India is also making vast strides and by
the same date she will join China and America as the biggest
economies, eclipsing the decaying European Union.
How can we survive, as we stand by and watch the destruction
of our manufacturing sector and yet, with a failing education
system, unable to compete with the new superpowers in the
skilled sectors of production. China and India produce 125,000
computer science graduates every year, in comparison with 5,000
in Britain and their education systems emphasise the excellence
in which we once took pride but which has now been replaced by a
worship of non subjects such as Sociology and where some of our
so called universities think it right to drop such vital
subjects as Chemistry in order to churn out yet more useless
degrees in the 'humanist' field.
Our self interested and incompetent political class is
presiding over the precipitate decline of the nation, their only
idea being that we should tie ourselves irrevocably to the EU,
at a time when that organisation is heading for disaster. The
demographics of the EU ensure that, as a whole, her population
will continue to age and decline, her economic policies will
prevent any hope of competing against the new powers and the
replacing of democracy by the rule of arrogant bureaucrats will
only hasten her final collapse.
The EU offers, at least in the short term, advantages to
lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and other non productive
sectors of the nation, while ensuring that those whose efforts
create the wealth upon which we must live, who form by far the
majority of the working population, face a bleak future. It is
our tragedy that those who control the levers of power are the
only ones to benefit from EU membership and so we continue down
a road which is leading to disaster. Their cheerleaders in the
media, in particular the BBC, come from the same parasitic
class, who devotion to political correctness and the values of
the so called 'intellectuals' are destructive of any hope that
Britain can turn back to the only path that can save her. Of
course, once the economic destruction of this country is
complete all their idiot schemes will fall but it will then be
too late for the ordinary people
The world does not owe Britain a living and those who prefer
to concern themselves with the activities of moronic celebrities
and meaningless sporting events will one day have to confront
the results of their inattention to the things that matter. As
the Sunday Times concludes, "the economies that will meet
the global challenge will be flexible with small spending
governments. Britain, sadly and avoidably, is heading in the
wrong direction".
Unless we wake up, leave the EU, ignore the 'intellectuals'
who, as Attlee said, "are always wrong", abandon the idiot
policies of the political correct and restore a pride in
education and wealth creation then this country is doomed. Our
children will grow up in an impoverished backwater of a failed
continent and there will be no hope for the future. If the
politicians have their way it will also be a nation where
everyone is under CCTV surveillance continually, where they will
have to carry ID cards to account for themselves to the arrogant
bureaucrats who will control their lives and where those in
power have no regard for truth and can convince themselves that
they are right, even when they are frequently called upon to
reverse their positions at the behest of their party leaders.
How different will this be to Orwell's world of 1984?
We can reverse the process but we must do it now.
28/11/2004
While those who oppose UK membership of the European Union
must feel some satisfaction at the tone now being adopted by the
Conservative party on the issue it is necessary to be aware that
Mr Howard is, contrary to his statements about being held to
account, promising more than he will be able to deliver. It is
very welcome that a Conservative government would oppose both
the single currency and the EU constitution but renegotiation of
the Common Fishing Policy or the Social Chapter must rely, in
the final analysis, upon Britain being prepared to withdraw from
the EU, something which Mr Howard has specifically ruled out.
Unless the Conservatives are willing to grasp this nettle
their pronouncements on making fundamental changes to policies,
changes which would require the consent of all other EU members,
must be regarded as nothing more than hot air.
That this should be so is no surprise as the members of the
political establishment have a personal interest in preserving
the EU as the source of lucrative jobs for themselves and it
takes a special sort of honest politician to reject all the
possibilities they can see for gain and to put the interests of
the nation first. These there are in all the major parties but
none of them actually determine the policy of their party.
Eurorealists who still believe the Conservative party's
protestations regarding saving the nation from the dictators of
Brussels are like women who, despite being repeatedly beaten up
by their husbands, keep returning to him when he promises that
he has reformed, only to be disappointed again.
It bears repeating - we cannot reform or withdraw from the
Common Fishing Policy unless we are prepared to leave the EU. If
anyone rules out the latter then they cannot deliver the former.
It is better for Eurorealists to support those democrats who are
unequivocal in their wish to leave the EU, whether they be
Labour, Tory or whatever, rather than fall for the promise that
a vote for the Tory party is some sort of vote for freedom from
Brussels.
10/10/2004
Marc Glendening has written an excellent article in which he warns of the need for
the Eurorealists movement to guard against being damaged by
those well meaning, but politically naive, people whose
activities risk branding us all as nothing more than
reactionaries, rather than the reality of good people from
across the democratic spectrum.
18/09/2004
The new edition of "Independence" is now
on the website. It contains a chilling account of the future
planned for the EU by the federalists, including the subverting
of a free media
12/09/2004
At a time when the Russian people are suffering terribly from
the merciless acts of terrorists directed at their children the
EU shows once again what a loathsome organisation it is. To
their credit George Bush and Tony Blair immediately expressed
deep sorrow and gave their support to the Russian government
and people. On the other hand the Dutch foreign minister,
purporting to speak for the EU, merely asked the Russian
government for an explanation of what happened, thus implying
that that government, and not the terrorists, were to blame for
the disgusting massacre.
How much longer are we to remain a member of this vile club,
faced with statements being made on our behalf by those who
chose to place blame on the victims, rather than the
perpetrators of such outrages. Our cowardly politicians may have
handed their consciences over to an alien body but for millions
of us the answer must be Not in my name
09/09/2004
Those who believe that we have freedom of speech in Britain
have clearly never tried to organise stalls for the Democracy
Movement on our high streets. At a time when we know a
referendum on the EU constitution is coming the Eurorealist
movement finds itself obstructed at every turn by those who seek
to prevent anything but the views of the political class being
presented to the general public.
Recently a local branch of the DM sought permission from the
managers of a retail park in Thamesmead to set up a stall and
hand out leaflets on the constitution. This permission was
granted and it was arranged that nineteen volunteers would man
the stall. However on the afternoon preceding the day a person
from the owners of the retail park rang to say that permission
was withdrawn and that, if the DM helpers turned up "they would
be removed".
Quite how this person intended law abiding people would be
"removed" one does not know but the fact is that the DM
organiser had to spend hours cancelling all the arrangements.
All these petty dictators had to say when approached by the
press as to why they had done this was "there had been a
breakdown in communications between the owners and the
managers". As Private Eye would say "That's all right then"!
Almost at the same time a supermarket chain refused
permission for a stall in their vicinity on the grounds that the
DM was "controversial". It is nice to know that a desire to
preserve the hard won democracy of this country is
"controversial".
These are just two examples of many. Wherever the local
council can use its influence, or some ignorant jobsworth can
exercise a little power, we find obstacles to informing the
people of the truth about the EU. We are not raving fascists or
class warriors seeking to stir up trouble, merely concerned
citizens trying to ensure that the debate on the EU constitution
is as informed as possible.
If anyone tells you that we have freedom of speech in this
country you can tell them that we do as long as what we have to
say is approved of by the political class, otherwise forget it.
29/08/2004
How many people are aware that the government intends to
impose regionalisation on the fire control system, against the
clear advice of those who bear the responsibility for saving
lives, the firemen themselves. If implemented the entire south
east area, covering eight million people, will have only one
control centre, in Guildford. In addition emergency calls to 999
will involve pressing further numbers on the telephone, such as
1 to indicate fire, then 2 to indicate car etc.
The likely effect of call queuing leading to delays and of
the loss of local accountability will lead to an increasing risk
to public safety, one ex Chief Fire officer in Kent stating that
it will certainly cost lives.
The underlying reason for these changes is the drive by the
politicians to force the regionalisation of the UK in accordance
with the wishes of the European Union and we shall see similar
actions taken in relation to other major public services. The
intention is that the Europe of the Regions will eventually
report to Brussels, finally rendering the parliament at
Westminster redundant.
Anyone concerned with the safety of British citizens should
resist these changes, writing to their MPs and councillors to
express their opposition.
22/08/2004
CIB vice chairman Lord Pearson of Rannoch has arranged for
the new booklet by Ian Milne, entitled A Cost too Far?
to be distributed to MPs, union leaders etc. This booklet rebuts
the lie put about by the Europhiles that 60% of our trade and 3
million jobs depend on our membership of the EU.
The truth, as this booklet reveals, is that no trade or jobs
would be lost. We would save about £40 billion per annum by
leaving. When one remembers that our entire defence budget is
£25 billion per annum and the cost of our railways is a mere
£3.5 billion per annum one can see that throwing off the
shackles of Brussels would open up enormous opportunities for
the British people
Indeed Lord Pearson now feels that he has been too modest.
Far from not losing jobs and trade, freedom from the EU would
actually produce more of both.
The foreword is by Lord Weatherill, Speaker of the Commons
for nine years, and the this booklet provides what the
politicians have been too afraid to offer, a full analysis of
the net economic costs and benefits of EU membership for the UK.
This booklet is obtainable from The Institute for the Study
of Civil Society at a cost of £8.50. The reference number is
ISBN 1-903 386-37 3 and the email address books@civitas.org.uk.
The information contained in this booklet provides perfect
ammunition to Eurorealists when faced with the lies of the
Europhiles. If the British people ignore this warning they will
see their prosperity and democracy destroyed. As Lord Pearson
reminds us "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy..."
23/07/2004
As the British media concentrates on the Butler report some
things are happening in the EU which should alert us to dangers
to come.
That misnamed entity, the European Court of Justice, has
shown that it is in fact just the creature of the European
Commission, and nothing more than the legal enforcer of
federalism, in deciding that the Council of Ministers had no
right to ignore the breaking of the Stability and Growth Pact by
France and Germany. How much more arrogant and heavy handed
would this so called court be were it to be given the enhanced
powers contained within the proposed European Constitution.
Despite this result the movers and shakers of the EU accept
that absolutely no action will be taken against the two
countries involved. This proves that there is one law for them,
and another for the rest, within the Franco-German scam called
the EU.
At the same time we learn that plots are afoot to deprive the
UK of the rebate obtained by Mrs Thatcher back in 1984. The idea
is that we should pay billions more in order that France can
continue to subsidise its allotment holders. This could be
stopped by the British government just saying No but, of course,
our political class would not want to offend their fellow
members of the elite would they.
If we have any sense we would recognize that the wind blows
in one direction only within the EU and get out now
14/07/2004
Those determined to force metrication on the British people
are complaining that their wishes are not being complied with
quickly enough. One of them, a certain Geoffrey Howe, says that,
as imperial measurements have not been taught in school for
years, then it is necessary that metrication be completed. He
does not seem to realise that, by that argument, we should never
have introduced metric measurements in the first place, as none
of us had been taught them, nor did, or do, the vast majority
want them.
One must question just how people like this can claim to be
Conservatives, as they do not appear to want to conserve
anything and wish to change everything, whether or not the
people wish for the changes.
09/07/2004
The leadership of the Conservative Party are said to be
concerned that their position in the polls has fallen back,
after a period when they seemed to be catching up with New
Labour. They are also worried that support for Michael Howard
personally is declining after his honeymoon period as leader.
Well, what a surprise! Or rather not. The statements made by
Mr Howard and his colleagues following the European elections
show that they have learnt nothing from the results, as they
still insist that the Conservative Party is committed to UK
membership of the EU and persist in their ludicrous claims that
they could renegotiate our position within the latter, without
the need to withdraw, or even the threat of withdrawal.
The Conservative Party's troubles are deep and long seated.
When, in the 1960s, the Heathite tendency decided, by embracing
the European project, to place the interests of professional
politicians ahead of those of the ordinary party members, and
indeed of the British people, they consciously cut themselves
off from their grassroots. As anyone with any sense knows, if
you cut a tree's roots it will die, even if it takes some while
to so do. The Conservatives deserted their natural supporters
and they now find that those supporters are deserting them,
tired of the constant pretence that the party leadership will
reverse the way in which the UK is moving from being an
independent nation to a province of the United States of Europe.
Inertia will probably preserve the Tory Party for a good many
years yet but their chances of winning power do not look bright.
New Labour has also deserted its natural supporters,
preferring the chattering classes of Hampstead to the working
classes who created and nurtured the party, but as yet it has
not felt the long term effects of this betrayal.
The reality is that the political class no longer believes in
anything but the pursuit of their own interest, the very reason
why they are so keen on the EU, the best job development scheme
they have ever found. Perhaps the rejection of the main parties
we saw last month is the first indication that eventually the
electorate will turn to those who do possess principles and who
do not regard membership of the EU as essential to this nation's
wellbeing.
If the Tories want to improve their poll ratings it is time
that they recognized the truth about the EU and changed their
policies accordingly.
08/07/2004
Any naive idiot who believes that the European Union is not a
sink of corruption should consider the cases of three officials
of the European Court of Auditors, who have either been sacked
or medically retired when they dared to raise the issue:
Having seen how great was the corruption in the EU Mr Watt
asked the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee to
investigate but received a pathetic brush off from the Tory
chairman.
It is obvious that the European Union is an institutionally
corrupt organisation and that the political class, both at home
and abroad, has no intention of remedying the situation. The
only way the British people can avoid paying their money to
support the crooks of Brussels is for the UK to leave the EU.
24/06/2004
So now we know for certain. The political class will put
their self interest and seats on the gravy train ahead of
anything else, including the democratic rights of those they so
arrogantly claim to represent.
We can see that the leaderships of the main parties are
determined to press ahead with European integration and intend
signing up to a European constitution. The Conservatives may
claim to be opposed but their refusal to accept that the only
way to avoid becoming a province of the United States of Europe
is to leave the EU means that their statements are just hot air.
The other members will not agree to their demands for
renegotiating the CFP etc so they will be unable to deliver on
any promises made.
These therefore leaves the matter up to us. If we are to
defeat these selfish elitists we must do some, or all, of the
following:
Those who wish to see the back of the EU in this country far
outnumber those who wish to remain a member. We must now all
work hard to defeat the political elite and save our country. No
one else will do it for us.
20/06/2004
The Independent, the house journal of the chattering
classes, likes to describe itself as the "Newspaper of the
Year", but it would be better named "Rag of the Year". Today it
dedicates its front page to repeating the myths and outright
lies that are constantly repeated by the Europhiles in orderr to
attempt to frighten the British people into refusing to leave
the European Union.
It is of course as pointless writing to this so called
newspaper as it would have been attempting to point out to Dr
Goebbels the falsehoods emanating from his Ministry of
Propaganda. However we can ensure that we are ready to tell the
people the truth at every opportunity and, in order to help with
this an aide memoir is available here
16/06/2004
Nothing more truly illustrates the arrogance of the British
political class, and their ruthless determination to place
their own interests before those of the people they claim to
represent, than the statements by the main party leaders that
they will not change their policies in relation to the EU,
despite the results of last week's elections.
This refusal to face reality is compounded by claims that
those who oppose UK membership of the EU are extremists. It is
not extreme to prefer rule by elective democracy to that by
bureaucratic fiat, to wish to prevent our system of Common Law
being replaced by the Code Napoleon, or to desire to preserve
our prosperity by ending the flood of regulations emanating
from Brussels which are undermining our competitive position in
the world.
Now that the forces of British independence are at last on
the march the political class must listen to the voice of the
people or they will assuredly end up in the dustbin of history.
15/06/2004
EU directive 93/623 and commission decision 2000/68 demand
that all equines and asinines (horses and donkeys to normal
people) must be given a "life number" and a passport, showing
details of its parents and any drugs it has been given. This
passport will cost £20 for each animal and is supposed to
protect those who eat horsemeat from the ill effects of any
drugs which may have been administered to them.
In the UK horsemeat is not generally eaten and an act of 1937
forbids the export of horses for human consumption so this
directive is totally irrelevant to this country. However the
dictators of Brussels insist that harmonisation must rule so
You will obey!
Of course the Europhiliac idiots and traitors who run this
country are not prepared to tell Brussels to take a jump and
always enforce these lunatic regulations with even greater force
than happens elsewhere in the EU. In France and Germany they are
only insisting on passports for those horses taking part in
competitions but the incompetents of DEFRA who, as MAFF, gave us
the funeral pyres of the foot and mouth debacle, have produced
regulations which will mean that, by next March, every British
horse and donkey must have a passport or else the owner will be
guilty of a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of £5000. Can
one imagine what this will do to those animal sanctuaries which
offer hope to abandoned animals? The one at Sidmouth looks after
over 8,000 donkeys - can any charity afford to pay £20 per head
for these useless pieces of paper?
Animal lovers should note that this latest farce will, for
the first time, make it legal to export thousands of British
horses to be eaten on the Continent.
How much longer must we tolerate this stream of insane
regulations, produced by the corrupt institutions of the EU and
gold plated by the jobsworths of Whitehall? The only way to stem
the tide is to leave the EU and repeal every last law that they
have foisted upon us. It can be done - it merely requires the
will to do it.
13/06/2004
As it looks increasingly more likely that the electorate
intend giving the three main parties a bloody nose on Thursday
so those parties show how rattled they are by their
pronouncements on the European issue.
Of course the Liberal Democrats remain true to their almost
religious worship of Brussels but then, as Attlee said of a
different group, intellectuals, "ignore them, they are always
wrong". Not of course that the Liberal Democrats can claim to be
intellectual.
The Conservatives persist in their idiotic mantra about
changing the EU from within. This ignores the fact that the
architects of the single European state are not about to drop
their plans in order to please Mr Howard, just when final
victory seems within their grasp. The fact that the Conservative
leader insisted upon his MEPs remaining within a pro federalist
group within the European Parliament indicates that his so
called Euroscepticism may not even be skin deep.
The Labour Party leadership sticks to the fairy tale about
the EU being good for Britain, in the face of all the facts. Mr
Blair, in his best "trust me, would I steer you wrong" mode,
claims that the British people have benefited immensely from EU
membership, despite the fact that neither his party, nor the
Conservatives when in power, would commission a cost benefit
analysis of the aforesaid membership. We all know why. It would
show that the only beneficiaries have been the political and
bureaucratic establishment and that for the ordinary person it
has been a disaster.
The CIB, as a cross party organisation, does not endorse any
one party but it would be sensible for those who believe in a
free and independent Britain, and intend to vote on Thursday, to
support those who wish to see an end to the tyranny of Brussels.
There are a number of democratic parties with such an agenda,
catering for a variety of political positions. Whatever
individuals choose it will be good to see the political elite
given a wake up call concerning the feelings of the people on
the vile organisation based in Brussels.
08/06/2004
Today's attempts by politicians from the three largest
parties to portray those opposed to UK membership of the EU as
extremists are laughable given the facts. Unbiased academic
analysis reveals that the first three decades of EU membership
alone cost the UK in budgetary contributions, the ERM debacle,
the Maastricht convergence criteria and the cumulative trade
deficit a total of £255 billion. To this must be added the
burdens of the Common Fisheries and Common Agricultural Policies
and vast losses of manufacturing jobs and world markets caused
by the distortions to our economy of implementing EU
regulations. This economic disaster has been accompanied by a
corresponding devastation of our democratic rights as power
passes inexorably from elected politicians to bureaucrats.
In this new century there is no question to which the EU
could conceivably be the answer yet our political establishment
remains wedded to this shibboleth. It is they who are the
extremists, prepared to sacrifice everything to an anachronistic
concept of an integrated Europe and those who look to Britain's
future as a prosperous, self governing nation who are the true
mainstream.
31/05/2004
Marc Glendening, Campaign Director of the Democracy Movement,
has produced a truly excellent article concerning the essential
imperative to defend civil liberties against the emerging
European Union State. Please click here to read this forensic demolition of
the claims that the European represents any sort of democratic
future for the Continent.
27/05/2004
In today's Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker points
out that once again within the EU one rule is applied to the
French and the Germans and another to the rest of us. The
dictators of the European Commission last week approved a
subsidy of £2 billion to the German coal industry as "compatible
with the single market", thus enabling German collieries to
finish the job of destroying the British coal industry. They are
also almost certain to approve another £2 billion subsidy to
Alstom, the French company which used state aid to build the
QM2, thus ensuring that our shipyards could not compete, this
approval following on the heels of that already given to Air
France and the French company, Bull.
However the Commission takes quite a different view of the
modest public funds which back a livestock improvement scheme in
the Scottish Highlands and Islands, which has run since 1897 and
which helps small farmers in remote areas. This, the Brussels
Gestapo have decreed is "in breach of state aid rules" and must
be stopped.
Clearly the Commission is in the hands of those who can
provide them with the perks that they so enjoy and they will
always bow the knee to France and Germany. However why do we put
up with it? The answer as always is that our political class are
so desperate to protect their own benefits and seats on the
gravy train that they would sell their own grandmothers, let
alone a few Scottish crofters. They are a disgrace to this
country.
23/05/2004
Once again we see how nonsensical is the claim by Europhiles
that the other members of the EU are 'Our Partners'. Spain is
attempting to bully the people of Gibraltar by denying access
to Spanish ports for any cruise ships which have visited the
Rock. This action is being helped by the supine reaction of
some cruise companies who, rather than resisting the aggressor
choose to punish the victim by announcing that they will
therefore by-pass Gibraltar. If they were to take the contrary
view then, once those dependent on the tourist trade in Spain
became aware that thousands of potential customers were sailing
past their shores, they would quickly raise a howl of protest
in Madrid.
As the Spanish are claiming that all this is permitted by 'EU
law' the question once again must be "Why do we stay in this
vile organisation which is so contrary to our interests?".
Of course the answer is "Because it is in the self interest
of our political class"
19/05/2004
Shown below are some of the exchanges which took place in the
House of Lords this month on the issue of the European Union.
Anyone reading them and seeing how valiantly our champions
Stoddart, Pearson, Willoughby and others fight for this nation
should be grateful for their efforts and oppose those who think
that the Commons, run by Europhiles, should have the right to
destroy this last bastion of our democracy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: What proportion of legislation
put before Parliament in recent years has originated from the
European Union?
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):My
Lords, figures are not held centrally for all legislation. About
half of all legislation with a significant impact on business,
charities or the voluntary sector is introduced to implement
European Union decisions with the proportion varying
considerably from one policy area to another.
Lord Lamont: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the
Leader of
the House for that reply which is slightly different from that
on the Cabinet Office web site which states that 50 per cent of
all major legislation starts in the EU. Is it not a remarkable
admission that 50 per cent of major laws-and presumably an even
higher proportion of minor
laws-are made in the EU? Does the Minister agree that the
relevant figure might become 60 or 70 per cent in a few years'
time? Given that much EU legislation cannot be amended and
cannot in practice be rejected by Parliament, how can it
seriously be disputed that parliamentary proceedings are
increasingly becoming a charade, and that because so much
legislation is coming from Europe, the EU is acquiring the
characteristics of a government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be
surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. As regards the
degree to which the legislation of individual departments comes
from the European Union, the position in December of last year
with respect to the Home Office, for example, was the following.
During the 2002-03 Session it sponsored five Bills of
approximately 868 pages. One of the Bills predominantly
implemented EU
requirements, another partially implemented EU requirements.
The situation differs depending on the department. The 55 per
cent figure related to Defra. The figures were very different
for other departments. With respect to the noble Lord's point
about amending or rejecting EU legislation, he will know that
significant negotiation is conducted by our Ministers and
others, usually in Brussels, before we reach the point where we
agree anything.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, how many of the regulations to
which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred stem from the
Maastricht Treaty to which he gave such strong support? As an
alternative to the suggestions that he made, has my noble friend
had any serious proposals to amend the present situation other
than that Britain should leave the European Union?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is, of
course, quite right in the
sense that the party opposite negotiated the Maastricht Treaty.
A significant proportion of regulations came out of that treaty.
With respect to the current proposals for a constitutional
treaty, our proposal is to negotiate because we believe that
Britain's role is at the heart of
Europe. So far as I understand it, the alternative being
offered by the Leader of the Opposition is withdrawal from
Europe.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the
perfectly proper question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will
the noble Baroness the Leader of the House at least reassure us
that in the current negotiations the Government really will
support proper blocking powers for national Parliaments against
inappropriate and excessive EU legislation; in ther
words, that they will adopt the red card and will not let us
down on this matter as well as on some of the other red lines
which they claim to defend?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not know to what the
noble Lord refers when he says that we have let ourselves down
with respect to any red lines. The Government published a White
Paper in which they made clear our red lines. My right
honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister
have made it absolutely clear that those red lines will remain.
We have been absolutely clear about the areas where we see some
extension of qualified majority voting and those areas which
have to retain unanimity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister
accept the figures regarding the percentage of British
legislation that is shaped by international obligations such as
those under the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations or
other international and UN agencies? Does she further accept
that even if Britain were to leave the EU, we would still be
bound in our domestic legislation by a whole series of
international obligations of this kind and that the experience
of the one administration that has set out to declare that it is
outside and above international law - the Bush administration
has not been entirely happy in disregarding its obligations
under international law?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very
important point. Of
course, a great deal of our legislation is shaped and
influenced by international obligations that go beyond the
European Union. One of the difficulties in answering this
Question is that when you begin to look at the shaping and
influencing of legislation, it is sometimes much more difficult
to pin down than is suggested by the way in which the Question
is framed. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the
fact that even if this country were to leave the European Union,
which, of course, I and my party do not want to see, we would
remain bound by some of its provisions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the
Government now consider
collecting these figures centrally? If they are not collected
centrally, how are we to have an intelligent argument about what
influence the European Union has on our legislation? My second
question is the following. Since most of this legislation is
automatically translated into
British legislation, is there any longer a need for a House of
Commons of 659 Members and a House of Lords of nearly 700
Members?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart
of Swindon is, as usual, robust. With regard to collecting that
information centrally, individual departments keep the
information on the proportion of legislation that is introduced
to implement EU decisions. It would be helpful if I reiterate
the point that it would be wrong to see the issue as an
imposition of regulations from outside. We take a very active
part in collective decision making in the EU and information on
that is kept by individual departments. The size of the House of
Commons is a matter for the other place, but it is important
that we have MPs representing the constituencies that there are.
The size of the House of Lords is a matter
that your Lordships may wish to look at and think about in
terms of the future of House of Lords reform.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, over the past few
years there has been
quite a lot of national debate as to whether or not we should
join the European single currency and now the proposed new
constitution is swimming into public consciousness. But there
has been very little discussion about our present relationship
with the European Union, which most people in this country do
not really understand at all, although they rightly do not
like what they do understand.
Yet the Government's main line of argument in support of the
constitution-and we heard it this afternoon from the
Minister-goes roughly as follows: "This is nothing new. The
Conservatives gave away much more of our sovereignty when they
signed up in 1972 to what has become the EU, and when they later
passed the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam
Treaties. So the proposed constitution is really only a
tidying-up exercise, and we cannot see what the fuss is about".
One cannot really judge the truth of this statement unless
one understands what has already been given away, and set that
against the proposed constitution. So I thought I would put the
briefest of summaries on the record in your Lordships' House
this evening. It is some years since that has been done.
Before I do so, I really must expose the fallacy of the
Government and Europhile claim that because some aspects-indeed,
many aspects-of the proposed constitution are not new, since
they are already in the existing treaties, that means we do not
have to worry about them: they must be acceptable to the British
people. This argument does not wash, because hardly any aspect
of our present relationship has been explained to the people. As
the debate on the constitution proceeds, they are therefore free
to say "We do not care if some theft of our sovereignty is
already in the treaties. We still do not like it, and we want it
back".
I very much hope that this growing awareness on the part of
the people will extend to a knowledge of just how far their
sovereignty has indeed already been betrayed by their political
masters over the past 32 years. I say this because there are at
least two fundamental principles which underpin our
constitution, our sovereignty, our democracy. The first is the
hard-won right of the British people to elect and dismiss those
who make their laws. The second is that the people have given
Parliament the power to make all their laws for them, but they
have not given Parliament the permission to give that power
away.
I submit that both those principles, for which over the
centuries millions have willingly given up their lives, already
stand deeply betrayed by our present membership of the European
Union. It is essential to remember that the people's pact is
with Parliament; it is not with the executive or government of
the day. The people elect and dismiss Members of Parliament
once every four or five years, and our government are, of
course, formed out of a majority of elected MPs. But only some
60 per cent of the electorate now bother to vote in general
elections, and modern governments are supported by only some 40
per cent of those who vote, or 24 per cent of the electorate. I
submit, therefore, that these temporary governments,
always empowered by a minority of the people, do not have the
right to break the great pacts upon which our sovereignty rests.
Yet that is just what they have been doing for the past 32
years.
So just how bad is the present situation? To what extent
could the proposed constitution be fairly described as a
"tidying up exercise"? The detailed process of how huge areas of
our national life have already been gradually handed over to
control from Brussels in the various treaty amendments, and for
which this Parliament has already become a rubber stamp, is to
be found in Written Answers in your Lordships' Hansard for 10
July 2003, at cols. 50-51, and for 26 April 2004, at cols.
72-73. Put very broadly, these areas include all of our commerce
and industry; all our social and labour policy; our environment,
including our agriculture and fish; and our foreign aid.
By "control from Brussels" I mean of course the system
whereby our Government, with 11.5 per cent of the votes, can be
outvoted in the Council of Ministers. If they agree or are
outvoted on a new law in all those areas, then we in this
Parliament must put it into British law on pain of unlimited
fines in the Luxembourg so-called Court. That is what is
described in Euro-speak as the "democratic deficit", and that is
why I say we have become a rubber stamp.
Our foreign trade relations are in an even worse category
because the Commission itself negotiates those on our behalf. So
in this area the EU could already be said to have its own legal
personality, to which I shall return. In addition, laws
affecting our justice and home affairs and our foreign and
security policy, if they are agreed by the executive in
Brussels, must also be rubber stamped by Parliament here. If we
do not enact new laws in these areas, such as the recent and
infamous EU arrest warrant, we would not be subject to unlimited
fines, but we would be in breach of our treaty obligations.
This, of course, is a far more horrifying prospect than a fine
to our political classes in their diplomatic cocktail parties
and so on; a fine, after all, is paid by the people. It is not
surprising that no law agreed or passed in Brussels has ever
been successfully overturned by Parliament. Indeed, the 1972 Act
made it clear that that was to be the case.
So that is a very brief summary of where we are without the
proposed constitution. I suppose that you can call it a "tidying
up exercise" if you admit that it sweeps the rest of our
sovereignty under the Brussels carpet, which of course it does.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, did I follow the
noble Lord in his suggestion that the 1972 Act clearly
established the primacy of Community law?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Absolutely, my Lords, yes. If
the noble Lord cares to read our debate on 27 June 2003 he will
see that I read out the treaty clauses so that they should be on
the record in your Lordships' House. They said precisely that.
However, I would remind the noble Lord that the Prime Minister
of the day, Mr Edward Heath, said that no
essential sovereignty was being given away, and the subsequent
Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, held a referendum in which he
assured us that we were merely talking about staying in a Common
Market.
Other noble Lords have dealt with various features of this
constitution. I would single out two which seem to me the most
important. First, as other noble Lords have said, it grants the
EU its own legal personality superior to that of the member
states. There is no longer even the bogus pretence that the EU
is an arrangement between sovereign states. Once the
constitution is agreed, the EU and qualified majority voting in
the Council of Ministers become sovereign. The EU flag, which at
the moment is flown as pure advertising, becomes the flag of a
new megastate. The EU anthem becomes its official anthem. Alas,
poor Beethoven.
The other feature that has limitless scope for judicial
activism by the Luxembourg Court is the inclusion of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights in the treaty. I remind your Lordships
that Mr Vaz, the then Europe Minister, said that that would have
no more status than the Beano. That remains to be seen.
Those two features alone will ensure that the Prime
Minister's famous red lines will soon be dissipated. Indeed, his
red line on tax is already breached, as my noble friend Lady
Noakes has so expertly revealed, as any noble Lord who cares to
read our Unstarred Question on 25 February 2004 will readily
appreciate. Briefly, that is because although the tax
provisions, being Clauses 90 to 93 of the TEC, still give us the
veto over indirect taxation, the treaties appear to be silent on
direct taxation, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has said. That
is, until you examine the single market provisions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble
Lord for giving way. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes,
seem to be propagating a new doctrine - perhaps he will
elucidate it - that areas that are not covered in the treaty are
axiomatically covered in the treaty.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not think I
was saying that. I was merely saying that direct taxation is not
explicitly mentioned in the treaty and that the Court is free to
decide that the European Union is free to legislate in the area
to which I was about to come. If the noble Lord will bear with
me a second, I will explain. I think that my noble friend has
already explained how this is happening for corporation tax. My
contention is that, potentially, that is open to all direct tax.
If you examine the single market provisions, you will see
that they forbid discrimination among member states and giving
"aids" - that is the word in the treaties - to one's own
nationals and corporations. Articles 43 and 44 of the TEC repay
study to get the full flavour of how our direct tax policy has
already been surreptitiously put within the reach of the corrupt
octopus in Brussels. I do not say that it has happened yet, but
it is there in the treaty. When the Commission wishes to propose
and the court wishes to decide, our existing direct tax policy
is at stake.
I conclude by thanking the Government for conceding a
referendum on this great matter. That decision has saved some of
us quite a lot of work. We Euro-realists now look forward to
winning that referendum and rejecting whatever constitution
eventually emerges from the secret conclaves of the Eurocrats. I
trust that, in the process, the British people will finally
come to appreciate the mortal danger in which their democracy
already stands and decide to save it for those who come after.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful for
the opportunity to debate this issue tonight, particularly as
the Irish presidency has been giving the kiss of life to what at
least some of us hoped was the moribund corpse of the
constitution.
The unwelcome news of the kiss of life was given to us last
Wednesday by the Minister, in response to a Starred Question by
the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. She stated then that,
"we are placing in the Library of the House copies of the
presidency's proposals that were issued last week".-[Official
Report, 5/5/04; col. 1105.]
As ever in the EU, what you see is not necessarily what you
get. It now turns out that what the noble Baroness thought were
presidency proposals and what she told us were presidency
proposals were not presidency proposals at all. They were,
apparently, as the Government's spinmeisters have now been
telling us, purely "working documents" and,
"not in any way a fresh overall presidency proposal".
I can agree that it was not a fresh overall, but I am afraid
that it looks like a presidency proposal, and a very unpalatable
one at that. The non-presidency proposal contains 50 proposals
on 130 pages. I was amazed and astonished, as I am sure other
noble Lords were, to find that all those proposals moved powers
from national parliaments to the Commission,
and that every single proposal would increase the power of the
Eurosalariat at the expense of national parliaments. How very
surprising.
In foreign affairs, for example, under the non-proposals it
is suggested that when deciding on a proposal from the Union
Minister for Foreign Affairs, whoever that grandee may be, the
Council shall act by QMV. That is provided in Article III-201 of
annex 25, on page 68 of the
non-proposals. It says that qualified majority voting must be
used,
"when adopting, on a proposal from the Union Minister for
Foreign Affairs,
a European decision defining a Union action or position".
I have bad news on taxation for my noble friend Lady Noakes.
Again the non-proposals propose that, although the Council
appears to be required to act unanimously, as soon as it finds
that is the word in the document - that the measures it wishes
to legislate against,
"do not affect the fiscal regimes of the Member
States",
it can act by QMV. Bang goes another red line.
I think that noble Lords will have got the message. In
whatever area - justice, home affairs, foreign policy, economic
policy or employment - the traffic is all one-way: to the
unelected Eurocracy and away from the member states and their
elected parliaments.
The repeated assertions by our Europhile friends that the
constitution will give more power to national parliaments is
what Touchstone in "As You Like It" called the "Lie
Circumstantial" or even the "Lie Direct". I was surprised to
hear the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, last
Wednesday engaging in a double act, agreeing that,
"there will be more power coming to national
parliaments".-[Official Report, 5/5/04; col. 1107.]
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made a valiant attempt to
explain his committee's support for the yellow card system.
However, the reality is clear: the current constitution says
that if one-third of member parliaments object to a Commission
proposal, the Commission must "review" its proposal; when it has
reviewed the proposal, it is at perfect liberty to say, "Thank
you very much for those interesting comments. Unfortunately,
they seem to have found their way into the Commission wastepaper
basket. By the way, don't slam the door on the way out".
I shall borrow the Prime Minister's brand of would-be cool
rhetoric. It is kind of dumb to pretend that the draft
constitution returns any power to member states. I am happy to
give way to any noble Lord or noble Baroness who can give me an
example of such a return of powers or competences to national
parliaments. There are none, so I have not been interrupted. It
is kind of dumb to pretend that we need the constitution to make
the EU
more efficient.
How many Members of your Lordships' House believe that the
weakness of the EU lies in its inability to enact regulations?
The acquis runs to 97,000 pages. Over 100,000 regulations have
been imported into UK law, yet we are asked to swallow the idea
that we should allow the EU to pass even more laws in even more
areas. The EU already contains the most highly taxed and highly
regulated economies; now, the Eurocrats want the power to make
things worse. Give me a break.
It is kind of dumb to pretend that the draft constitution
does not give away more powers to the centre. The constitution
will abolish the national veto in over 30 areas of policy. What
is that, if it is not a surrender of power? The proposal for
shared competences, of which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson,
made such play, is a sham. The EU will have the absolute right,
under the shared competences article, to legislate where and
when it chooses. Member states can only pick up the crumbs.
Under Article 17, the EU may, in order to attain its objectives,
add to its powers over member states' elected governments by
agreement with the Council of Ministers and the European
Parliament. I underline the fact that, in doing that and
extending its powers, the EU will not have to consult or refer
to national parliaments; it can all be done under Article 17 in
Brussels, between drinks and dinner-how very convenient. So much
for returning powers to national parliaments.
Above all, it is kind of dumb, even for someone who thinks
that he saw Jackie Milburn play football for Newcastle, to
pretend that, if we say "No" to the constitution, we will be
cast into economic and social darkness. Britain has the fourth
largest economy in the world; it has the best trained and
largest army in the European Union; and it gives £11 billion a
year to the European Union budget. We run a huge annual trade
deficit with the European Union. In whose interests would it be
to start a tariff war?
No, my Lords, I believe that the British people will see the
scare stories for what they are-kind of dumb-and will vote
against the constitution when they get the chance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is always a
great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de
Broke. Like him, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the
Government for allowing us a further debate on the constitution.
I would be even more grateful to her, the Government and anybody
else, if I believed that they would listen to anything that we
said. Certainly, they did not listen to what we said in the
Standing
Committee - I attended every sitting, asked questions and
spoke- and, when finished, the constitution was exactly the same
as it was when we started. We had no effect, regardless of the
effort that we put in in the Standing Committee.
There have been changes in the Government's attitude, not
only in the past few weeks but over the years since the
constitution was first mooted at Nice. First, there was total
opposition - Vaz and his "Beano" comment, for example. Then, we
had total acceptance. We were told that the constitution was
only a tidying-up operation, and we were derided by the noble
Baroness - she admits it - for wanting a referendum on the
constitution. Then, in a complete volte-face, a referendum was
conceded. Those are the changes of policy that we have seen
during the whole saga. I am coming to understand that we cannot
believe anything that the Government say. Certainly, we can have
no confidence in the Government's competence when they behave in
that fashion.
No sooner had the Government conceded a referendum on the
existing constitution than the Irish Government came along with
another big draft. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has
just referred to it and gave us some details. Having conceded
that we will have a referendum, the Government must now examine
a new draft from the Irish Government that,
without any doubt, will increase the competences of the
European Union at our expense.
Yesterday's Guardian said:
"Brown to demand 25 EU treaty changes".
Could we know what they are, if that story is true? Will the
noble Baroness tell us what changes Mr Brown would like to see
made to the constitution before we agree to it? Will she give a
guarantee that the so-called red lines will be maintained? They
have not been in the past, and I hope that they will be on this
occasion. In no circumstances should they be relaxed. Will the
Government go even further to get powers returned and, as other
noble Lords have asked, to get rid of the acquis communautaire
and the 97,000 pages of legislation?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others, I
was startled by the claim that Britain would be marginalised and
sidelined if we did not sign up to the constitution. What sort
of talk is that, from people who are supposed to lead the
country? Why have they so little confidence in the ability of
this country to succeed in the world without belonging
to some regional bloc? We have done it for hundreds of years in
the past. Why have our present leaders no confidence in the
British people to stand their ground, not in a regional
backwater but in the wide, wide world. After all, we are,
geographically speaking, just about the centre of the world. As
the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said, we are the
fourth largest economy in the world. We have the Commonwealth.
If we had only developed that, instead of stopping in the morass
of Europe's back yard, this country would thrive.
Then, of course, there is the other claim - the frightener
that, if we left the EU, 3 million jobs would be at stake. What
nonsense that is. In the first place, we trade with the EU on a
deficit of £5,000 million a year. EU countries would lose more
jobs than we would, if they decided to put embargoes or
restrictions on trade. They are not stupid; they will not do
that, will they? In any event, they could not do so under
international trade law. All that is a frightener.
The Europhiles are always using it. They used in 1975, and
they still think that they will frighten the people of this
country.
In any event, if it is all about trade, why do we need a
European government, two presidents, a parliament, a
bureaucracy, a currency, an army, a legal personality, a foreign
minister, a supreme court, a public prosecutor, a flag, an
anthem and a Europe day? Why do we need all of that to trade
with them? We manage to trade with 172 other countries without
all that paraphernalia. Indeed, all those other countries trade
with Europe without all that paraphernalia. So it is nonsense,
is it not? It is complete and utter nonsense that 3 million jobs
are at stake. We have lost a lot of jobs in various industries.
Our manufacturing industry has been hurt by our being members of
the European Union. So I wish that the Government, and everyone
else, would stop that.
I do not know whether the BBC gets any grants from the
European Commission, but its attitude to the European Union
suggests that it does. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us
whether it receives grants. At the weekend, the BBC wheeled out
its resident Europhile-the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who I do
not see in his place today to debate this matter. As usual, the
BBC gave him twice as much coverage as it did to Mr Davidson who
was putting the other point of view.
Of course, last Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was
also on "Question Time". As usual, there were three Europhiles
and only one person from UKIP. That is the attitude of the BBC
all along. It simply does not understand that there is a large
body of opinion in this country that is not only opposed to this
constitution, but would also like to withdraw from the European
Union altogether. It really is about time that the BBC woke up
to what the public want and to do its duty as a public
corporation. It should give fair weather and fair coverage to
all aspects of the argument.
I hope that the BBC will do that as the referendum
approaches, so that everyone will have a fair hearing. There
should be no more breakfasts with the Europhiles, as in the 1975
referendum, so that it could sort out what lies it would tell
during a particular day. Everyone knows my view of the European
Union. We should never have got in. It is about time that we got
out. I agree especially with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell,
when he said that to sign up to this constitution would be a
disaster for this country. That is what we all want to avoid.
16/05/2004
The accession of ten new states to the EU yesterday has
prompted the Europhiles to their greatest efforts at lying yet,
and is a warning of what we might expect when the referendum
campaign begins. Even normally sensible newspapers like the
Times and The Sunday Times seem to have been at the free
champagne, with headlines such as 'Glad New Morning, and 'Bright
New Dawn', and much space is devoted to the 're-unification of
Europe'. As for the BBC, "Broadcasting House", that magazine for
the actual and spiritual residents of Hampstead, which
masquerades as a current affairs program, went into overdrive
this morning, attempting to portray those opposed to the EU as
either the grumpy old man in the corner who doesn't understand
the wonderful wave of the future or, worse, a bigot who hates
foreigners and is obsessed with immigration from the new EU
members. There are also those who think it marvellous that a
Briton, Chris Patten, might become the President of Europe.
One hardly knows where to begin with all this nonsense but
perhaps the points should be answered one by one:
Yesterday was a day that Voltaire's Dr Pangloss, with his
belief that all is for the best, would have welcomed with open
arms. Unfortunately for Europe, and the world, it will be those
who recognize that the EU, far from being the wave of the
future, is an idea whose time has passed, who will be proved to
have the clearer vision. It will all end in tears.
02/05/2004
In 1975 British businesses, both large and small, were fooled
by the federalists into supporting membership of the EEC.
Fortunately a poll released today shows that they have learnt
their lesson and this time around the majority will not be
voting for the EU constitution.
Almost two thirds believe that the constitution would
surrender crucial powers to a failing EU and even more of the
chief executives thought the economy would be more prosperous
and secure if ministers took back powers from Brussels.
Amazingly 27% still think the EU is good for their business but
47% disagree.
Even better British business now opposes the Euro by 70 to 22
per cent and some of those international companies who
previously urged Britain to join are now recanting. The
president of Toyota now says that it is of little relevance
whether the UK joins the Euro.
Meanwhile in Euroland tempers are frayed. At a recent meeting
the finance ministers of France and Germany attacked
Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank,
for not cutting interest rates. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French
minister, protested that it was his job as Finance Minister to
deliver growth, but he was unable to do so as he had no control
over the levers of growth handed to the ECB. Perhaps he should
have read some CIB leaflets before supporting the Euro.
What all this shows is businessmen, and many politicians,
have failed to understand the reality of the EU until very late
in the game. For the members of Euroland it is too late but
fortunately for the UK we can still walk away and leave the rest
of them to lay in the bed they have made.
28/04/2004
Although the federalists are trying to confuse the issue of
the referendum on the EU constitution by claiming that it is all
too complex to be understood by the ordinary citizen the
proposition is really quite simple. If one wishes to live in a
province of a single European state, governed by an immovable
bureaucratic elite in Brussels, who are unaccountable to the
people, then support a constitution for Europe. If one wishes to
live in an independent nation, ruled by elected representatives
at Westminster and who can be turned out if the electorate so
wish then oppose a constitution for Europe. All one needs to do
is to look clearly if one wishes to see what the EU is and what
it seeks to become.
We now face a barrage of lies from the Europhiles and their
creatures in the media, most particularly the BBC, whose craven
fawning to Brussels is a national disgrace.
The following is an interchange between the Lords Stoddart
and Pearson, both on the CIB national executive, and the arch
Blairite Baroness Amos, which took place last Tuesday:
House of Lords Debate on the Prime Minister's
Announcement of a Referendum on the EU Constitution - 20 April
2004
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Statement
concludes with the words: "Let the issue be put. Let the battle
be joined". I have to tell Members of the House, if they do not
know already, that I have been battling for the past 40 years
and I am quite happy to continue to do battle for as long as it
takes to win the war. I welcome the Statement and the fact that
we are to have a referendum. However, I have to say that the
simple Statement is accompanied by some tendentious argument,
which I should like now to join. However, there is no time so I
shall not do so. My main question is what is meant by Parliament
being able to debate the constitution in detail and being able
to decide upon it? What will Parliament be able to do? Will it
be able to say only yes or no to the constitution or will it be
able to debate the constitution in a proper Bill which will be
debatable and amendable? That point is important and absolutely
crucial. If Parliament is to discuss the matter first, surely it
must be able to make amendments to what is a new constitution. I
would like a straight answer to what I believe is a straight
question. Does the noble Baroness agree that once we have the
constitution we shall have it for ever, as it can be amended
only by unanimity? The provisions of the constitution will be at
the will not of our Government or of any other government in the
new European Union, but of the European Court of Justice.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord
Stoddart, has been battling on this point for a very long time.
Now we all have the freedom to join in. Of course, I admire his
restraint in not going into detail on the specific issues. The
debate in Parliament will be as on any other treaty. The treaty
is unamendable, but the Bill will be amendable. That is what we
have always done. My noble friend Lady Symons informs me that
with the last treaty that we discussed through a Bill, we spent
some 50 hours debating the Bill. It would be wrong to say that
Parliament has in any way been short-changed in that process.
The noble Lord is right to say that amendment of the
constitutional treaty would be by unanimity.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it true that
there are two fundamental errors in the Statement. The first is
the suggestion that the proposed treaty is a big advance in
subsidiarity. Is it not true that the document that we had
before Christmas, which was torpedoed by the Spanish and the
Portuguese, allowed for only two-thirds of national governments
to object to a Commission proposal? The Commission merely had to
take away a proposal, look at it and if it did not want it, it
could carry straight on. Secondly, and far more importantly, is
the Prime Minister's red line on tax a red herring? Has the
Leader of the House read your Lordships' debate on 25 February
this year? Although it is clear under the official tax
provisions of the treaty, particularly at Clause 93, that
unanimity is required for indirect tax, the treaty is silent on
direct tax, unless one looks at Clauses 43 to 44 - the single
market provisions of the treaty - where the Commission is
already free to propose, and the court is already free to agree.
Is it not clear that direct tax has already passed to Brussels?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made our position
clear on this matter. We have said that tax matters will
continue to be decided by unanimity. Paragraph 76, on page 35,
of the White Paper published in September 2003, states: Tax
matters are a key component of national sovereignty and vital to
the social and economic well being of the country. It is for
this reason that the Government made a manifesto commitment to
maintain the UK's tax veto". That is why in the IGC the
Government will insist that tax matters continue to be decided
by unanimity. That was our position when the White Paper was
published last year and it continues to be our position. The
treaty already has major provision for subsidiarity, the
mechanism allowing national parliaments to object to any
Commission proposals that breach that principle. That is the
first time that such a provision has been put in place.
Don't believe a word Government ministers say - if they
lose this vote they lose their seats on the gravy train - they
will try every trick in the book to deceive the British people.
This is our last chance to save ourselves.
22/04/2004
The AGM of the CIB, which took place yesterday, was followed
by a very well attended public meeting.
The first speaker, Christopher Booker, gave an excellent
account of how the British people have been deceived by their
political class for decades as the blueprint for the
construction of an authoritarian single European state has been
followed by the architects of the project. His analysis was
masterful and left one in no doubt that we now stand at the edge
of the cliff. Either we leave this abomination of an
organisation within the new two years or Britain is finished.
However it was the second speaker, Neil Herron, who proved a
revelation, giving heart to many who had felt that all our
efforts would come to naught and the traitors and fascists
seeking to destroy our democracy would win.
Mr Herron, a down to earth working man from the North East,
has defied the Europhiles at every turn, humiliated them in
public meetings and sent them scurrying back to London with
their tails between their legs. He is organising a true grass
roots campaign which is intended to give the British people the
chance to, as Orwell said, "shake off these people as a horse
shakes off flies".
His confidence, understanding of the truth and track record
of success (having made several mendacious Europhiles resign
from their positions) is an inspiration to all who continue to
defy the Europhiles.
The standing ovation at the end of his speech was richly
deserved and sent this observer away thinking that perhaps we
may yet be saved. It is five minutes to midnight but we are not
quite finished.
18/04/2004
At its annual conference in Blackpool on 20th and 21st March,
the Federation of Small Businesses in separate motions
decisively voted in favour of calling on the Government to
abandon the programme for the creation of Regional Assemblies
and asked that it not sign the treaty for the creation of a EU
Constitution.
Small businesses are widely regarded as the engine room of
the British economy and for so many members of their main trade
association to vote against major aspects of Government policy,
is hugely significant. Sadly, within days of the FSB vote
against the Constitution, Mr Blair was in Brussels committing
himself to a revitalised EU Constitution, which he wants to see
signed by June.
We are clearly left in grave doubt as to whether Mr Blair
represents the British people at EU summits or merely himself.
Full details of the FSB motions and the voting are as follows:
Federation of Small Businesses - Blackpool Conference 20.3.04
MOTION 2
Conference calls on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
to disband the programme for Regional Assemblies
For: 89,322 Agains
t: 19,130
Federation of Small Businesses - Blackpool Conference 21.3.04
MOTION 5
Conference calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to sign
the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the
grounds that handing over more power to Brussels will have a
detrimental effect on the UK business environment.
For: 104,568 Again
st: 5,292
These motions give the lie to all the claims that business
is in favour of the European Union
31/03/2004
As Eurorealists warned the politicians have now returned to
the EU constitution, this time attempting to force it through in
double quick time and without giving most European electorates
the right to have a say by referendum.
Any who doubt the enormity of what is proposed should read
the following twelve points, which sum up the arguments against
this foul constitution:
Mr Blair declares that the adoption of the EU constitution
would be good for the British people yet its main effect would
be to transfer effective power from elected representatives at
Westminster to bureaucrats in Brussels.
The Prime Minister would do well to consider the words
addressed by Winston Churchill to Italian people in August 1944
as they emerged from years of fascist rule. He was discussing
freedom and asked two questions which revealed whether a nation
did in fact possess that essential quality: 'Have the people
the right to turn out a Government of which they disapprove, and
are constitutional means provided by which they can make their
will apparent?'.
It is clear that the single European state which would emerge
should this present constitution be imposed would satisfy
neither of Churchill's tests. It would be indeed ironic if,
after bringing freedom and democracy to Europe in the 1940s, we
were now to surrender both in deference to Mr Blair's anxiety to
force this issue without granting the electorate the opportunity
to decide their fate in a referendum.
28/03/2004
If, as threatened, the Polish government does allow the
results of the election in Spain to undermine its opposition to
the EU constitution then the consequences of that single
terrorist act will be more far reaching then one would have
thought possible. Should the constitution be adopted it will
spell the end of Britain as an independent nation, destroy the
Anglo-American alliance and inevitably drive Europe and America
apart. The creation of a single European state, which would see
the triumph of Franco-German hostility to the USA would, not
surprisingly, see the Americans revert to Fortress America and
leave Europe, run by instinctive appeasers, and with peoples
unwilling to bear the cost of effective defences, exposed to the
dangers which may not only come from the Islamic world.
Should this come to pass then the reverberations of the
Madrid bombs will echo round the world for as long as have the
shots fired by Princip at the Archduke in June 1914 and will
confirm that terrorism does indeed work.
22/03/2004
Latest indications are that the much vaunted Euro is proving
to be the disaster Eurorealists always knew it would be:
In an interview with the Times this week, Sir Eddie George,
the former Governor of the Bank of England, criticised the
Eurozone's lack of flexibility and structural reform. He added,
"in contrast to the US where they have got a sustained
improvement in productivity, we are not getting that in Germany
and other Eurozone countries" (13 March). The former Bank of
England Governor also suggested that the European Central Bank
could do more to boost the Eurozone's fragile recovery, arguing
"there may be room" for a cut in its interest rates.
Leading financial institutions and think tanks have this week
downgraded Italy's economic growth prospects because of the
strong euro and slumping consumer spending. The latest growth
forecasts show that economists expect Italy's GDP to grow by
only 1.4 percent his year, less even than the 1.7 percent
predicted for Germany and France.
New figures out last week from Insee, the French Government's
statistics office, show that French industrial production fell
for the second time in three months in January. Industrial
production declined 0.5 percent from December - mirroring a drop
in output in Germany. The decline in output suggests the
Eurozone's fragile recovery is loosing momentum
They can't say that they weren't warned
19/03/2004
The first of the Metric Martyrs, Steve Thoburn, has died
suddenly at the age of 39. Although it cannot be proved there
seems little doubt that the stress of being pursued by
vindictive and viscous state functionaries over the legal costs
of his brave stand against the vile laws which make selling
goods in British measurements a crime will have contributed to
his tragic death.
When lying politicians claim that we live in a liberal
democracy we must always remember this brave man, who should be
lauded as a national hero, not branded as some sort of criminal.
The little Hitlers who hounded him will sacrifice anything in
order to preserve their places on the European gravy train but
the fight will continue and now it will be dedicated to his
memory.
Unlike so many others Steve Thoburn stood up to be counted
and defied the totalitarians to the last.
Remember him and damn them.
Please click here to read a tribute to Steve Thoburn
from Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Chairman of CIB
Never forget that laws made can be repealed and changes made
can be changed back. When the fight is won, and the Eurorealist
cause has triumphed, the imperial system of measurements can be
restored, as indeed can be the use of the Fahrenheit scale and
all those other things which our opponents seek to eradicate in
order that this nation might be subjugated to a single European
state. At that time Steve Thoburn will be remembered as he
deserves.
15/03/2004
All opinion polls and public consultations show that the
overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to the
use of GM crops in the UK and yet the government is railroading
them through.
When challenged on this some spokesmen have stated that
'under EU law' they cannot ban such crops and only purely
voluntary agreements between farmers can create GM free zones.
We are therefore in the position that the democratic will of
the British people counts for nothing against the arrogance of
the unelected dictators of Brussels. Were we to elect a
government from the Green party in this country, on a manifesto
of banning all GM crops, that government would have to bend the
knee to Brussels and allow them to be grown, unless it was
prepared to leave the EU. Perhaps that is why so many of the
Green party are also supporters of the Eurorealist cause.
This is yet one more example of how our democracy is dying
and we are coming increasingly under the sway of a bureaucratic
dictatorship. There really is no choice if we wish to live in a
democratic county - we must leave the EU.
10/03/2004
In an article in yesterday's Times Libby Purves gave a
sound assessment of the alarming changes being proposed to our
legal system and constitutional arrangements but she clearly
lacks an appreciation of the reason that underlies these
changes. If the political class are to succeed in their ambition
to make this nation a part of a single European state, which
will have a common legal area and a single constitution, then
our time honoured system of Common Law must be replaced by the
continental Napoleonic code of Corpus Juris, while there will be
no place for allegiances other than that to the governing
political elite. The coming United States of Europe will based
on republican principles, while the triumph of bureaucracy over
democratic rule will make it essential for civil servants and
the armed forces to be totally subservient to the institutions
of that state.
There is nothing which the politicians will not sacrifice in
their own self interest and the changes deplored by so many are
inevitable if the UK remains within the European Union as it
continues its journey towards its federal goal.
10/03/2004
This meeting is only open to CIB members
This meeting is open to all
Whatever doubts one may have about the validity of Lord
Hutton's conclusions there can be no doubt that it is the
institutional arrogance of the BBC which has led that
organisation to disaster.
An institution once noted for its impartiality has, in recent
years, so embraced the political correct agenda of the liberal
elite as to have earned itself the sobriquet of the Blair
Broadcasting Corporation. When Lord Pearson of Rannoch organised
an investigation into the manner in which the BBC treated the
matter of the European Union it found irrefutable evidence of
bias in favour of the latter, engendered by the political views
of those who now dominate the organisation. The only reaction
forthcoming was a charge by certain BBC functionaries that
anyone who opposed British membership was 'barmy'.
It is ironic that the BBC has been caught out not by
deviating from the agenda of the elite but by Mr Blair deciding
to do so himself, thus placing the corporation in conflict with
a government whose policies it normally endorses, albeit not
openly.
The only solution is for the BBC to divorce itself from the
attitudes of the political class, something which requires their
personnel to be recruited from other than the chattering classes.
02/02/2004
Today Eurorealists can feel totally vindicated in all they
have said regarding the single European currency as, in an
interview with The Times, the apostle of monetary union,
Jacques Delors, has stated that he now understands why the
British have refused to join euroland and sees no reason for
them to do so. He also describes the European Union as
rudderless, lacking vision and in a state of latent
crisis.
After all the years of those like "Britain in Europe" and
other Euro fanatics telling us that we must join the Euro or
face disaster we can now quote their own hero back to them,
proving that we were right all the time.
As now even Jacques Delors accepts that the UK is right to
reject the single European currency is it not incumbent upon the
government to put an end to speculation and confirm that we
shall never become part of Euroland. This would give industry
the clear decision which they have been demanding and put an
end to a matter which has distorted political debate for a
generation.
In addition, as Mr Delors now recognizes that the EU is in a
state of latent crisis should we not now be giving serious
consideration to seeking the exit before our nation is damaged
further by membership of this failing club.
19/01/2004
Councillor Steve Radford, Chairman of the Liberal Party, has
had the following letter, concerning the outrageous treatment of
peaceful protestors in Brussels, published in the Western
Morning News, Daily Post and other media outlets:
The arrest and deportation of a few British protesters
appealing for the right of the British people to have a vote on
any future EU Constitution really does expose the very worst
aspect of the EU, its contempt for democracy, contempt for open
government and an authoritarian response when faced with
political legitimate dissent.
As Liberals we have always warned of the dangers of
anti-terrorism legislation being abused to crush political
dissent. This also gives us a stark warning of how the new EU
superstate police would operate.
The EU is proposing that their police would be immune from
prosecution. How convenient! We can see the same contempt for
open government when staff whistle-blowing on corruption and
financial mismanagement are dismissed or hounded out, rather
than the commissioners responsible facing the music.
To those Britons who were deported, you have rendered a
service to the cause of civil liberties, not just in the United
Kingdom, but throughout Europe.
As can be seen from this the Liberal Party fully recognizes
the EU for what it is. If the majority of our political class
continue to pretend that it is other than a pseudo fascist
organisation they will succeed in destroying the democracy we
have spent so many years creating.
11/01/2004
In response to yet another interference in our domestic
affairs by a Japanese car manufacturer Lord Stoddart has
written the following:
********
I see that there has been yet another tiresome effort by the
President and Chief Executive of Nissan, Carlos Ghosen to
involve himself in British politics. He is attempting to
blackmail us into joining the euro, under threat of not building
the latest model at the company's Sunderland plant.
In the first instance, British policy on EMU has to be
decided on what is best for the whole country and not just for
the benefit of Japanese car manufacturers. In the second
place, the idea that Nissan would derive any benefit from
Britain being part of EMU is frankly absurd, looking at recent
evidence of the economic situation in euroland, which continues
to hover on the brink of recession.
The Bundesbank's October 2003 report on 'Germany's
competitive position and foreign trade within the eurozone'
shows that there has been a marked increase in German foreign
trade during the past four and a half years but that monetary
union has played 'no more than a minor role in this'. Moreover,
the report states that 'German foreign trade with non-euro-area
countries has increased more sharply than intra-trade with the
euro-area partner countries'. The clear inference being that
Germany has benefited little from EMU membership and that it
has done far better in trade outside of the EU. There is no
reason to suppose that Britain's position and that of Nissan
would have been any different if we were in the eurozone now.
In fact, Britain's economic performance outside of the eurozone
has been better than all of the other EU member states.
With car purchases at record levels in Britain, 2.6 million
last year, but in decline across Europe, who does Mr Ghosen
think he is kidding? Motor-car manufacturers should stay out
of politics and would do well to remember the lessons of
Britain's last experiment with European currency
co-ordinationour disastrous membership of the ERM in the early
1990s. Interest rates soared to 15 per cent, thousands lost
their homes and unemployment rose by 72 per cent in one year.
When people are out of work and can't afford their mortgages,
the last thing they will be doing is buying cars!
********
We need no advice from this gentleman on how best to
defend our democracy
08/01/2004
Eurorealists should beware of believing that all that is
necessary to save our country is to return a Tory government.
They should remember that no party is more culpable as far as
embroiling us in the European project is concerned, recognize
that the true Eurorealist leader, IDS, has been overthrown and
make themselves aware of the current reality.
In a recent BBC programme Michael Howard declared that he was
completely committed to Britain's membership of the EU.
"Absolutely; I always have been. I've made it absolutely
clear"
Howard, when Home Secretary, masterminded the division of the
UK into Regions of the EU and has recruited Kenneth Clarke as an
adviser
These facts do not augur well for the future and should be
considered in the light of a recent article in The Times
concerning the Damascene conversion of Gisela Stuart:
********
The Labour MP credited with kicking into touch the proposed
European constitution challenged Tony Blair yesterday to do more
to end the 'creeping' intrusion of Brussels into national life.
Gisela Stuart said that a complete reassessment of the EU was
needed and that the Government should seriously question what
the organisation was for and what it should control. Ms Stuart
was Labour's representative on the convention that drew up the
draft constitution but broke ranks to denounce it and demand
that Britain refuse to approve it.
Yesterday she said: 'We need to decide the right level for
decisions to be taken. Either we give more things to Brussels or
we need to anchor decisions more firmly in national
parliaments.' She wants the latter. The MP for Birmingham
Edgbaston was relieved that Mr Blair refused to accept the
constitution last month. Her own criticism of the deal was
largely seen as sealing its fate. It was the way that the new
constitution 'crept up' that most angered her. After just six
months of debate, countries such as France and Germany put down
markers, Ms Stuart revealed. She soon found that certain issues
were simply no-go areas.
'It became clearer that certain concepts were not allowed to
be questioned.' One of those was the question of the
subsidiarity of national parliaments, the right of the Commons
to make as many decisions relevant to Britain as possible. Ms
Stuart said: 'That was completely rejected.'
After a while the no-go areas were so numerous that there was
hardly anything to talk about. 'The areas we could work in
became narrower and narrower. The last straw was that at the end
of 16 months' work together we would not take votes.'
Ms Stuart said it was time to end the idea of taking Britain
into Europe and try instead to bring Europe into Britain. She
proposes creating a Secretary of State for Europe, who should be
sent to Brussels and report back to the Commons.
Enlargement could go ahead and a streamlining of the various
EU treaties could be achieved to make Europe work better, but it
was time to end the concept of doing both things at once. 'Every
time another country comes in, we start a process of
centralising decisions. That may have reached its natural
conclusion. Widening and deepening can no longer go together.'
Detailing the extraordinary events in Brussels that led to
the bust-up over the constitution, Ms Stuart revealed that
relations between the countries were so difficult that at one
point representatives were reduced to squabbling over the words
of a well-known German children's song that used the phrase
'wider world'.
The French and German negotiators seriously underestimated Ms
Stuart's Britishness. Brought up in Munich by a mother who was a
refugee from what is now the Czech Republic and a Bavarian
father, Ms Stuart arrived in Manchester aged 18 to learn English.
'The Germans could not quite understand my attitude, they
expected me to be one of them underneath. Then they discovered
my origins and it was, "Oh my God, a Bavarian Brit!" In theory,
at least, you don't get more Eurosceptic.'
Passionately she wants the EU to work but doubts whether the
current structure is the right way. 'Twenty-five years ago we
needed strict rules and laws, it was the only way to order it,'
she said. 'Now the world has changed and our priorities have
changed and that is my problem with the convention.'
********
Ms Stuart clearly has much further to travel on her road
to the truth about the EU but she is well on her way!
For Eurorealists the lesson of all this must be that we
cannot expect salvation by voting for a particular party. Rather
we must support those of all democratic parties who oppose the
EU. This is why CIB is a cross party organisation
04/01/2004
Two novels by Michael Dobbs, Winston's War and
Never Surrender, show clearly how the British political
class of the thirties almost succeeded in betraying this country
into the hands of the Nazis by a combination of stupidity,
naivete, cowardice and, for some, the pursuit of a narrow self
interest. That they failed was due almost entirely to the
courage and will of one man, Winston Churchill, whose whole life
seemed a preparation for the task he took on in 1940.
Now we face another betrayal by our so called elites and this
time they seem on course to succeed. Despite their failure to
force through the EU constitution last month we can see that
they are determined to return to the fray again and again, until
they impose this rule by an unaccountable oligarchy upon the
free peoples of Europe.
Any who think that these pseudo fascists have been defeated
should reflect that only yesterday the EU arrest warrant came
into force, putting every democrat who dares to defy Brussels at
risk of deportation to an uncertain fate at the behest of
corrupt magistrates anywhere in the EU.
This time there is no Churchill waiting in the wings to save
us, the only mainstream politicians ready to stand up for
democracy lacking the stature that he possessed and therefore
unable to break the grip of the Vichy political class. If we are
to prevent our nation being destroyed it seems that we will need
to do it by ourselves.
02/01/2004
Go to Head of Page
Unbelievable but true
Cowardly hypocrites
Knaves or Fools?
Rewriting history
What a surprise
Disaster is looming
Same old Tories
Cultural wars
"Independence" - Summer 2004
Not in my name
Freedom of speech is becoming a joke
EU Regionalisation now threatens your life
A Cost too Far?
Warning Signs
Dead Sheep bleating
What a surprise!
The European Union is run by crooks
It's up to you now
Rag of the Year
Arrogant, selfish and mendacious
Another lunatic EU directive
Running scared
Who are the Extremists?
Towards a new European Enlightenment
One Rule For Them
Our Partners?
Give thanks for the House of Lords
Hansard 10 May 2004
European Union Legislation
11th May 2004
EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY
Let the lies begin, let the deception commence
A lesson learned
Opening shots
We must win the referendum on the EU constitution otherwise
Britain is truly finished
Cometh the hour...
FSB votes against the EU
The End of Freedom
EU constitution blown on course
The Euro isn't working
Steve Thoburn
You will obey
Goodbye to the rule of law
CIB AGM and Public Meeting
Saturday 17th April 2004
Upper Hall, Emmanuel Centre, 9-23 Marsham Street, London,
SW1
11:00 a.m (AGM)
2:30 p.m. (Public meeting)
Chairman
Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Campaign for an Independent
Britain
Speakers
Christopher Booker, Author and Journalist
Neil Herron, Campaign Director, Referendum04 and Metric
Martyrs Fund
Arrogance of the BBC finally comes home to roost
Vindicated
A letter from the Liberal Party
More stupidity from Nissan
Don't trust any of the party leaderships
Who will save us now?
Join CIB and set Britain free