July 2002

In early July a letter from the editor of this pages was published in The Times and subsequently he received a somewhat abusive letter from an affronted Europhile. A letter explaining the reasoning behind the original was sent to this gentleman but answer came there not. All three letters are shown below so that readers can see how Europhiles rely on abuse and crumble when faced with facts:

Letter in the Times:

Dear Sir,

Michael Portillo is too generous in his assessment of the motives which lie behind the creation of the European Union. Were they as benign as he believes then the nature of the debate would be very different.

However the true intentions of the architects of the European project are to enable the political and bureaucratic elite of the nations involved to escape from the need to consider the wishes of the electorate and to establish a permanent layer of government which will enjoy power without accountability.

Letter received from Europhile:

Sir

Your letter in The Times was appalling.

The pygmies of the "Campaign for an Indepdendent Britain" are not worthy to cast aspersions on the idealism of the architects of the European project, motivated as these giants of post-war reconstruction were by the need to ensure that a more unified Europe was safe from a reptition of the horrors of the first half of the 20th Century.

Yours contemptuously,

Letter sent to Europhile, which received no reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of 6th July. I apologise for not having answered before but I have been on holiday for two weeks. I am sorry that you disagree with my assessment of the undemocratic intentions of the architects of the EU but this may be partly because The Times, while kindly agreeing to print my letter, also required that it be shortened, thus losing the justification I gave for my position.

I pointed out that members of the European Parliament were expected to deal with constituencies approaching one million electors each, a clear impossibility; that the European elections now used party lists, a device which removes the choice of individuals from the electorate and allows party functionaries to select those who will take seats won; that the members of the European Parliament are not allowed to initiate legislation but may only vote upon proposals put before them by the unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission; and that the MEPs are in any case only allowed to make speeches of ninety seconds in length.

In addition to these democratic deficiencies there are also statements made by those furthering the European project which clearly indicate their contempt for democracy. I show two below but there are many more:

"I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account." (Raymond Barre, former French Prime Minister)

"The Europe of Maastricht could only have been created in the absence of democracy." (Clause Cheysson, former French Foreign Secretary)

I realise that none of the above will make the slightest difference to your views as you regard the motives of those involved as benign whereas I regard them as malign, a difference which will inevitably colour the way in which we view matters. However I would argue that the idea that the EU is in some way a protection from war is not sustainable. The peace in Europe after 1945 was maintained because of the mutually deterrent effect of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and had nothing to do with the EEC, EC, EU or whatever. It is also true that democracies do not make war on each other and, whilst I regard the EU as undemocratic, I recognize that its constituent member states are democratic (which makes the destruction of democracy by the EU institutions even more tragic). Indeed the imposition of this bureaucratic dictatorship upon the peoples of Europe makes it likely that we shall see internecine strife in the future as the disenfranchised populations seek to re-establish their rights. Civil wars are not preferable to wars between nations - that of the USA cost more lives than all her other wars combined.

As far as your comments on pygmies is concerned I must point out that it is the essence of a democracy that every man (and woman's) opinion should count for as much as any other. The idea that Monnet and his colleagues were such great men that no-one is entitled to question their proposals, or indeed motives, is frankly ludicrous. It is not a privilege universally accorded to anyone else, as the many criticisms of those such as Churchill show. Founder members of the CIB included Douglas Jay and Peter Shore, whose service to their country entitled them to voice the sincere opinion that the European project is fundamentally flawed.

I am sorry that so many people who are sincere in their belief in the benign aims of the EU should be deceived by those whose intentions are very different. As Lenin pointed out such people can be used to advance a cause which they would reject if they realised its true nature.

We will never agree on this and only time will tell which of us is correct but one can never expect unanimity within a democracy, except when the evil is as overt as the Nazi regime. Nor should we, as the expression of sincere disagreement is a fundamental feature of a free society. I feel that your description of my letter as appalling is unfair as it was not based on some irrational prejudice but on a deeply held belief in the importance of democracy and a reluctance to see it destroyed without raising my voice in protest.

Yours sincerely,

ED - As one can see Lenin was quite right. There are many in this country who would refuse to recognize the truth even if slapped across the face with it!

17 March 2002

Dear CIB,

I am what seems to be a rare breed - an Irish eurosceptic. For me, January 1st was not a day for celebration, but a sad day in the history of Ireland and the other 11 unhappy countries caught in the trap of Economic and Monetary Union.

It is disturbing that my country, which fought longer and harder for its independence than probably any other in the world, is now in the process of throwing it away - and most Irish people don't seem to mind!! I was delighted however with the NO vote to the Nice treaty (which arrogant politicians are doing their best to ignore) - until then, it seemed that to most Irish people "Europe" could do no wrong!

But what if the other EU states, in their determination to set up a fiscal cartel, decide that Ireland is guilty of "unfair tax competition" or that Ireland should now become a net contributor to the EU budget, rather than a net recipient? The Irish honeymoon with Europe might not last long!

Most people seem not to realize that they are losing a lot more than their own currency. Each country is handing over control of its monetary affairs to unelected bureaucrats and bankers who are unaccountable - by treaty - to any democratic institution, thereby surrendering a great deal of its independence. Indeed, the 12 eurozone countries have virtually ceased to be independent nations.

How can one interest rate and one monetary policy be appropriate for 12 diverse economies? When currencies are independently floating, each country can, for example, devalue/revalue its currency to adapt to international market conditions, or adjust its interest rates to take some of the sting out of recessions or slow down an overheating economy. With these corrective mechanisms gone, one size fits all however uncomfortably. Every Eurozone country now has the potential to become another Argentina.

I'm tired of hearing about the supposed success of the euro. The logistics of the changeover seem to be going smoothly enough, but the real problems will start when one or more countries find themselves in economic difficulties, but are unable to do anything to alleviate them because they are hamstrung by EMU rules. Remember that the launch of the Titanic was a great success too!

Let us consider the (minor) economic advantages - price transparency and saving on transaction costs. Neither holds much water and both pale into insignificance compared to the dangers.

The politicians seem to think the public totally incapable of making a few simple calculations to convert prices. If a car costs DM30,000 in Germany and 35 million lire in Italy, and there are 1000 lire to 1DM, it's easy to work out that it's cheaper in Germany. And if anyone really is that lazy or innumerate, calculators are cheap. And what about all the confusion as people, especially elderly people, adjust to prices in euros? But if price transparency is really such a big deal, why don't we all simply use dollars to make it easier to see what a good deal American consumers are getting?

As for transaction costs, what voters should be asked is: Are you prepared to give up your country's independence to save a few pounds when you go on holiday once or twice a year? In any event, anything eurozone residents may now save in transaction costs, they have already lost many times over through the 20% depreciation of their salaries and savings since 1999. Consumers are losing even more at home in abusive price mark-ups. And what has been the total cost to business of the changeover? Even if the euro works out in the long term, it is clearly more trouble than it is worth. As for large-scale business transactions, the markets offer many possibilities for companies to guard against exchange rate fluctuations.

I owe the reader an apology - I have largely been missing the point up to now with economic arguments. The real reason for monetary union is to further the creation of a centralized European superstate, one in which individual countries will eventually have less say in their affairs than US states. The European Commission President, Romano "Would-Be Charlemagne" Prodi, has recently stated that EMU is not economic, but political, and that the expected economic crises could be used by the EU as an excuse to bind member states closer together in ways that are now politically unacceptable, for example a common tax policy.

Politicians almost invariably show blundering ineptitude when running the economy. Now all of a sudden they are supposed to successfully merge 12 diverse economies into one? And I don't know if even one country would have met the economic convergence criteria without some very creative accounting, i.e. fiddling the figures. The markets clearly see that the euro is not a serious currency, in view of its seemingly irremediable weakness. (Before 1999, the politicians constantly claimed that the euro would be stronger than the deutschmark, without bothering to explain why that should automatically be the case).

Just about every past attempt at monetary union or fixed exchange rates has been a failure. Doesn't anyone remember the Exchange Rate Mechanism disaster of 1992? Or the collapse of the international fixed exchange rate system in the 1970s?

Economically, "Europe" is a fiasco. Politically, it is the greatest threat to democracy in Europe since World War II. Call me a dinosaur, but I actually cling to such quaint ideas as democratic control, the individuality of nations, government respecting the will of the people, and national self-determination.

An Irish friend of mine said to me once that with the globalized economy, national sovereignty was now a joke. Only in Western Europe is it fashionable to think so - the rest of the world takes sovereignty very seriously indeed. Elsewhere, the trend is towards MORE national independence and the breakup of supranational states. Ask a few Palestinians or Estonians if they think sovereignty is a joke!

The only positive aspect of the EU that I can think of is freedom of movement of goods, services, labor and capital, freedoms which even now are incomplete. This could be achieved by a simple free-trade agreement and an agreement on freedom of movement, such as those which exist between Britain and Ireland and between Nordic countries.

I can see no justification for churning out thousands of petty regulations every year to micro-manage every aspect of the economy, or merging the nations of Europe together into an artificial superstate. Indeed it is virtually a law of history that artificial and supranational states eventually disintegrate. The sooner the whole sorry mess comes apart, the better for all the peoples of Europe.

Liam McCarney, Geneva, Switzerland.

ED - What can I say other than that you have enumerated most of the arguments which we in CIB have been making for years. Unfortunately for Eire the people have supported entry to the Euro and their nation is now trapped. As a small and militarily weak country they will not be able to escape so will now reap what they have sown by believing the word of politicians. However, if the UK comes to its senses and leaves the EU before it is too late, that will be the opportunity for Eire, as we are too strong to be physically prevented from leaving and Eire could then follow on our coattails. If they then choose Germany over Britain they will come to regret it but that will be their decision.

06 March 2002

Dear CIB,

Glancing through my copy of today's Sun, I came across a small item on page 15, entitled "EU Threat to Price of Milk and Loaves". Oh dear, I thought, what now? It appears that the masters in Brussels want to stop supermarkets using loss leaders and their "buy one, get one free" offers.

The reason, the paper explains, is that it is part of anti-competitive proposals floated by Brussels.

I am unable to work because of health reasons, so I have to live on a very fixed income. These new proposals will mean that I will have to pay more for an already unduly expensive basket of shopping. It annoys me I have to pay more anyway for even the basics because of the EU policies on everything under the sun, and now the end of the special offers which help my pennies go round will hit me quite hard.

Oh yes, I forgot, the EU are rather keen on the UK imposing VAT on basic foodstuffs. Remind me to send my thanks to Brussels when my shopping bill goes up yet again after this has been imposed.

The europhiles are always preaching about the "benefits and advantages" of being in the EU.

Maybe it is because I am at the lower end of the income scale and relatively uneducated that I can't see the many "benefits" and the "advantages" of being in the EU. Can someone tell what they are, please?

Nick Priest

ED - You should not apologise for recognizing the truth. Dr Alan Sked, founder of the UKIP, and one of the leading eurorealists in this country, was once a supporter of the European project and ran the largest study group in any university to research the benefits of membership. What he discovered was that there were no benefits for the UK, only great and growing costs, both economic and political and he has since devoted his efforts to alerting the people to the reality of membership of this organisation. Therefore the answer to your question is NO, as there are no benefits and advantages to being in the EU (unless of course you are a member of the political elite)

05 March 2002

Dear CIB,

It was very clear that free healthcare for the elderly came out as the top priority in the BBC NHS poll. When questioned, Tony Blair stated that this would cost one billion pounds, a billion pounds better spent elsewhere. He also said that the government had some "tough choices" to make before the budget.

It is also very clear that Tony Blair wants us to move even closer to the EU. All the major opinion polls indicate that the British People want less integration with Europe, with a large proportion wanting us to pull out of the EU. The United Kingdom pays billions of pounds annually for membership of the EU, and every family has to pay more for basic items of food because of EU policies on agriculture and fisheries. The amount of money saved by repealing the mass of regulations, or even pulling out of the EU altogether would be astronomical, more than enough to pay for free care for the elderly, revamp the NHS, invest in public transport, public services, police, fire services, etc.

The only "tough choice" Tony Blair has to make is to decide if his political dream of being a major European player is more important than the health and welfare of the British people. I know what the British people would choose, but I fear the Prime Minister will ignore the people in the pursuit of his place in the EU's ivory towers.

Nick Priest

ED - I have no doubt that if given a choice between improving public services or submerging the UK into the single European state Mr Blair will choose the latter. It is time that those who believe in the principles upon which the Labour party was founded woke up to the truth that their party is in the hands of people who are laughing at them as they pursue their own self interest at the expense of everyone else.

03 March 2002

Dear CIB,

I am increasingly alarmed and shocked by the tactics being used by our (puppet) government, in order to prepare the way for our entry into the Euro. I am even more alarmed (yet sadly, not surprised) by the sheer apathy of most British people towards these developments. At the end of the day, I have to hand it to the EU (and their accomplices in treason, the British government) for the subtle means they are deploying in order to hoodwink us. We are virtually sleepwalking into the clutches of an evil dictatorship! WAKE UP, BRITAIN!

I never thought that I would have such little trust in (or such a high level of cynicism towards) a British government, but it saddens me to say: I honestly believe that the "referendum" on the Euro will actually be rigged, if need be. They want us to join their "euro" and they will get it, by hook or by crook (probably the latter).

Whereas the Soviet Union controlled the masses by pointing the gun of brute force and fear at their heads, ("Obey us or else!") our regime uses more subtle methods. Take the "opinion polls" for example. It has occurred to me that these polls can be used to brainwash people into accepting whatever "referendum" results are desired. How? Simple! All they need to do is (over a period of time) publish faked poll results which gradually swing in favour of whatever they want to implement.

Thus, two years ago, 75% of the public were against the Euro...now the polls are shifting, and reportedly, it's more like 60% against. I'll bet you ANYTHING that this time next year the polls will show it 50% for, 50% against. (That's all they'll need, in order to publish a "convincing" referendum result of, say, 52% in favour, and Bingo! They've got away with it!)

The so-called "poll results" can be faked at every stage, and who will question their veracity? No-one! After all, "the polls all predicted it"! Forgetting, of course, that newspaper editors, if not already under the thumb of the government, can be purchased / blackmailed / bought over, to publish whatever is required of them. So then, if around 40% of the British public are now in favour of joining the Euro, how come the vast majority (well over 60%, at any rate) of people I know are utterly against it? Who are these 40% of Euro-enthusiasts? "Hello... is anybody out there..???" (copyright "Titanic" J Cameron 1997) !

To be pragmatic about it, I have to accept that we probably can't beat the EU commissioners on this "above board" level. They've got the money, resources, advisors.... I think that, for the moment, we're sunk. Goodbye democracy (for a while). I look forward to being part of an underground resistance movement, once we're submerged in the EU and the people have all realised (too late) what we've sleepwalked into. To your political party: Thanks for trying, but get ready to be outlawed fairly soon. In the long run (ie, probably after my lifetime) I still believe we'll get freedom and democracy back again.

Jon Laurence

ED - I quite understand your feelings on the issue and I fear that indeed we will lose our democracy. However I hope that we have not yet reached the stage where such a blatant distortion of our entire system as you predict will take place. It is more likely that the political class will indeed win a referendum, but as a result of lies which are believed by an apathetic electorate, rather than by overt fraud. If this does happen then the future will be very black and the path to freedom difficult to find.

For the moment we must fight on and hope that the truth will prevail.

03 March 2002

Dear CIB,

The recent utterances of the hypocrite Peter Hain are astounding. His timetable of entry into the European Single Currency suggested in his interview with Le Figaro is madness. Should the British populace vote for entry next spring (extremely unlikely without a rigged referendum) then we would then be locked into the exchange rate mechanism at the current Sterling values for the subsequent two years before entry when the rate would be set in stone for ever. Currently Sterling is at a very uncompetitive rate against the Euro and I don't see this changing significantly in the next twelve months given the inherent weakness of the Euro.

Hain would have us keep this disadvantage for the lifetime of this dreadful experiment, the fool. I had a lot more time for him when he disrupted Rugby matches.

John Adlington

ED - Everything you say is correct. Hain is a shining example of youthful idealism being replaced by cynical self interest in later life.

10 February 2002

Dear CIB,

I entered your website in hope of gaining some useful information for research purposes into the Euro. I am an undergraduate at university, and before being assigned this project had only a minor interest in the UK' s involvement into the Euro. However now I can say that I am for the membership of the Euro if it means that we (the UK) rid of insufferable rubbish, such as the content of your website.

I was so shocked by the immaturity, pettiness and also racism displayed in your 'Euro questions' that it became almost laughable. I didn't believe that people could be so small minded; your answers lacked any credible arguments and as a result resembled one of a spoilt five-year olds. I just hope that the creators of this website are old enough to even have the right to stir up the argument of the war (which is effectively what they had to resort to).

It is this type of narrow-mindedness and unintelligence (sic) that creates the UK's problematic society. Perhaps if you opened your eyes to the cultural diversity and benefits that membership will bring (does the UK not have one of the worst healthcare systems in the UK?!) and stop making ridiculous predictions as to our future in this ground-breaking association.

Do you honestly believe that we are under threat of conspiracy from the Germans and French! Please, grow up

Angela Thomas

P.S. I am fully aware that you will not print this on your website; which of course doesn't mean to say that it isn't full of propaganda like the pro-euro ones - surely not?!

ED - You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are endless articles, speeches etc. which present 'credible arguments' as to why membership of the EU is a disaster, not merely for the British people, but for all the peoples of Europe. You have not read the website otherwise you would know that we have CIB members who are themselves French, German, etc. and that we are also closely associated with democratic opposition to the EU throughout Europe. The accusations of racism are absurd - the Chairman of CIB is a Labour Peer who has just lost the Labour whip for supporting the Socialist Alliance candidate against the Tory turncoat in Wigan, I am a life long trade unionist (obviously a member since well before you were born) and the Foreign Editor of the Morning Star also attends our NEC meetings.

I realise that university degrees are now given out like toilet paper but in my day we researched matters, not merely glanced at something in the light of preconceived prejudice and then spouted abuse.

Of course we don't think the French and German people are conspiring against us. What we do know is that the political class of Europe is conspiring against the peoples of Europe. Tony Blair has more in common with his counterparts in France, Germany etc. than he does with his own electorate and the EU is the perfect vehicle for allowing the politicians and the bureaucrats to replace democratic accountability with a regime of diktats. The EU is a capitalist club of the worst sort.

You should try growing up and learning something about the real world, not the adolescent world of student politics. Do you really think that Tony Benn, the Socialist Labour party, the Communist Party, the Morning Star, plus major unions like Unison are all involved in some sort of right wing conspiracy - surely not!

I am quite happy to put your letter here - if you read the others you will find quite a few from opponents of CIB. In fact I welcome them - they give us the opportunity to show just how shallow is the thinking of Europhiles.

Some may fear that yours is the voice of youth but fortunately we have the evidence that vast numbers of young people are coming to recognize the EU for what it is, so we need not fear the judgement of youth. Rather it is the outmoded political project of the post war generation of failed politicians which should fear for its future.

Strength of the Swiss Franc

5 January 2002

Dear CIB,

If national currencies cannot survive, then why haven't the Swiss joined the EU and surrendered their strong Swiss Franc for the Euro? No one can convince me that the Swiss Franc - a benchmark in international financial trading for decades, is not a strong and viable currency, and likely to remain so.

Julian Wilson

ED - You are quite right. Switzerland is a shining example of a small and efficient nation which needs no association with a vast power bloc to make a success of its way of life. Those who talk about Britain being at the heart of Europe should try looking at a map. Switzerland is right at the centre of the continent but will not touch the EU with a bargepole. If only we were as sensible as the Swiss.

4 January 2002

Dear CIB,

I am a German Eurosceptic living in the United States. Having watched the life span of the Euro, at a safe distance, I have concluded that the EU could be referred to as he EUSSR European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It has angered me that recently, the Labour government of Britain has been pushing towards an end of the 1000 year old œ sterling.

Britain has, and should always be, separate from the continent. Whenever the Europeans attempted to form any type of programme, it always ended in disaster. Does anyone remember the EMU? It nearly destroyed Britain and Europe, and that had an escape valve! Imagine, if the Euro, similar in more aspects to the Russian rouble than any currency, took Britain over. What if the two economies where mere ships meeting in the night, but pulling apart soon after. Imagine if Britain, in an attempt to salvage what little it had left, abandoned the Euro, it would spell disaster for Britain, and Europe.

I do not mean to state that free trade between Europe and Britain is a bad thing, but there are more constructive ways to do so. When European politicians say that a United States of Europe is a positive idea, they seem to completely forget that in the beginning, the United States of America was a band of small, and under developed settlements. Not long established nations, rushing into a suicide mission.

ED - It is good to see confirmation of our contention that resistance to the EU exists throughout Europe. Everything you say is true and merely emphasizes how the whole Euro experiment is a wildly dangerous gamble by idiotic politicians.

3 January 2002

Dear CIB,

First of all: In my opinion the people of every nation have the right to decide for themselves if they want to have a part in a multinational agreement or not. If they make the wrong decision, there should be no one else to blame. I also think that such a decision should be taken after careful considering all the relevant facts. What was good before, does not have to be good now and surely doesn't have to be good in the future.

So far I have described the ideal world. As The Lord of The Rings or The Nibulungen are fiction, so is the ideal world.

I think we have to realise that the world is changing very rapidly. There no longer is a national economy or national politics, like it or not. The UK today is no longer an economic and political island of the coast of Europe and hasn't been for more than 50 years. You need trade, international agreements and some form of international control as much as other country does.

As the globalising of the economy (free trade!) is unstoppable, in my view, in time even the US and the EU as they now are, will be to small to control the dictates of the same economy they are striving to create, especially since the governments of the world are ceding more and more control to the market by privatising their assets. In the end greed (the Dollar or Euro or Yen) rules and all the bickering of the present day is irrelevant.

Turning back to history will accomplish nothing because your former trading partners (colonies) have now established independent links with other countries (US, Japan, Europe) and can, have and want to manage without you. And as politics follow economics, even if you pull out of the EU, as a relatively small economy, you will be forced to follow one of the leaders.

Your choice is to follow the US or to follow the EU. Both will bully you by putting up tariff walls and other hindrances if you don't follow their example and decisions.

So your choice is not to be independent or not, but which leader you will wish to follow. I my view it is better to join Europe and the Euro and have some influence, as to pull out and have no influence at all. As an inhabitant of an even smaller nation I don't like it, but there seems to be no other way to avoid the clashes which have tortured the world in the last century.

By the way: I am very disappointed that CIB needs to use examples like the USSR and Nazi-Germany and a lot of name-calling to convince the people of Britain to be anti-EU or anti-European. In other words, you seem to be unable to present your case in a cool and analytical manner, using facts instead of emotions. This places you in the same league as Al-Quaida and American far-right religious groups, who need to appeal to people using the same sort of tactics. I would think that at least in your use of language, you would somehow be more civilised.

Jos

ED - We are not anti European but anti EU. Indeed we have many French, German and other European members. It is not a question of name calling when one points out that all bureaucratic dictatorships share the same characteristics and that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic. Corpus Juris, once implemented, will suppress free speech throughout the EU.

You could not be more wrong about large and small countries. It is the smaller and efficient units that succeed, not lumbering giants. The contention that the fourth largest economy in the world cannot survive without surrendering its political independence is rubbish.

It is our opponents who use emotive language, calling us xenophobes or morons when we are neither, while we point out time and again the facts about the EU. It is an organisation designed to make the political elites unmoveable and which will destroy the democracy which we have built over centuries. Your attempt to compare us with murdering fanatics is laughable as we believe in freedom, democracy and the right of peoples to determine their own future, unlike most of the supporters of the European project.

5 May2001

The EU as another Soviet Union

Dear CIB,

After browsing through your website I must say I was glad to hear you say what I have said since I have understood what the EU is about. These are the frightening similarities it has with the former Soviet Union.

Firstly, it envies the United States and wants to rival it. Although I was only a small child, I still remember the possibilities of nuclear conflicts during the Cold War. The EU wants its own military and nuclear capabilities. Does this mean that children in ten years time will be born under the scary and dangerous possibilities that I was born under in February 1986? By the way the EU is going I don't think I am over reacting at all. I don't believe that the so called Rapid Reaction Force will remain at a weak 100,000 men, especially the way the bureaucrats keep using the words "embryo" (to a proper army) and "Superpower".

Although I hate America treating us like a puppet state, I will also hate the fact of paying taxes to a corrupt gang to pay for a nuclear arsenal and (perhaps) a 2,000,000 strong European Federal Army at the same time!

Another similarity the EU has with the Soviet Union is its inability to tell the truth and go on "living a life it can't afford". It wastes time on the most pathetic of subjects, just like the SU.

Its politicians keep saying of the excellent benefits it brings to poor areas. It might do, but what happens when their beloved EU follows the SU to the history dustbin? As far as I am concerned the EU only benefits the political elite. They only support it because they want to be the first President of the next Superpower. I think Tony Blair should give up there, because he too soft to rule a State that would need to have "Iron Fist" discipline to keep together.

Another step backward is the Bully boy attitude the EU has towards weak nations, as one writer used, Austria. The same way the SU bullied most of Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.

Britain in Europe says we are clinging on to the past because we refuse to accept Britain joining the Euro. They say it is an economic case, but I wrote to them and made a few points. If the EU is the future why has the SU and Yugoslavia, both artificial states broke up and gone? They (europhiles) say that Britain would be Britain if we joined the Euro. Was Kazakhstan "Kazakhstan" when she was behind the SU. No she wasn't. She was the mere Kazakh SSR and used the Soviet Rouble as money.

Also, we are told we will still be independent, yet why do newly independent nations plan to produce their own money before everything else?

Anyway CIB, keep up the good work and persuade people about the bad side of the euro. I think you are winning the argument, as the europhiles won't admit what they support. I just hope, like the Soviet Union the EU fails and once again we can live without the threat of a new Cold War and being locked behind a new Iron Curtain.

Matthew O'Dowd

ED - You are quite correct in the parallels you draw between the EU and the Soviet Union although of course the same underlying similarities exist with all totalitarians states, of the left such as the Soviet Union, and the right, such Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy.

Many try to characterise the EU as a socialist entity but nothing could be further from the truth. The nearest model is the corporatist state created by Mussolini where all the organs of power, the government, the trade union leadership and the major corporations conspired against democracy and the people to ensure that they formed the elite. The EU offers the giant multi national corporations the opportunity to by pass the nation state and to impose their will on the ordinary people, while their allies, the politicians and the bureaucrats sell their souls for their own personal advantage.

It is up to the British people to wake up and take back the destiny of their nation from the elite who are destroying it. Unfortunately they seem more interested in the activities of so called celebrities and in dreadful programs like 'Big Brother' than they do in what is happening to their own country. Perhaps they have lived too long in a benign democracy to understand that it is the exception rather than the rule, and that it is a fragile thing, easily destroyed if people of goodwill do not persist in its defence. It is said that people get the government they deserve so it may be that those who cannot raise their eyes from the trivial and the prurient are doomed to lose their freedom. If they do we shall not regain it for generations, if ever.

29 April 2001

What is to be done?

For a long time now I have been anti-EU (and proud of it). However, having children I am obviously interested in their future, and would like to know or have some idea of a Britain in 20 years time , presuming we carry on down the undemocratic route and totally commit the UK to the super-state. Can you give me some idea? I can only see a police state, where every aspect of our daily lives are intruded by the state, where if you are not of a belief for the 'Union', then you will be ostracised.

However, parties like the UKIP, CIB etc ... seem to be losing the fight for freedom, the public don't seem to be that interested, 'well what can we do about it?', so presuming the roller-coaster of the 'union' will eventually get its way, will there be 'an underground movement'?

What IS the way to get the message across and how can the CIB get the general public interested without the media, and having a mainstream political party? OK, a number of questions there, but some idea of the future would be nice!!

PS. Great, informative website by the way !

Dave

ED - I can only agree with your analysis. We in the British Resistance movement can only do so much and, if the British people fail to rouse themselves, they will indeed lose it all. This is not unique as other nations have done the same and the we should never forget that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. If we had access to greater financial resources it would help but the apathetic nature of the British, who only awake at the last moment is the major problem. At the end of the day the people must save themselves and, if they do nothing, the nightmare you foresee will come to pass.

25 February 2001

An exchange of letters with the President of the European Commission

A lady has written to the website, attaching a letter which she sent to Prodi and the reply she received:

Dear Commission President, Romano Prodi,

Having just read your letter regarding the proposal for a Regulation on the status and financing of European political parties, based on Article 38 of the Treaty, I feel it is necessary to write to you concerning these and other comments in your speech of the 24th January 2001.

You say that "the Commission proposes a system under which any European party is entitled to public financing provided it is registered with the European Parliament and its articles of association comply with the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights according to an independent assessment to be carried out by the European Parliament"

There seems to be a 'limit' applied in as much as acceptance is there, provided that parties are sufficiently "European".

I Sir, do not belong to any 'Party'. Here in Britain, if all 'Members' to any political party were to be added together and taken away from the total of people who live on this Island, there is the strong possibility that the 'none' Members would be greater than those who actually belong to parties. We are whatever the outcome, a very large Party of None-Members.

The funds you give out so generously to Parties who go along with your European Dream, are not your funds, they do not belong to you Sir. They are moneys that every worker in the fifteen Nation States have contributed to, whether it be in the Nation State's Budget contributions, or from 'own resources'. We have paid a great deal over many years, and many would agree that it has been too great and heavy a price to pay.

The more you look to be 'unfair' in your decisions, the more likely the European Dream will turn into a nightmare. Perhaps if these 'other parties' that are not given a fair share of funding could officially opt out of being in the Union, maybe that would make it all right? It could be that the number of people 'out' would be greater than those 'in'? Perhaps this will be the start of the disintegration of the European Union?.

The European Union (now to be called the Union) is either for all the people, or it will become for none at all. It cannot become a Union for just the people who are living the same European dream.

To exclude any group of people is indeed discrimination (for they, whether they have wanted to or not, have had to pay their dues), and you really want people to accept a Charter of Fundamental Rights? As a Constitution eventually?

Certainly Nation States 'working together' have no need to have a "Constitution", and particularly for an organisation that is seen to be as unfair as the EU. It is as if you have just opened 'a window' for all to see exactly how one sided is this European Union.

We are to respect other people's beliefs? Their rights to thoughts, words and deeds etc, etc? The Members of the European Parliament and the Commission have to show that they understand the Charter first.

By going along with discrimination of this kind is to go against any fine words spoken that is meant to bring about an even, level playing field for all the people who pay your salaries in the Commission. Yes, we are coming to realise that the busy bee workers are keeping many people in the 'way into which they have become accustomed', the jobs for the many thousands that occupy those great palaces in which you all work.

By excluding a group of people, in such a casual off hand manner, may also be seen as the start of the slippery slope that once led to the extermination of another group of people. Yes Sir this is how it all starts, have we not seen similar happen in Kosovo?

Your European Union is a mix of all sorts of people, all different in their ways, beliefs, and thinking, accept them for that difference, but do not exclude them.

For too long now, moneys, to which we have all contributed one way of another, have been given for the "support of organisations advancing the idea of Europe". Over the years it has been millions of pounds, (or Euro's). This too is wrong and should stop forthwith.

The more Members of the European Parliament and the Commission, and yes, even Council of Minister's think this way, the less likely are the ordinary people likely to vote or look favourable upon the Union.

You are wrong, totally wrong in your thinking, it really is the first step in the exclusion of a group of people, but not only that, you are being seen to be using their money with which to do it. If it is in the Treaty in such a form, then the Treaty is wrong. I urge you to think again.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer

Commission President, Romano Prodi,

Rue de la Loi 200, B - 1049 Bruxelles.

Brussels, 9 February 2001

SG(01)D/600.907

Dear Ms Palmer,

The President has asked me to reply to your letter of 31 January 2001 on the issue of funding for European political parties. Thank you for taking the trouble of writing to express your views on this important issue.

European political parties are recognised by the Treaty (Article 191) as having an important and positive role to play in expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.

Furthermore, in making the proposal for a regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties, the Commission was acting in accordance with the express wish of the directly elected European Parliament, the body to which the Commission is politically responsible.

Given that the European Union obviously can and should only fund European and not national parties, it is clearly appropriate that in order to qualify for funding parties should demonstrate an adequate degree of representativity at European level.

The proposal does not place any political conditions on political parties other than the basic requirement of accepting democratic values. New parties can be created and receive funding provided they accept democratic values, as defined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and show themselves to be representative across the European Union.

I hope this helps at least to clarify the objectives of our proposal and the reasons why we have put it forward,

Yours sincerely,

J-C. EECKHOUT,

Director

ED - This exchange of letters demonstrates the pointlessness of appealing to the better instincts of the dictators of Brussels, as clearly they do not possess any. The fact that they can speak of 'accepting democratic values' but then add the proviso 'to be representative across the European Union' shows either stupidity or deliberate hypocrisy. If a British political party, while fully accepting democratic values, wishes the UK to leave the EU, how can this be representative of the voters of other nations? Of course it cannot so the whole scheme is intended to fund only those parties which will bend the knee to Brussels. It is the same idea as used in Soviet Russia when you could stand for election, provided that you recognized the sole primacy of the Communist Party!

10 September 2000

Blame the message, and the messenger.

Is the socialist/Federalist model of The European Union so fragile that it cannot tolerate the slightest degree of what are increasingly being viewed as non conformist political opinions and activities. Austria, enduring sanctions imposed because Joerg Haider's Freedom Party was able to solicit a modest amount of democratic approval for its right-wing views, is evidence of a reducing commitment to democratic process within the EU in favour of a legal conveyor belt which would rubber stamp, and then enforce the communities political intolerance's, and prejudices on the basis that error of opinion is illegal. Political debate by these newcomers to Democracy, may have failed to moderate support for right wing views in Europe. But the weakness is not in the democratic process, I believe it is in the Federalist message, and integrity of the messengers. An estimated œ6 Billion goes missing from Community funds every year due to incompetence and fraud. The European Commission, at the very heart of the EU, was itself forced to resign en-bloc in March 99 following allegations of financial irregularities, and with a senior figure like Helmut Kohl facing allegations of misappropriating party funds, the Federalists have quite deservedly created for themselves and their system a shabby image which would have allowed almost anybody, including the far right to take the moral high ground. Lacking the credibility to present a reasoned political argument, the Federalists are now using a legal framework in order to deny a member Country unrestricted access to democracy.

Could the UK face sanctions on a similar basis in the future?, i.e. they did not like the outcome of our referendum on the single currency. The display of arrogance towards Austria provides a disturbing insight into the dark forces of European Federalism which will hopefully, further diminish British enthusiasm for the EU's vision of a Super-state, run by an unaccountable, dysfunctional and possibly corrupt bureaucracy, in favour of our tolerating diverse political opinions, and maintaining our own Parliamentary Democracy. A course infinitely preferable to the restrictions on democracy, and freedom of expression, which historically do little other than provided argument for violence, and extremism.

Tony Yates.

ED - I agree with you that the European Union has shown great arrogance in its attempt to dictate to the peoples of individual member states which political party they should support. This is not to say that I, or the democratic anti EU movement in the UK, has any sympathy for extreme right wing or xenophobic views and, indeed, we view the growth of such attitudes in the old East Germany with great concern. However, were a German government to choose to espouse the same views as Haider, it is doubtful whether the other EU states would impose sanctions, given that they are at their best only when bullying smaller nations. This affair shows that it is a fallacy to believe that the EU preserves peace as, by its own actions, and indeed by its very existence, it provokes nationalist sentiment in nations which see their governments becoming subservient to Brussels. Rather than relying on meaningless dreams of European integration we in the UK should remain vigilant, seeking friendship with all, but being capable of defending our own interests when necessary.

As you warn it is indeed likely that the arrogant dictators of Brussels may seek to interfere in our domestic politics, branding all who refuse to bend the knee to Brussels as xenophobes, and outlawing organisations such as CIB and the Democracy Movement. If this should happen, and not be successfully resisted, then that would mark the end of democracy in this country. Nothing could be more likely to promote extremism within the UK than such bullying and it is to be hoped that even the lunatics of the EU will recognize that fact.

07 July 2000

Letters to the Times

The author of these pages recently had a letter printed in the Times which provoked a response to which a further letter was written. The letters involved are reproduced below:

Dear Sir,

There can indeed be no doubt that the aim of Germany is to create a European federal superstate, given that in November 1998 Fischer said "Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age" and in January 1999 Schroder proclaimed "National sovereignty in foreign and security policy will soon prove itself to be a product of the imagination". However you are too sanguine in your belief that the French are seeking to rein in these German ambitions, particularly when you appeal to the memory of Schuman and Monnet, as the latter was in no doubt of the ultimate goal of the European project when, in April 1952, he stated "The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State".

It is not the issue of the single currency which has paralysed successive British Prime Ministers but the unspoken realisation that, thirty years ago, the UK took the wrong path by joining the EEC, and that, by turning her back on her history, she is suffering increasingly from a social, economic and political dislocation which can only be rectified by withdrawal from the European Union.

Yours faithfully,

Response from Stuart Bonar:

Colin Bullen represent the Campaign for an Independent Britain. Independent of what precisely?

Independent of the international economy? It would have to be when Britain gains huge amounts of security from enjoying secure access to the 370 million - soon to be half a billion - European consumers in the EU.

Independent of global influence? it would have to be when Britain's influence, not only with 14 other European nations but with other nations around the globe, benefits hugely from membership of the EU.

Independent of British public opinion? Definitely, when your own opinion polls show that 62 per cent of the British public want to stay in, which is the highest level for almost a decade.

Response to Stuart Bonar:

Dear Sir,

Stuart Bonar asks from what the Campaign for an Independent Britain seeks independence. It is to be independent of a corporatist state run by unaccountable politicians and unelected bureaucrats, independent of a European Central Bank which will direct fiscal policy without regard to the needs of the British people, independent of a federal state which will subsume our armed services into pan European forces, sending British troops to die in wars that are not in Britain's interests, independent of a Napoleonic legal system which will see the end of the presumption of innocence and trial by jury, independent of an inward looking and protectionist block which will cut us off from the access to the global economy so necessary to our future prosperity.

As far as global influence is concerned does Mr Bonar really believe that California, a significant part of the world's only superpower, nevertheless has more influence than true nation states such as Norway or Australia. Britain as a province of the United States of Europe would disappear from the world stage upon which she has played so large a part for so many centuries.

Finally, if Mr Bonar is under the impression that the British people want to be part of the European Union he should join me on one of our stalls at county shows, or in town centres, where the passion shown by the overwhelming majority in their denunciations of that organisation give the lie to the results of dubious opinion polls.

Yours faithfully,

I leave it to readers to decide who is right!

07 April 2000

The Weakness of the Euro

In view of the depreciation of the euro against sterling is it not time that this government exercised our rights under the Maastricht Treaty to prevent such a competitive depreciation?

Article 109m of the original Treaty states that "each Member State shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest". Presumably drafted by the Commission, believing its own rhetoric that the euro would be strong to stop currency dumping, it is apt that it should have backfired so spectacularly.

If Tony Blair is serious about "working night and day" for Rover, why cannot he use this simple mechanism to protect British manufacturers against the weak euro, which all agree is a major contributor to this crisis?

Or is this just another example of the asymmetric relationship we have with the EU, proving once again that any claimed benefit of being part thereof, is illusory?

Douglas Ellison

ED - I think your last sentence sums up the position admirably. If we had allowed sterling to depreciate to the extent that euroland has tolerated with the Euro we should have quite rightly been attacked from all sides for undermining fair competition. However, as we are well aware, different rules apply to the hypocrites of mainland Europe. Of course, once the Euro makes some sort of recovery the stagnant economies of Euroland will then be exposed to reality and the whole project will begin to collapse.

22 October 1999

What about Canada?

Why do commentators keep harping on about how Britain couldn't prosper outside an economic block as large as the E.U. unless we join E.M.U.? What nonsense! The United States has a successful single currency, and is just as large an economy as Euroland, and yet no-one is pressurising Canadians to join the Dollar. Maybe because Canada has the best standard of living of any country in the world! We're economically much bigger than Canada, so of course we can survive, and prosper, as an independent country just as they do.

Paul Chapman

ED - You are, of course, quite correct. However, the answer to your question as to why the obvious seems to bypass most commentators is that they are working to a different agenda. The European equivalent of NAFTA was EFTA, in which sovereign nations co-operated without losing any of their political independence, whereas the EU is a device for creating a federal United States of Europe and therefore extinguishing the separate existence of the participants. The economic arguments used by the Europhiles are not true, merely self serving, but they know the majority of the population is unlikely to take sufficient interest in such matters for their statements to be effectively challenged, except by those such as CIB, who are dedicated to publishing the truth. Please join us in writing to the media every time these distortions appear as only the light of truth will expose the true intentions of the federalists.

18 October 1999

"Britain In Europe"

Dear CIB, I was so outraged by the ridiculously named "Britain In Europe" website I felt impelled to write to them. Below is a copy of that letter, which you may find of interest. Please feel free to publish it on your website as you deem appropriate - if at all!

I find it deeply offensive that, throughout your website, you incessantly use the term "anti-Europeans" to describe people who are opposed to either the European Union or some aspects of it. I myself am to some extent opposed to the EU, mostly because of the lack of democratic accountability within its institutions, and I am certainly opposed to the UK joining EMU in the short term because the conditions are not right - and moreover I regard it as a primarily political project in any case.

I do not regard myself in any way "anti-European" and would be insulted if anyone were to suggest so - indeed I have friends in Belgium, Greece and France. In my opinion opposing the EU is no different to opposing any other political or economic organisation. Opposing the French Government's decision to conduct nuclear tests does not render one "anti-French". Opposing the Israeli Governments policies does not make one anti-Semitic. Do we hear the Government referring to SNP members as anti-British?

The European Union is not "Europe". "Anti-European" implies a racist or xenophobic reaction to the peoples of Europe in general. While no doubt there are such individuals, I do not think this justifies your usage of the term. Indeed it seems to imply that EU membership is some sort of qualification for being "European". In or out of the EU, Britain is "in Europe", just as Norway, Switzerland etc. are. Britain might one day decide to exit the EU. It can never, of course, leave Europe. At the very most we can be Europeans who are different from other Europeans!

Regrettably I can only assume that the term is used because it makes for lurid headlines and attaches connotations of racism/xenophobia for those individuals to oppose British membership of the EU or even membership of EMU. In closing, I will say that you and your associates are obviously sincere in your beliefs and I completely respect your rights to have your opinions, as I have mine - but I fear you do yourselves no good and earn no credit by referring to "anti-Europeans".

I believe it is quite disgraceful that this group should rely on labelling anyone opposed to the EU "extremist" or "anti-European". There is of course much extremism regarding the EU: the extremism that to leave is "unthinkable" and must never be considered. Fortunately, the "Britain in Europe" group is so inept and misses the target by such a wide margin I doubt if they will have any real effect.

Richard Gregory

ED - I agree with everything you say about the deliberate use of the term 'anti European' when describing those opposed to the EU. Only two weeks ago I was in a Parisian restaurant with French friends who would be amazed to hear me described as being xenophobic or in anyway being prejudiced against anyone on the basis of their nationality, or racial background. I believe that the glory of Europe lies in her diversity, her culture and the democratic institutions which have been built over centuries. I, and my colleagues, are not ignorant xenophobes, but people convinced that the EU is on the way to becoming a bureaucratic dictatorship, which will be a disaster for all her peoples, not just the British. To be against a political institution is not the same thing as being opposed to other nations.

I hope that you are right about the 'Britain in Europe' campaign - they do not even have sufficient courage in their convictions to espouse openly the federal state in which they believe. Those members of the Conservative party's old guard who sat alongside Tony Blair have devoted their political careers to a pursuit of the United States of Europe but they clearly no longer command much support within their own party. Far from being 'big hitters' or 'big beasts of the Tory jungle' they are the rather pathetic remnants of that group who led the party astray in the 1960s and are only now in the course of being finally ejected.

16 May 1999

Why bother?

If the case for withdrawal is as clear as you say it is how is it that you only represent a small minority and anyway why do you bother when it is obvious that you will never win?

K Mitchell

ED - In the first place I would take issue with your contention that we represent only a minority viewpoint. The fact is that polls continue to show that a majority of people in this country are opposed to EMU and only this week the Blairite pressure group Britain in Europe admitted that they were losing the argument on a single currency, while a poll conducted by Business for Sterling found two thirds of union members opposed to EMU.

The main problem we face is that the minority who do favour UK membership of the EU happen to be best placed to make their views known, as they are the political class and their supporters in the media and among the chattering classes. The fact that the latter support it should indicate its true worth as when were they ever on the sensible side of any issue? The support given by the politicians is not surprising as they are the only beneficiaries of membership, as can be seen from the way they rush for posts in Brussels when they have failed in domestic politics.

Unfortunately it is a myth that the majority of human beings can be persuaded by logical argument, the truth being that they make up their mind on a subject almost at once and then use a selection of the facts presented to rationalise the position they have adopted. If this were not so then the debating of issues would result in many more conversions than actually take place. The position individuals take is determined by their perspective and is therefore subjective and emotional rather than objective and logical. As the majority of the electorate tend to disinterest themselves in politics, and allow their general attitudes to be shaped by the mass media, it is all the more remarkable that, despite the best efforts of the elite, the general mood remains sceptical and fundamentally hostile to a federal superstate. In reality we do not need to convert, merely to help provide a means for the sound instincts of the British people to find expression.

As to why we bother it is because we believe in the rightness of the cause and for no other reason. Why do you think Peers like Lords Stoddart, Shore and Pearson, who do not need to seek election, rich men like Paul Sykes of the Democracy Movement and Michael Holmes of UKIP, who do not need political careers, and successful academics like Dr Alan Sked, who founded UKIP and could have a very easy time among the European intellectual elite, chose to place themselves in the firing line, except because they say what they mean and mean what they say. Apart from a few misguided idealists the majority of those supporting the EU see personal advantage to be gained from doing so, but the democratic anti EU movement is motivated by a genuine desire to save British democracy and prosperity from the destruction that membership of a federal Europe will visit upon them. We bother because we have no choice if we are to obey our consciences.

06 February 1999

Euro Sceptic Groups

Surfing the web to research on EMU for some College coursework, I have come across your website. Reading it, I agree with most of what you say. But when I saw the number of different organisations on the linked websites, all seeming to have the same purpose, I suddenly was not surprised that you are never listened to. Why not all join forces and fight against the EU together?

C Henman

ED -

There are a number of points to be made in regard to your query.

Firstly there is the matter of intention. In addition to my work for the Eurorealist cause I belong to a number of organisations seeking to improve the welfare of animals. These groups all wish to help animals but take different approaches. There is Compassion in World Farming, which works for an improvement in farming practices, the International Federation for Animal Welfare which deals with such issues as seal hunting, the RSPCA which concentrates on cruelty to animals and Animal Aid which seeks to raise the level of public consciousness about the status of animals. I also support both 'Liberty' and Amnesty International which have similar, but slightly different aims, and bodies such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth which are also involved in the same field of action. In the same way there are some subtle, and other not so subtle differences, in the approach of opponents to the European project. While an organisation such as 'Business for Sterling' totally rejects British membership of EMU they are still prepared to see the UK remain within the EU. The Campaign for Britain's fish is almost exclusively devoted to the fight for our fishing industry, while the UK Independence Party, fervently opposed to EU membership, is nevertheless now prepared to send elected representatives to the European Parliament. There is therefore a wide spectrum of views from those who wish to accept part of the project to purists who oppose the project root and branch and regard any compromise with the institutions of the EU as a mistake. Nevertheless we can, and do, work together on a number of fronts.

The other division relates to target audience. CAEF is an organisation for trade unionists opposed to the EU, and LESC is the internal Labour party group working for British disengagement. It would not be reasonable to expect those who prefer the Conservatives against a Federal Europe or the Bruges Group to join CAEF, anymore than they would expect CAEF members to join them. However they are agreed on many points and again work together in the common cause.

There are umbrella organisations, within which we all co-operate. CIB itself is one of these, as is the Anti-Maastricht Alliance and recently the Congress for Democracy brought together almost all the democratic opposition to the EU in a meeting that included MPs, Peers, industrialists and trade unionists. I do not believe that there is any other cause, short of a major war, about which it would be possible to find such agreement across the political spectrum

You say that we are not listened to but this is incorrect. If you had been involved in the fight since the early 1970s you would know that there was a time when we were very much a voice crying in the wilderness but that now we have the growing support of major papers such as the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun while the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses are now in favour of British disengagement from the whole project. Opinion polls show a marked majority opposed to Britain joining the single currency.

Finally the idea that British people will unite behind some charismatic figure is a fantasy as, with the exception of wartime, they are too individualistic to accept such an expedient. It is this very refusal to be corralled into a single organisation that is the reason for our opposition to the EU and we do not intend to mirror our opponents in our attempts to escape their clutches.

04 February 1999

Media Bias

Evidence of Europhiliac bias in the media continues to accumulate.

On the 'Today' program this week the business correspondent interviewed Charles Rose from the Chambers of Commerce re specific measures the Chancellor should propose in his Budget speech.

Mr Rose says that he would recommend that the Chancellor "should apply to Europe to make training costs zero rated for VAT".

Surely the follow up question is "Why does the Chancellor, who is the second in command of a democratically elected British government, need to apply to the EU for such a simple tax change?"

However this obvious and warranted question would not pass the lips of a servant of the BBC, an organisation now seeming to be set on a course which results in frequent and serious violations of its own Charter.

We often hear BBC employees ridiculing the notion of the UK being subjected to tax harmonisation with the EU, despite widespread evidence to the contrary (see above as one example) and denying, despite evidence to the contrary, the fact of the existence of such things as the "curved" banana rules of the EU.

In short this degree of bias has become intolerable for a publicly funded enterprise such as the BBC. Coming on top of last week's despicable handling of the Bank of America story by the Today programme, it is clear that action which was promised by the producers of the Today programme in December to resolve just such problems, has not been forthcoming.

I will be writing to the BBC Board of Governors to draw these matters to their attention and I am also currently reviewing the legal options available to me if action is not taken by the producers of the Today programme to prevent such Charter violations in the future.

The Bank of America saga arose when the Express fabricated a story claiming that the Bank had decided not to locate its European headquarters in London because of Britain's wise decision to stay out of the single currency. We must recognize that the Daily Mail deserves congratulations for reporting the fact that Old Mutual, a large South African investment company, is moving into London, disproving such scaremongering.

More embarassment for the Express followed when Bank of America isssued a swift denial, pointing out that it has had a headquarters in London since 1931, and this wouldn't change because of Britain's non-participation in the euro.

It appears that a deliberate and calculated campaign to try and repeat the con trick perpetrated on the British people in the 1975 referendum has begun. I am glad to say that the Daily Mail is proving a welcome antidote to this europhilic dissembling.

Finally the media made much of the fact that the financial new Christmas present, the euro, took 50% of all new issue business in the first month of its launch. The hyperbole and political capital invested in the euro meant that any self respecting bank wanting to win mandates from the EC stable of borrowers bent over backwards to be part of the new game in town and artificially boosted the euro's share of new issue business.

It is therefore a shame that for those that invested $100 in euro debt on 4th January that it was worth only $95 as at yesterday's close. Is this what europhiles mean when they say that things will be cheaper in the euro?

D Ellison

Bromley

ED - Everything you say about the BBC bias is true - I listen to 'Today' between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. most weekday mornings and am frequently angered by the pro EU line taken, particularly by the business correspondent.

Churchill remarked in his memoirs that when Hitler made one of his deceitful peace overtures to Britain when it looked as if we were virtually defeated, the BBC rejected it before the government had time to do so! If the modern BBC had existed at that time they would no doubt have hectored Churchill about the inevitable need to bow to German military might, although we all know the answer they would have received!

The bias in the press is less than it was now that the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Mail have come to their senses but the greater influence of the TV stations means that their pro EU prejudices are very damaging to the cause of British independence.

Good luck in your attempts to hold the BBC to account.

23rd January 1999

I am delighted at the news of Mr Ashdown's imminent resignation. He is a man who has consistently put the interests of the European Union before those of his country.

I hope that the Liberal Democrats will revise their policy on the EU and dispense with the all their Euro-sycophancy which has been so sickening in recent years.

It is a pity that Mr Ashdown's colleague Tony Blair's zeal for democracy in the House of Lords doesn't extend to the European Union. In recent years he has been a consistent apologist of the EU, despite its continuing efforts to undermine democracy throughout Europe.

Mr Blair is also a keen enthusiast for the single currency, the most undemocratic of all the EU's projects. If Britain were to join, it would be surrendering its self-Government and its democratic heritage in perpetuity to unelected officials in Frankfurt and Brussels, rendering all the present debate about the House of Lords, utterly irrelevant.

S Gulleford

ED - It is puzzling that Mr Ashdown, a man who clearly has many liberal and democratic instincts, should be so myopic when it comes to the European Union. He is known for his concern that states such as Bosnia should be assisted to achieve full existence as nations but does not seem to wish to grant the same status to his homeland, one of the oldest and strongest nation states in the world. It may be too much to hope for but perhaps the Liberal Democrats will regain their liberal vision, as have their erstwhile colleagues in the continuing Liberal party, recognize the EU for the illiberal, bureaucratic dictatorship it is and begin to oppose UK involvement. Such a sea change in attitude would transform the British political scene but one fears the infection caught from the maniacally pro European Social Democrats such as Jenkins and Williams will not be excised so easily.

Your comments about Tony Blair and the House of Lords are of course absolutely true. It is strange that those who so resent any involvement in legislation by hereditary peers should at the same time be so keen to hand all power to non elected officials across the Channel. It is another example of the madness which seems to grip outwardly sane people when confronted by the EU, almost as if they were uncritically accepting the tenets of a religion, instead of considering the realities of a political organisation.

23rd January 1999

While admiring the way in which the nations of eastern Europe regained their independence from Soviet tyranny I find it incomprehensible that they now seem intent on submitting to the tyranny of another superstate.

P Bridgwood

ED - It is understandable that the peoples of Eastern Europe, observing the standard of living enjoyed by those in the West, may believe that to join the EU will enable them to obtain the same standard, while for many membership seems to offer some protection from the dangers of living next to an unstable Russia and we can also be sure that the political elite can see the possibility of joining their Western colleagues on the Brussels gravy train.

However the realities of the EU, in particular its essentially undemocratic nature, are becoming clearer to some in Eastern Europe and, as they find their feet, it may be that they will not continue to be so keen to join. In addition the problems of managing an EU of fifteen nations will multiply if more join so you may be sure the core nations will not be over eager to enlarge, particularly as the CAP would be finally wrecked if it attempted to take in countries such as Poland.

We must hope that the newly independent states of Europe gain sufficiently in confidence to see that their essential interests will not be served by submerging themselves in a European superstate, and that they will instead become fully part of the world community of sovereign nation states, trading with each other but not sacrificing their unique identity to any artifical federations.

16th January 1999

During World War II George VI started the ball rolling concerning the shape of the post war world with both Churchill and Roosevelt and so far as I recollect their idea was that Europe would be one family of nations, Britain and the Empire a second, and America the third. The idea was extended to China, Japan and the Far-East being possibly a fourth.

However I would like to float an idea that was first hinted at by the Austrian (Free Market) Economist Ludwig von Mises in his work "Nation, State and Economy" (July 1919). This influential Economist still highly regarded in the States suggested that language was the basis of nation-hood. He concluded that America and Britain with her Empire was really one nation administered under two states.

He had noted that when the common safety of Britain had been endangered during WW I the other half of the nation closed ranks and came to our aid. We saw the same during WWII, and on several occasions since, the last of which was the recent bombing of Baghdad - all the nations of the World dithered or protested, but we acted as one people, with one culture and one value system.

Churchill was a child of both Britain and America, and often argued as to the common destiny of the English Speaking Peoples, and the inevitable coming together as communications improved.

Surely the answer to those insisting on the need for Britain to absorb herself in a bigger political entity is to seek reunite with the States and Commonwealth with which we still have so much in common. Not only a language but a Common Law heritage as well as a common culture or World view. We even share a system of common measurement such as gallons, inches, etc. not only with the States but India and other Commonwealth Countries.

Contrast this with the chaotically differing cultures of the Continent; we believe in obeying laws, Italians treat them with contempt. We pull together against Saddam while Europe dithers and pulls in differing directions.

Looking at the development of the terms English, British and American, our monarchs were Kings of the English before the title was restricted to an area of land, and even then wherever the English settled had a habit of being called England - New England, Little England in Wales. The Oxford Dictionary admits this use and quotes "A conference of all the Englands over sea" (1886) as an example of this usage. Similarly under Britisher is the interesting quote "I always told my American friends that I had rather be called a Britisher than an Englishman, if by calling me an Englishman they meant to imply that they were not Englishmen themselves" (1883).

Many families were united by GI brides after WWII, we have shared Television programs and therefore cultures. Transatlantic publishing and the Internet are making us more familiar with the differences of our Englishes and for better or worse we are merging more and more into one language and one people. English and American executives move easily between US and UK based firms as do the Companies themselves.

History seems to be marching towards the day when Britain and American will be one nation once more, all we have to do is determine the structure of this united state or kingdom. On the other hand history is littered with the wreckage of peoples who have been united by statecraft and who have finally gone their separate ways after a disastrous partnership not infrequently ending in bloody war. Englanders unite!

A Bartley

ED - There is much in what you say, but we are seeking to free the UK from one proposed superstate, and have no wish to involve her in another, although the arguments in favour of the USA and the Commonwealth are much stronger than those for Continental Europe. However we contend that the alternative to committing suicide is not to commit suicide and the alternative to belonging to the EU is not to belong to the EU. We do not therefore need to propose other entanglements to free us from the current one.

We do indeed have more in common with the people of the Commonwealth and the USA than we have with the continental Europeans and should never forget that soldiers from all over the old Empire, regardless of colour, died in the fight to defeat the Axis powers.

Certainly we should seek to reinforce ties of friendship and culture with all the Commonwealth and American peoples, though not in any spirit of hostility to others, and without the need to sacrifice our independence as a nation.

I am as proud to be British as anyone. However how does defending the pound add to our sovereignty?After all the pound was a french invention i.e. one pound of silver divided into20, each 20th divided into12; Livre, Denier,Sou (sd)

What is best for Britain? A strong currency or a weak one? British industry say a weak one. Let's have The Euro sooner rather than later. Hanging on to the pound will become a sign of weakness not strength. The strongest currency pre-Euro was The Deutschmark. You don't hear German industry whinging about a strong currency; they just get on with the job of making good products and selling. Now they have given up the DM. Have they lost anything? No they have gained a reputation as a leading nation. We are dragged along in their wake. The British disease was always to sit on your backside and complain, not to get up and do things.

Let's do join the Euro.I don't want GB as a minor player on a shrinking stage.

R Axon

Leicester

PS Why not bring back the Groat? It will be as relevant as a pound soon.

ED - The campaign to save the pound has little to do with the name of the currency but everything to do with the question of who controls it, for whoever does also controls the country. We use the slogan 'Save the Pound' instead of the more accurate 'Oppose the accession of the United Kingdom to European Economic and Monetary Union' as we feel the latter has about as much impact as the old Chinese Communist slogans, such as 'The Chinese people support the decisions of the Twentieth Party Congress', and anyway we need something short to fit onto badges etc.

The point is that joining EMU would mean transferring control of the levers of fiscal and financial policy from our elected representatives, whom we can eject at elections, to bankers in Frankfurt who are immune from political accountability under the terms of the Maastricht treaty. If we were mad enough to join then how, in the future, would you answer unemployed youngsters on the streets of an industrial town who ask what possible difference it makes whether they vote Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Green, Blue or Purple if the power to change economic policy no longer resides with MPs but rests with immovable bankers at the European Central Bank? Is it not obvious that if there are no longer democratic avenues for change the desperate will turn to non democratic ones and who could really blame them?

What possible benefit is there for the UK to throw away its control of its own currency? We trade at a surplus with the USA and a deficit with the rest of the EU. We are the largest single investor in the USA (including Japan) and the Americans invest heavily over here. If there were a reason to join another currency then the dollar, not the euro, would be the one to join! Are you aware that Switzerland, a country which is truly at the geographical heart of Europe, has absolutely no intention of joining any of the pan European organisations and suffers no disadvantage by staying independent.

You talk of the UK as a minor player but this is just not true. We have the fifth largest economy in the world, the greatest overseas investments in the world, export more per head than any other nation including Japan, are members of the G7 and, on the non economic front, sit on the UN security council. The position of Germany is not that they enjoyed some years ago, when their economic miracle was admired by all, but is now that of a country with many economic problems which have been exacerbated by reunion with the East.

The true stage for the UK is not the protectionist backwater of the EU but the world where our true strengths have always lain. To join EMU would be to sacrifice these and to mortgage our entire future to an organisation riven by corruption and run by undemocratic institutions. How can any sensible person justify such a step?

28th December 1998

Where is the Standard Bearer? (2)

My forefathers fought to preserve Britains Sovereignty and died for it.

I am born English and proud of it. I value the Queen, the Pound, the British Isles, British Justice and the British way of life.

I do not wish to be dictated to by Germans, French or anyone else. I pay my Taxes happily to Westminster - but not to Europe. When we changed from Sterling to decimalisation it was only a few short months before the price of goods started to be hiked up. A sixpenny bag of crisps now costs Five Shillings.

What when the Euro comes ? who will be the loser ? Of course the great BRITISH PUBLIC. When the Poll Tax was introduced there were demonstrations - (AFTER THE EVENT) and this finally sounded its death knell.

We need to ACT AGAINST THE EURO NOW - there will be no chance of turning the decision to join AFTER THE EVENT.

What can we do - how can we mobilise the British Public to act NOW ??

I am a mere mortal and have no idea how to achieve this but out there - someone must know how to mobilise the public into getting the message across to Tony Blair and his Government (BEFORE THE EVENT) that we do now wish to be a federal state of Europe. We wish to remain British and Independent.

Please Help.

Tony Martin