The new year marks the beginning of a new stage in the battle to keep Britain a free and independent nation. The launch of the euro has meant the end of twelve sovereign countries who are now only left with the folkloric trappings of nationhood, while their destiny lies in the hands of a group of unelected bankers. The most striking aspect of this destruction of European nations is that no one was asked whether they wished their countries to be abolished. The euro has no mandate from the peoples of Europe; in the words of Umberto Bossi, an Italian minister, "this was a decision imposed from on high and the public had no choice in the matter". The only Europeans asked if they wanted the euro were the Danes, and they said no.
It is ironic in the extreme that this crude economic tool for political integration was being brought into being at the same time as the results of the "one size fits all" economic policy which it envisages were all too clearly being seen in Argentina. The Argentine government had locked its currency to that of the US. In the short term this seemed to bring success, but then a terrible price had to be paid as the economies of the two nations diverged. The European Central Bank is geared to look after the Franco-German economy. It will be interesting to see which of the other euro countries is forced to suffer the same troubles as Argentina, but for them there will be no way out.
The British public will now face increased pressure to fall into line. Splits in the government are now all too clear as europhiles such as Robin Cook and Peter Hain admit that joining the euro will be a political as well as an economic decision. As ever, their tactics are to offer nothing positive, but to attempt to frighten the public with the "inevitable". In Sweden and, with stunning contempt for democracy, in Denmark too, referendums are to be held on joining the euro. Clearly the Danes must vote until they come up with the right answer. Here an ICM poll showed that 73% of those asked were still opposed to the euro. Even 63% of Liberal voters wanted to keep the pound. Despite the power of government propaganda this is a fight we can win.
Nor is the euro the only threat we face: this summer the people of Gibraltar may be sacrificed on the EU altar, and at the end of 2002 the current Common Fisheries Policy comes to an end with the threat that foreign vessels will be able to fish up to our beaches. We face a hard fight ahead, but the facts are on our side. We must redouble our efforts to get them over to the public.
The launch of the euro has seen a new round of calls for the pooling of tax and spending powers to make the euro work. Romano Prodi said the single currency would inevitably lead to further pooling of control of the Eurozone's economies, stating on 31st December 2001 "I believe we have taken a major step that ineluctably leads to greater convergence of economic rules". He added that this process "starts tomorrow".
In an article for Le Monde, French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius argued that pooling fiscal policy "is a logical follow-up to the euro". He said that mere co-ordination of tax and spending between euro member countries was insufficient. A common fiscal policy was required to match the Eurozone's common monetary policy. He called for "a real budget federation" for the Eurozone. He said the budget federation would "constitute a lever for growth and employment".
German Finance Minister Hans Eichel also used the launch of the euro to call for a "Europe Tax". In an interview with Der Spiegel, he said that he favoured a specific tax to pay for EU policies, which he argued would be a means of simplifying the EU's complex budgetary process. He said "In the longer term I can imagine a Europe Tax. It strengthens spending discipline in Brussels if responsibility for expenditure and income is put together".
The 1 and 2 euro coins contain 50 times more nickel than the EU's own regulations allow in jewellery, according to Norwegian paper Verdens Gang. The first serious case of nickel allergy resulting from contact with the new currency has provoked warnings from German doctors, but German banking officials have so far proved unwilling to act on their advice.
On Saturday 5th January, 32 year old Rosanna Hoffmann from Ludwigshafen in Germany was hospitalised because of a violent reaction to nickel which was most likely released from the euro coins. Thomas Fuchs, a doctor and president of the German allergy association, is shocked, commenting, "It is completely incomprehensible that they have used nickel in the new euro coins."
This sad tale has two messages for us. The first is that the EU is more than happy to break its own rules when it wants. The second is that the euro can harm more than just your savings...
On January 11th in New York Romano Prodi called for an end to the national veto over EU decision-making. He described the veto as a "sort of atom bomb that the leader of every EU country carries in their back pocket," adding, "We can't go on allowing each country the power of veto."
"It's a definitive marriage. You cannot leave the euro zone once you're in." Romano Prodi, 9.1.02
"I am convinced that we need a common tax system" German Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, 23.12.01
"I think that the election of a president of the European Union, especially, as is proposed by some, by the citizens of the European Union, is frankly a barmy idea" Peter Hain, House of Commons, 8/1/02
by The Lord Stoddart of Swindon,
Chairman, Campaign for an Independent Britain
The gathering speed of European integration is a worrying sign that the giant single empire of Europe under creation is getting nearer to completion. To increase the pace, the EU has exploited the tragedy of 11th September by using the British Government to force through new measures such as the European arrest warrant, which threatens some of our most ancient rights, under the disguise of anti-terrorism legislation.
This will expose British citizens to the risk of being extradited to other European countries to face charges for crimes which are not even criminal offences in this country. This would take place, without the opportunity of a full judicial review in Britain, to determine the validity of the charges. The recent events in Greece when planespotters were arrested as spies, may only be the tip of the iceberg. The arrest warrant can also be used against xenophobia. The problem with this is that the definition of xenophobia could include anyone who dares to criticise the EU, and would be a grave threat to free speech.
This is all part of the insidious process of introducing Corpus Juris, the EU's proposal for a common judicial area ruled by a European Public Prosecutor, by stealth. Under this dangerous new judicial code, the right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty would be removed.
We have also had the Laeken Summit, which was another major building block in the construction of the European state. It has again raised the possibility of a written European Constitution. Three rampant zealots for European Union, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Guiliamo Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene have been chosen to head the convention to create a constitution for the EU by 2004. Eurorealists, an ever increasing minority, will not be represented in this incestuous convention. With 40% of the British electorate now favouring withdrawal, this is a huge democratic deficit. The integrationists march on but, with each passing year, the support for what they are doing withers.
Although Britain is supposed to be against the idea, our Prime Minister has made no protest over proposals at Laeken by politicians from other countries, who were not elected by the British people, on the question of a directly elected President of the European Union. If it is never going to be used, one wonders what is the point in having a veto? This proposition has profound implications for our monarchy. If there were to be an elected President, the Queen would be subordinate to a foreign head of state for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII, in the sixteenth century!
Proposals to strengthen the Common Foreign and Security policy also came under consideration, as did the introduction of a `more integrated approach to police and criminal law co-operation'. For `more integrated', read `more EU controlled'.
We should also remember that, by the time you read this, twelve European countries will be using euro notes and coins, having abolished their own national currencies, thus removing one of the most potent symbols of nationhood forever. This unprecedented gamble transfers control of the monetary policy of these nations to unelected banking officials in Frankfurt, over whom the electorates of the twelve countries have no control via the ballot box. They have also placed huge faith in a currency that has lost substantial value not just against the dollar, the pound and the yen but also against the North Korean wan and the Cuban peso! The Prime Minister protests that he is opposed to a single European state, yet he continues to cede control of ever more areas of policy to the EU. The truth is that since 1973, when we joined the then Common Market, the United Kingdom has been gradually dismantled. Unless eurorealist campaigning can force a change in policy, it is likely that by the end of the first decade of the new millennium, the process will be completed and we will be a mere province of a European empire.
by Austin Mitchell MP
I've been an enthusiast for regional government for over three decades. I was advocating elected regional governments in my extremist phase, even Home Rule for Yorkshire, well before the Common Market intruded its ugly head in the early seventies when Ted Heath bamboozled us in. Those were the days, too, when Labour took up Scottish and Welsh devolution and put the Kilbrandon Commission to work to review the constitution. That found, to the surprise of many, that discontent at being run from London, feelings of isolation from government and the desire of regions to have greater control over their own destinies were all as great in the North East and in Yorkshire (then without added Humberside) as in Scotland. As a result, the Commission made timid proposals for regional devolution. Those are what we are now building on.
There are, however, two differences between then and now. Regionalism is once again an issue but the pressure now comes from English regions who have lost out. Economic strength, levels of unemployment and deprivation have all increased in the three northern regions as the manufacturing base has shrunk. Yet they are now losing out in competition with devolved Scotland for development and public spending per head. That is a thousand pounds a year less in Yorkshire than in Scotland. The other development, which is of more concern to members of our Campaign for an Independent Britain, is that the EU has started to interest itself in regions. It is now trying, rather vainly, to jump on the domestic bandwagon.
The sad consequence of this second development is that some leap to the erroneous view that regional government is a European plot to break up the British nation state. Total nonsense: regionalism and the EU have nothing to do with each other. Britain needs regions, whether in or out of the EU. It would be illogical to argue that whatever Brussels wants has to be an anathema to the British. That would let them dictate our agenda by simple negation. Who would be daft empigh to say that if Brussels is in favour of shorter working hours, better conditions of work or the regular brushing of teeth, then we must automatically be against them? That way lies the dog kennel, as well as rotting teeth.
Britain has for far too long been dominated by London, Cobbett`s Great Wen. It's far more powerful in our system than the centre is in any other polity. It is illogical and inefficient to have central government and indeed Parliament choking up with the minutiae of local decision-making. We need to transfer power and decisions down to the people. This can best be done by democratic regional governments taking power in policy areas best run on a regional basis.
Outside London and the South East, which pose particular problems, life is increasingly lived on a regional basis. People drive further to work in regional centres like London, Manchester, Newcastle, on which communications focus. They shop at the great regional shopping centres like Metro or Meadowhall, go to regional theatres, concert halls and multiplexes, follow great regional teams in Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool or Manchester, and drive round regional beauty spots. English regions may not have Scotland`s legal system or governmental institutions, yet they do have their own regional identity.
They also have government regional offices, Regional Development Agencies, a regional Health Service. All of which need to be made accountable. Regionalism isn`t creating a new layer of bureaucracy. It's making one that's already there democratically accountable. English Regions are in competition with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for jobs, development and footloose indus- try, as well as public spending. Without democratic Regional Assemblies to involve local energies they are going to lose out, even though their problems of unemployment and depression are often worse.
What Scotland has I want, though I have a shrewd suspicion that the forthcoming government White Paper will give us much less. Whitehall never likes surrendering power. Not, at least, to the British people.
We Eurosceptics stand in the way of this rising desire for regional government at our peril. It's strong in the North East. It's growing in Yorkshire, the North West, the West Midlands and the South West, though there it's divided by Cornwall separatists. Regional Chambers and Assemblies are already developing. It's not necessary that every region should have exactly the same powers and role. Some may not want regional government at all. Others will want the maximum possible. So let each region decide what form of devolution it wants from the maximum to nothing at all.
That would allow those areas which do want it to set up the institutions. Assuming they are successful, as they certainly have been in Scotland, other regions will want to follow suit. Such a diversified system works well in Spain. It would here. It doesn't, of course, give us a nice, neat, constitution. It's also far from the federalism in one country the Liberal Party might prefer, and which I quite like myself. Yet it recognises that the constitution is now unstable. You can't just have devolution in Scotland and Wales and nowhere else, and the solution proffered by some Tories of an English Parliament sitting like an elephant in the devolutionary cuckoo's nest would not work. Though it would certainly strengthen the grip of London which would bulk larger in a system with the Welsh and Scottish counterweights taken out.
We can argue over the desirability of regional government. That argument is going to become loud and long as England debates the government`s forthcoming proposals. They will be too timid for me, shockingly daring for Conservatives. Yet that argument has nothing to do with Europe and it would be ridiculous and illogical to rule it out on the grounds that my enemy's preference is my phobia. Particularly when the European Union has no idea of what kind of federalism it might want, or of how it's going to get it in a union where Germany already has a good federal system. Italy is frightened because of the differences between North and South, and France is only slowly moving away from its excessive centralisation on Paris.
To rule federalism out because it's assumed to be pro-EU ignores its major benefits. Regional government moves power down to the people. It brings government closer to home. That's what people want in an age when they have real power as consumers but feel impotent as citizens. A healthy regional democracy wielding real power and using it for the purposes of real people must be a bulwark against transfers of power to Brussels because, at the end of the day, it's not central government which is going to protect us against the ever encroaching, ever centralising Brussels bureau- cracy. Governments always come to deals, usually giving up something in the hope, usually vain, of gaining something else. The best guarantee of resistance is a healthy, involved, grassroots democracy which has won power from the grudging grip of Whitehall and isn't going to give it back to anyone. Still less to a remote, irrelevant bureaucracy in Brussels.
The distinguished Labour Peer, former Government whip and chairman of CIB, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has been expelled from the Labour Party in a letter from the Chief Whip timed to arrive just before Christmas.
Lord Stoddart has issued the following statement in response to his expulsion: "Having been suspended from the Labour Whip in the House of Lords since July 2001, I was informed by a letter from the Government Chief Whip - received on Christmas Eve that the Labour Whip has now been withdrawn from me permanently, following my expulsion from the Labour Party.
"The reason given for my expulsion is my publicly voiced objection to the imposition of Mr Shaun Woodward, the Tory defector, on the St. Helens South Constituency at the last general election. I also wrote a letter of support to Mr Neil Thompson, who resigned from the Labour Party to stand as a candidate against Mr. Woodward. I included a modest donation to his election expenses. I have not, to date, received the letter from Mr David Triesman, referred to in the Chief Whip's letter.
"Whilst this is an unpleasant end to my fifty- four years membership of the Labour Party, I have to say that I have become increasingly critical of the Labour Government and felt obliged to vote against them no fewer than eighteen times in the last session of the last parliament, so my regret at my expulsion is tempered by the knowledge that the present Labour Party is not the one I originally joined and certainly would not join as a new member, at present.
"I shall not be joining another political party and shall sit in the House of Lords as an Independent Labour peer."
Lord Stoddart of Swindon was the MP for Swindon 1970-1983 and a Government Whip in the Wilson and Callaghan Governments of the 1970s. He was Lord Commissioner of the Treasury and a Labour Councillor for eighteen years, including serving as leader of Reading Council.
by Neil Herron
It is now 21 months since that fateful day on 4th July 2000, when two Trading Standards Officers accompanied by two Police Officers stepped over a line up, to that point, no one had yet crossed. Threatened with arrest if he objected, the Trading Standards Officers removed three sets of scales from greengrocer Steven Thoburn in a busy Sunderland market, in front of astonished men, women and children. His crime was that these scales did not weigh solely in metric. On that day Steven did have one set of scales that could weigh in metric and since January 1st 2000, he had always dual-priced.
The ensuing court case attracted worldwide publicity and the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, set up to prevent Steven from financial ruin for making his stand, was generously supported by an incensed British public. The judgement delivered on April 9th 2001,sent shock waves around the nation. Steven was found guilty and given a criminal conviction.
Judge Bruce Morgan, parachuted in to replace the lay bench (one of whom was so incensed that he is now a trustee of the defence fund) made a damning statement: "That in signing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament surrendered its sovereignty to the European Union".
The anger at what was seen as the betrayal of a nation by its own elected representatives brought in more donations to fund an appeal. It also enabled us to provide legal representation for four other traders who faced similar prosecutions. They were found guilty at magistrates level under 1999 Price Marking Orders, an example of one of the criminal offences being: "That you did display a sign which stated Brussels sprouts 39p per pound". These four other traders were consolidated under the Thoburn umbrella for an appeal, which was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand for three days beginning November 20th 2001.
All through the campaign it has been necessary to raise enough money, not only for the defence costs but also to cover the threat of prosecution costs against the individual traders, should they lose the case. My primary concern has always been to protect the five men and their families. Unfortunately, my own business has had to be sacrificed as it became impossible to run, while at the same time spearheading what has become an internationally recognised resistance movement.
However, it was always recognised that the case was of such national significance that under no circumstances must the campaign ever be allowed to fail. The High Court Appeal was heard by two judges, Lord Justice John Laws and Justice Peter Crane. At first they appeared quite dismissive of the defence's case but there was a point when the penny seemed to drop and their whole demeanour changed. In a series of interventions by Laws, he described it as "shameful" that such a massive change, in effect the removal of the nation's familiar system of weights and measures, could have been imposed without an Act of Parliament.
The whole process of stealth by successive governments was being exposed and it highlighted how they had tried to force the exclusive use of the metric system on a nation's citizens without even getting involved in any open, transparent dialogue at all: no public information films, press announcements, conversion charts whatsoever, just bullyboy tactics and misinformation usually directed at the traders least able to resist. Every minister and official involved in the shambolic process of compulsory metrication should hang their heads in shame. Not one has dared to stand up and be counted and be honest about the reasons behind their programme. Not one. However, because of the campaign we will call every single one of them to account once we have reached the end game. John Laws also stated that had he had the case of these five traders in a lower court, he would have "halted if for an excessive abuse of process".
It was wrong that these five men should be prosecuted by a law made so opaque that they would have had to "bury their heads in law books" to find out if they were actually committing an offence. On a number of occasions he rejected parts of the Morgan judgement, insisting that Britain was "still a sovereign nation" and Parliament was still our sovereign law making body. At one point, when prosecuting QC Eleanor Sharpston insisted that she was not taking instruction from a government authority, the judge said perhaps they should be in court to answer for its actions.
Michael Shrimpton, the leading constitutional barrister retained to defend the Metric Martyrs, was elegant in his arguments but fought with a passion that none of the prosecution would ever be able to muster. The argument put forward was simply that, the Government was not entitled to use a mere statutory instrument to repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which allowed the use of both metric and imperial. Successive regulations, issued by the Tory Government between 1990 and 1995 to comply with EU directives made it a criminal offence to use imperial measures.
Justice John Laws focused on this and said he was aware of the huge constitutional implications of this case but "if twenty Acts of Parliament were to fall then that was of no concern to this courtroom". He continued to say that ministers of the Government had "Henry VIII powers" which allowed them to make amendments to primary legislation but removing the nation's imperial system of measurement with the associated criminal sanctions was hardly minor. Again, he said if a Government wanted to make it a criminal offence to use the imperial system, why oh why did they not get an Act of Parliament to say so.
There were a few lighthearted moments during the proceedings. At one point, Steven Thoburn who was suffering from a serious bout of gastroenteritis arrived late and had to stand at the back of the packed courtroom. He was removed by a security guard who went a deep shade of crimson when he found out Steve was the lead appellant in the case. They however both saw the funny side along with all the other security guards who arrived from the other courts to shake the hand of the Metric Martyr.
The point was also emphasised on BBC Breakfast in front of 6 million viewers when presenter Jeremy Bowen smugly observed that he was comfortable with the metric system and we should move with the times. He knows his height and weight in metric and everyone was now totally familiar with metric: "Fine, Jeremy", I said. "So what is your chest size?" All I could hear were howls of laughter from the studio over my earpiece, as I stood facing the camera in Covent Garden fruit market. "I concede defeat, Mr Herron", said Jeremy. Martyrs 1, BBC 0.
We are now, as I am writing this, into the first week of January. There is still no sign of the judgement. Meanwhile, the Metric Martyrs have kept themselves busy. On December 4th 2001, Steven Thoburn and I won the European Campaigners of the Year Award, beating among others Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, whose campaign was the launch of the euro.
A stinging message was delivered from the platform at the Awards ceremony, at the Palais d'Egmont in Brussels, about the failure of the EU to listen to the voice of the people and that we are only the beginning of a massive people's resistance movement across the EU.
Following this, Steven Thoburn won the ITV Teletext Man of the Year Award, beating David Beckham and George Harrison with a whopping 47% of the vote.
The judge's statement that whatever was to happen outside the courtroom was of no concern to this court is now becoming suspect. The implications of the judgement are enormous and perhaps the time spent over the last six weeks has involved long conversations between the judiciary and the executive. If they are looking for a technicality or a split decision, then we are prepared to continue all the way. We have said from day one: defeat is not an option - we are right.
The British public in their millions, know we are right and there is no law or edict that can resist the combined will of the British people to have it abolished. Democracy, justice, liberty and freedom are the words that the Metric Martyrs will make the politicians sit up and take note of. This moment has been such a long time coming and we may need to walk a lot further down the road but rest assured, we will win.
Members can support the Metric Martyrs appeal fund. Cheques should be made payable to Steven Thoburn (Metric Martyr) Defence Fund and send to:- PO Box 526, Sunderland, SR1 3YS. The fund has a web site at www.metricmartyrs.comEuroquotes
James C. Bennett and Frank J. Sensenbrenner
In the wake of the Laeken summit, questions have emerged regarding the feasibility of Britain's creaing links and standards at a multilateral summit covering such a wide range of issues. From the bickering over the placement of key European Union institutions to the petty asides among European leaders, one wonders if national differences will ever be resolved within this Tower of Babel.
We are, respectively, an American technology entrepreneur, author and commentator, and an American student at a British university. We are part of a loose and rapidly growing circle of people from America, Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere responding to a new awareness of opportunity. James C. Bennett's book, The Anglosphere Challenge: The Future of the English Speaking Nations Beyond the Internet Era, forthcoming this year from Rowman & Littlefield, sets forth this "Anglosphere" thesis. It notes, roughly, that the Anglosphere nations, those sharing the English language and evolved institutions such as Common Law, have attained and will continue to exercise global leadership due to the strength of their civil societies. The significance of values such as individualism, the rule of law, honouring contracts and the "elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values" relative to most other nations have typified Anglosphere nations for centuries. Anglosphere nations have the potential to employ the level of trust embodied in their civil societies to develop mutually co-operative institutions, growing through trade and collaboration in fields from scientific research to defence. Anglospherists believe that the mutual bonds of civil society can be successfully extended across borders, not willy-nilly as some internationalists hope, but in a careful, Burkean fashion.
To this end, Anglospherists promote the establishment of more institutions, as well as the strengthening of existing Anglosphere ties. Such entities would protect the common heritage of Anglosphere nations from "external threats and internal fantasies", as Mr. Bennett's book notes.
Mr. Bennett submits that Anglosphere states will benefit from the genesis of a "network commonwealth", a linked array of co-operative institutions. Such groups capitalise on the civil societies present in founder countries to provide an architecture for international co-operation and collaboration. Anglosphere nations are best placed to supply the foundation of these groups due to a combination of a high-trust culture with a flexible structure. The Anglosphere's flexibility results from its political philosophy of individualism providing for less bureaucratic regulatory regimes and its openness allows nations to draw from a global pool of intellectuals and entrepreneurs, eager to flourish in an environment conducive to using their talents.
Anglospherism, while building on a common cultural heritage, rejects the notion that Anglosphere societies are defined by race, or any other criteria diverging from societal values. Rather, Anglospherism focuses on common links while acknowledging differences between member countries. The sentinels and stakeholders of tomorrow's Anglosphere are just as likely to be Patel and Chung as Smith and Jones. The Anglosphere has already demonstrated the profits of its expansive view, as among the pioneers of Silicon Valley were many South Asian programmers, drawn to the United States by the common links it shares with nations such as India.
Bennett defines the adaptability of the Anglosphere as dependent upon its memetic, or conceptual, identity. As a memetic culture, the only criterion for joining the Anglosphere is mere subscription to its principles and willingness to adopt enough of the culture of the new country as to facilitate mutual communication and identity.
Anglospherism returns to the old "melting pot" ideology, but the melting pot as it has existed through centuries of practice in the Anglosphere, as opposed to the invidious strawman beloved of multiculuralists. They forgot, or ignored, the reality that a melting pot melds together as an alloy the varied cultures and customs brought by immigrants, improving over the status quo ante. Reviled for decades, the melting pot does not seem so bad now that we see the Oldham riots and British Talibans created by multiculturalism, and even Labour politicians struggle with the question of to what British values should we ask immigrants to adhere.
The "melting pot" mentality guards against cultural rigidity and stagnation in the Anglosphere, as Anglospherism adapts in a "marketplace of ideas". Numerous examples can be found in the culinary realm alone, as curry is viewed as quintessentially British, while chicken tikka masala is ubiquitous in Britain's supermarkets. Yet beneath this superficial aspect lies the reality of South and East Asian immigrants contributing to the success of high-tech endeavours in Silicon Valley, the Thames Valley, and Australia alike.
Bennett's work foresees the "network common- wealth" as evolving new forms and institutions to facilitate the fluidity of resources and capital within the Anglosphere. He suggests a common market area, as well as a "sojourner provision", similar to the Schengen agreement, in which Anglosphere nationals would have freedom of travel and employment within core member nations. Promise also exists for collaborative institutions in security as well as science and technology.
The notion of the Anglosphere need not be mutually exclusive with member nations' other goals. Anglosphere institutions would be open and non-exclusive, with member countries retaining the flexibility to maintain other ties as they see fit. The Anglosphere's goal of promoting strong links among member states is limited only by the restraints each nation-state chooses to apply. Anglospherists does not so much oppose the European Union as see it as mostly irrelevant to the high-tech, entrepreneurial needs of the twenty-first century. They have no problem with Britain retaining reasonable ties with Europe, as America should retain reasonable ties with Latin America, or Australia with Asia. But they object to the idea of Britain sacrificing Anglosphere ties of value for European mythologies that are mostly chimeric.
Mr. Bennett and his fellow Anglospherists advocate a strong message: that Britain, despite its interest in the European dream, ought not to neglect the stronger ties existing between it and other states. Tony Blair was, after all, not welcome in Pakistan and India to help avoid a nuclear war because Britain is the third largest state in Europe. The Anglosphere and EU ties are by no means mutually exclusive but, if Britain ignores those links, it may squander the future."Foreign aid" we could do without
Most people would think that joining the EU was the business of the country concerned. Not the EU, however, which is ever eager to "aid" countries in this respect. Whether it will eventually let them in after foisting endless regulations on them is quite another matter. The following answer by Peter Hain in the House of Commons shows the amount of money Britain has spent on this form of aid - money which could have been spent on health or transport here at home. Civil servants who could have been employed on solving problems at home have also been seconded for this purpose
"Since 1989, the UK has provided œ350 million through the Know-How Fund to help the candidates prepare for accession. We have `Action Plans' with 11 of the 13 candidates, and will launch another soon. The plans bring together the UK's practical assistance to the candidates across a range of activities involving all Whitehall Departments.
Under the Commission's `Twinning' pro- gramme, over 40 British civil servants are seconded as long-term pre-accession advisers to Ministries in the candidate countries. Since 1998, the UK has won involvement in over 90 twinning projects - the third highest number of any member state - targeted on each candidate's priority areas for EU accession." House of Commons 8/1/02
New figures from Oxford Economic Forecasting show that the UK is now better off than France or Germany. In dollar terms GDP per head in Britain is now $23,712. This is 5 percent higher than Germany ($22,590) 7 percent higher than France ($22,156) and 16 percent above the 12 Eurozone countries overall ($20,440).
Adrian Cooper, head of Oxford Economic Forecasting said that the turnaround in relative living standards between Britain and Europe was mainly due to stronger real growth and not just the weakness of the euro.
He said, "The UK economy has grown more quickly than the Eurozone over the past five years - at an average rate of 2.7 percent. Over the same period Germany has grown by only 1.8 percent a year." He predicted that the gap would increase in 2002 with Britain continuing to grow more quickly than the Eurozone.
Figures from the European Commission which exclude the effects of the weak euro also confirm that Britain has overtaken the Eurozone in terms of living standards. The Commission's "Purchasing Power Parity" measure also shows that UK living standards have overtaken Germany in the last year (Eurostat 2001).
A new leaflet aimed at our children has just been published by the European Union Public Diplomacy Section of the Foreign Office (December 2001) The leaflet is called: "The E.U.: What's In It For You". It is being distributed free to all schoolchildren. The tone of the leaflets can be seen from a section which is headed: "The EU is also good for the UK as a whole". This tells us: "For example:
Members are urged to counteract this dangerous poison. Please write to your local Director of Education and Chairman of the Education Committee. Second, write to your local paper(s) in a similar vein. Third, write to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith St., SW1P 3BT and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Downing St., London SW1A 2AL. Fourth, ask others to do the same.
A model letter is provided below
Dear Sir/Madam,
My attention has been drawn to the document issued by The European Union Public Diplomacy Section of the Foreign Office entitled "The EU: What's In It For You". The document contains a number of untruths and is blatantly political. I wish to draw your attention to The Education Act 1996 and the sections which aim to ensure that children are not presented with only one side of political or controversial issues. Section 406 of the Act requires governors, teachers and LEAs to forbid partisan views or activities amongst children under 12, while Section 407 requires them to offer a balanced representation of opposing views. You may not know that there is a well orchestrated government programme to indoctrinate our schoolchildren regarding the EU. A quote from a memo written in May 2000 by Sir Stephen Wall, then Britain's Ambassador to the EU, reads; " ... the EU is only in the GCSE modern history curriculum thanks to Foreign and Commonwealth pressure on the Department for Education and Employ- ment last year, so I suspect there is a lot more that could be done. Something I plan to pursue in a future incarnation." Sir Stephen's new job is Head of the Europe Section of the Cabinet Office. It is clear that our schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in contravention of the Education Act. I therefore put it to you that you must order all the schools under your control not to issue the Government leaflets or, alternatively, you must allow those who oppose Britain's membership of the EU to be given the same opportunity to distribute leaflets to the pupils that has been afforded the Foreign Office in order that the children are aware of the disadvantages of Britain's membership.
Apologists for the EU continually sermonise on the way that the EU safeguards democracy and freedom. The reality is very different: a Swedish citizen, Per Johansson, has been expelled from Belgium and can no longer travel in 14 European countries the "crime" that lead to this draconian punishment was to paste up an anti EU poster at a Belgian police station.
The Belgian police in Brussels arrested the Swede, who is an active member of a legal Swedish left wing party, just three days before the Laeken summit. The police expelled the man for only one reason: he had been helping friends putting up the poster, announcing an anti-EU meeting.
Mr. Johansson was not only expelled from Belgium, but will also not be able to travel in Germany, Austria, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Denmark, all members of the Schengen agreement. His order has no date of expiration.
While pasting up posters in unauthorised places is considered to be a minor crime in Scandinavia, oddly it is regarded as a quite serious offence disturbing public order in Belgium.
The leading member of the Danish June Movement, Drude Dahlerup, described the incident as horrible and said there was a complete lack of proportion between the offence and the punishment. "I would like to invite Mr Johansson to visit me in Denmark and test if this is something the Danish responsible authorities intend to obey", she said. Drude Dahlerup went on to comment that the case was a clear example of the loss of civil liberties that current EU legislation is leading towards.
by Dr Richard North (foreword by Christopher Booker), Gerald Duckworth & Co., œ14.99, 300pp, ISBN 0 7156 3144
reviewed by Ashley Mote, one-time Markets Editor, Farmers Weekly
Winston Churchill told the House of Commons on 5 November 1940: "Every endeavour must be made to produce the greatest volume of food of which this fertile land is capable".
As the first shots were fired in the American War of Independence in 1775, Dr Benjamin Rush, a civic leader in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said: "A people who are dependent on foreigners for food or clothes must always be subject to them."
How a London-born scientist and former civil servant, now employed in the bureaucratic hothouse of Brussels, should come to write The Death of British Agriculture is almost as remarkable as the book itself. Richard North is an extraordinary man - environmental health officer, food safety consultant, professional researcher in the fields of politics and science, political thinker and populist author.
The Death of British Agriculture is a clinical, wide-ranging and brutal analysis of the potentially terminal disaster that has befallen British agriculture in recent years. Indeed, Dr North argues that it is already too late to save the industry that has produced our food in Britain, and cared for our countryside, since time immemorial. His unique combination of experience, knowledge, and access to the facts rips the scales from our eyes. He has produced a brave, hard-hitting, readable polemic. It is balanced, yet highly provocative. It is thorough, yet revolutionary.
Dr North bleakly argues that little can now stop British farming falling, lemming-like, off the economic cliff. We need nothing less than a major revolution in thinking amongst farmers' leaders, scientists working in the public sector and politicians and bureaucrats in London and Brussels. Given the current culture in all those quarters, this is wishful thinking of the extreme kind. So our farming is doomed, he says, hastened to its demise even more by the incompetence of British politicians and ministry officials than from endless meddling by the European Union. Dr North is scathing about both. He is especially severe on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and its successor, the Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs.
Organisational structures, lines of responsibility, all-pervasive regulation and underlying attitudes must change profoundly and fast. Otherwise, we will soon be left with a terrifying tragedy involving tens of thousands of rural people. The massive social, economic, environmental and political consequences will make the fallout from foot-and-mouth seem like a vicar's tea-party.
Worse - if that were possible - we would have lost the ability to feed ourselves, and fallen prey to foreign sources of agricultural production and distribution, free to supply us entirely on their own terms. Dr North rightly argues that it is of paramount importance to the UK that this does not happen. However, Dr North's solutions are not always as clear and attractive as his analysis of the problems. He offers cogent ideas to improve rural infrastructure and encourage decentralisation. He makes a compelling case for the removal of vested interests from crucial decision-making, especially when scientific opinion is sought. He knows how we should deal with food scares effectively and sensibly. However, his overwhelming case for reducing regulation without increasing risks to public health is heavily dependant on an insurance industry that may not play ball.
And he is on less certain ground when considering the vexed issue of subsidies. Dr North rightly acknowledges that there are three components involved - the price of food, the cost of production and the cost of caring for our countryside. But he is in favour of a new form of bureaucracy to replace the bureaucratic nightmare he rightly condemns as being largely responsible for the problems besetting farming already. Essentially, Dr North wants farmers paid a commercial price for their goods, and for that price to be managed by controls. He also wants government grants for preserving the environment. Such a combination of income may well be the germ of a very good idea, but it needs much more development. Like all embryonic revolutionary ideas it currently invites scepticism. What it actually needs is more consideration.
Not everyone will agree with Dr North, of course. But that is the nature of books like this. They are intended to provoke, and this one does. It is a powerful book, and not just for farmers and country-folk. The chattering classes of Islington and elsewhere might learn an horrific thing or two from its pages, enough, perhaps, to shake their complacency.
The Death of British Agriculture is an important book in another respect, too. It should be read by everyone concerned at the profound and damaging intrusions into our lives by political correctness and the machinery of the state. Dr North defines the nature and consequences of the nanny state better than anyone before him. It is irredeemably flawed, in his opinion, and he produces a powerful case for the authorities to answer. If he is right, they will ignore him! They might, but we should not. If you live in rural Britain this book is a must read. If you don't, you ignore its message at your peril.
The latest addition to the CIB audio library of political speeches is a recording of the highly successful public meeting held in Exeter in November 2001. More than 250 attended the meeting which featured three superb contributions from Angela Browning, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, leading academic and eurorealist Dr Alan Sked and our very own Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Chairman of CIB.
Mrs Browning spoke passionately against the euro and highlighted the break-up of Britain that is going on under the Labour Government. She makes it clear that she is less than convinced by the euro double act being done by the Chancellor and Prime Minister. Lord Stoddart stresses the importance of putting partisan politics to one side in the debate about the euro and Britain's membership of the EU. He attacks Government attempts to deceive the public into thinking that the EU had been good for Britain.
Dr Sked highlights the number of architects of the EU and the euro, who have either been under investigation for fraud and corruption or are still being investigated, Fran‡ois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl being just two examples.
How to order your copy
Send a cheque for œ7.00 (including postage and packaging) made payable to Stuart Gulleford to the CIB Press Office, 163 Hutton Drive, Hutton, Brentwood, Essex CM13 1QW. Proceeds to be donated to Campaign for an Independent Britain.