This document attempts to provide some information about the European Union’s history, institutions, the Treaties, methods of voting, some historical information and various political parties EU policies (see Appendix C). Our continued membership of the EU will inevitably lead to an increase in governance from Brussels and the cost involved in joining the euro would cost the UK billions of pounds.

Some researchers say that a referendum on the single currency is a farce because the third stage described in the Maastricht Treaty requires those member states that do not have an opt out (and those same researchers say that the UK does not) are obliged to accept the euro. Other researchers say that the UK does indeed have an opt out clause; adding that Protocol 11 of the Maastricht Treaty clearly states that the UK shall not be obliged or committed to proceed to stage 3 unless there is a decision to do so by its government and parliament (also in our case after the promised referendum).

Martin Howe (1), in a paper entitled Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht (1992) informs us that: “The United Kingdom has negotiated an ‘opt-out’ from the European single currency, and it is widely assumed that this opt-out means that the monetary union obligations in the Maastricht Treaty are not of great importance unless and until the UK takes a decision to ‘opt in’ to the single currency. However, the ‘opt-out’ relates only to the third or final stage of monetary union. The UK is bound to participate in stages 1 and 2 of monetary union. Further, the Treaty contains obligations regarding the conduct of UK exchange rate and monetary policy during Stage 3 even if the pound then remains a separate currency ‘opted out’ of final currency union. How much freedom of action will we retain as regards the UK’s future exchange rate and monetary policy? ….Member States who do not satisfy the criteria [set out in Article 109j of the Treaty] will retain their own currencies. Under the Treaty they will have a ‘derogation’ from full monetary union….The effect of the United Kingdom’s ‘opt-out’ is that….once stage 3 is in force, the UK will be treated in the same way as a Member State with a ‘derogation’.” (My italics - TD).

However, another researcher has informed me that the Treaty wording is invariably vague, with innumerable references to other arcane text. Also, some researchers believe that the Maastricht Treaty gives the EU permission to force us into the single currency whether we want it or not - e.g. due to a State of Emergency called because of the imminent collapse of the euro - or perhaps due to another emergency of some kind.

The actual facts and meaning of the various stages of the European Union and monetary union have been carefully kept from the people, and the understandable fear of another war in Europe has been one of the methods by which we have been manipulated into accepting governance from a foreign power, which the English Bill of Rights (1689) categorically disallows through the oath spoken by the sovereign at their coronation: “…And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

The Irish people voted no in their referendum in June 2001. However, as ratification is required by all member states the Irish Government disregarded last year’s result and changed the question. In the first referendum the Referendum Commission had the job of informing citizens on a fair and equal basis what the Yes-side and No-side arguments were. It was given substantial public money for that purpose. The Irish Government deprived the Commission of this function of 14th December 2001 in a Bill that was put through all its parliamentary readings in one day, with one day’s notice to the opposition, on the eve of the Dail rising for the Christmas holidays, when media and public attention was elsewhere (2). Also, the question was rigged this time. Voters were asked to ratify Nice and, in the same vote, to oppose Irish participation in the EU army. Thus, many supporters of neutrality felt obliged to vote yes. They also thought they were voting for “jobs and growth” or for EU enlargement, when none of these things depends on the Nice Treaty.

Enlargement is barely mentioned in the Nice Treaty. It provides, among other things, for the scrapping of 39 national vetoes, the harmonisation of justice and home affairs, moves towards EU armed forces, a European constitution and the establishment of single-Europe political parties.

According to a booklet entitled In Defence of the Realm (3) the Magna Carta (England, 1215) is still legal today. It is understood that the Magna Carta cannot be repealed by Parliament. As a contract between the sovereign and the citizen, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands. There is good reason to believe that due to the Magna Carta the Treaty of Rome and the UK’s membership of the EU is illegal and unconstitutional. This document, together with the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) were created for the people under common law (Parliament operates under statute law). These documents also bind the sovereign to the laws of the land.

A constitutional challenge is currently being prepared by a legal team to challenge the Government’s legal powers to surrender Britain’s sovereignty and self governance. (See Appendix A).

As to whether entry into the single currency is irreversible, as spokesmen of the EU, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and all the europhiles claim, then the principle that no Parliament may bind its successor prevents any Parliament from taking us in, i.e. our Parliament cannot pass a law that a subsequent Parliament cannot change. If a Parliament does so, then they have exceeded their powers, authority and mandate - limited to five years maximum, and the rule that says we cannot leave is invalid because we never legally joined.

Proposed constitution for the EU:

The Convention on the Future of Europe, chaired by Giscard Valéry d’Estang, the former French president, has prepared a draft constitution for the EU to be based on a ‘federal basis’. (According to the Collins English Dictionary ‘federal’ means: 
“1. Of a system in which power is divided between one central government and several regional governments; 
2. of the central government of a federation.”) The blueprint lists three possible titles besides the European Union. 
They are: 
European Community, 
the United States of Europe, 
and United Europe, a legal personality. 
However, it would appear that far from providing legally solid safeguards, some researchers say that the proposed constitution would weaken those that now exist. This ‘structure’ will be empowered to ensure that national policy matches ‘the Union’s objectives’. Far from being reinforced, subsidiarity, [see page 10] the cardinal principle that nothing should be decided centrally if it can be handled locally, is being stood on its head. States are to be bound by an ‘obligation of loyal cooperation’. This entirely new legal concept means that the first duty of governments will be to the Union.

This blueprint for a new constitution for Europe, unveiled on 28th October 2002, paves the way for sweeping changes to the EU, but provoked instant British opposition by suggesting the bloc could be renamed “United States of Europe”. The blueprint carefully leaves the most sensitive decisions for later. It has been billed a ‘skeleton’ constitution because it only sets out a framework, listing 46 articles and going into little detail. But changes that could be ushered in include the creation of a powerful new president of the EU who would report to national leaders; a congress of national and European parliamentarians; and an exit clause to allow countries to quit the EU. (See page 12 for more details).

Draft Extradition Bill/European Arrest Warrant (See Appendix B)

This Bill is of the utmost importance to the freedom of the people of this country. This Bill will expose British citizens to being arrested and summarily deported into another European country that has a different system of laws about which we know hardly anything; except that none of those on the continent have Habeas Corpus or Trial by Jury. Thousands of prisoners are kept in prison for months on end “pending investigation” and during this time have no right to any public hearing. The arresting person does not have to have a warrant, nor show any warrant to the person being arrested (unless he asks, in which case he gets to see it “as soon as possible after his arrest”! There does not even have to be a warrant, providing that the arresting person has reason to believe that a warrant has been, or will be, issued by one of the EU states! Also, the warrant doesn’t need to describe the actual act that the arrestee is supposed to have committed. The pre-printed form of the warrant simply lists the 32 “types of offence” with a box ticked next to the one that they want to use, e.g. they just tick say “xenophobia” without specifying what the person is supposed to have done (or said) that was xenophobic.

Will we lose out on employment if we leave the EU? Will joining the single currency create more jobs?  

The claim that we are losing out on jobs by remaining outside the single currency has been shown to be false. (See page 18).

Our herbal medicines and nutritional supplements are under threat from these directives (see page 13)

Nationalism is another concern which is presented to the public for which the European Union is a panacea. Some contend that nationalism is connected with nazism and all that took place as a result. Whilst it is true that nationalism taken to extremes can create problems this is not necessarily the case, and is definitely not a reason to remain in the EU. The fact remains, however, that the case for withdrawing from the EU is not about nationalism, it is about choice and liberty.

Forcing people or countries together does not necessarily create peace, in fact it can sometimes bring about the opposite, for example the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The fact remains that if the United Kingdom remains in the EU many changes are designed for the future of this country, in particular to our present legal system. Already, our British Government has to enforce EU legislation on the people of the U.K. Joining the single currency will only be the beginning. The next step is likely to be harmonisation of interest rates, taxation etc. Considering that each member state has a different set of circumstances this is likely to create havoc at times. A mutual and truly free trading area between countries has to be a far better arrangement than political and monetary union. As you will see in Appendix C, some political parties are against joining the single currency. However, they believe that we can remain in the EU but it needs reforming. My research, and that of others, has clearly shown to me that it is not possible to reform it. I believe this document explains why I have come to that decision.

Most people in this country are so busy with their 9 to 5 jobs, family and just trying to survive, that they don’t have the time to research this subject, even if they were interested in doing so. However, I do believe that many people would be more interested if they were aware of at least some of the facts presented here. Something of key importance to most people is having enough money to live on. They may be interested to know that out of those who have accepted the single currency, the Dutch and German people (and maybe other countries) have found that prices have risen and most people would like their old currency back.

Another astonishing factor is that membership of the EU costs the UK several billions of pounds per year of which we receive back about half in grants. This money could provide funding to the NHS and many of our other essential services. (More precise details in this document).

Our T.V. and the media in general continues to draw a cloak of secrecy over the effects of the E.U. and in particular the Treaty of Nice. I was informed by the Campaign for an Independent Britain (Scotland) that the Nice Treaty was agreed by Tony Blair before the recent Election, but was kept out of the electioneering. Its ratification has since received its First and Second readings in Parliament, and still there were no reports on TV main news channels. (Apparently there was a report in the afternoon on BBC 2 before the First Reading but this gave no details of the Treaty). There was to be a Third and final Reading on 17th October 2001 and the public was not informed about this either, let alone given the option of a referendum.

In compiling this document on the EU I am not saying that all is well with our present Government (or previous Governments), or our law courts etc., but I do believe that we will be worse off if we remain in the EU, particularly if we join the single currency.

From a larger perspective, it is also important to realise that instead of a democracy, we have a one party state in this country, due to the fact that a comparatively small group of Global Elite (4) only finance those parties who agree to their long term agenda. When the general populace, including the trade unions, businesses, etc., blame a political leader and/or a party, they are playing into the hands of the globalists because whilst this is going on, neither side think to look deeper into the matter. The EU is part of a worldwide policy of centralisation which is a key factor in control. Many banks and insurance companies are amalgamating and we now have the European Central Bank already placing demands upon the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. One may wonder, therefore, who do we vote for? What can we do? We need to take the time to become informed in a balanced manner. Knowledge allows us to begin to be aware of why certain events are taking place. We can inform others, where we feel it is appropriate, and do whatever feels right to bring about a sense of balance, peace and health within ourselves.

THE EUROPEAN UNION

The idea of a United States of Europe was espoused as early as 1867. In Vigilance: A defence of British Liberty” (2001) by Ashley Mote (5), p. 118, we read: “In the middle of the 19th century - 1867 to be precise - a proposal for the establishment of a European monetary union germinated in Italy. At the time it was taken quite seriously. Indeed, the great English constitutional commentator, Walter Bagehot, wrote of the danger of Britain being left out in the cold. ‘Before long, all Europe, save England, will have one money’.” In 1941 (6) André Malraux was advocating a ‘European New Deal, a federal Europe excluding the USSR’.

1951: Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
1957: The Treaty of Rome. The ECSC becomes the European Economic Community.
1962: EEC unveils its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) guaranteeing farmers a minimum income.
1963 France & Germany only enter into an agreement to work together for their joint benefit within the newly forming Soviet in EUrope- known as The Elysee Treaty
1968: EEC becomes a customs union.
1973: Denmark, Britain, Ireland join, expanding EEC to nine members.
1979: EEC launches European Monetary System to stabilize exchange rate fluctuations among national currencies.
1981: Greece becomes the 10th EEC member.
1986: Single European Act and Final Act (8) (Purpose: to bring about closer union). Spain and Portugal join, making 12 members. According to Ashley Mote in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.132 we learn that: “The Single European Act and Final Act, 1985 [1986-TD], were steered through parliament by a subterfuge worthy of the EU itself. The words ‘Final Act’ did not appear. Its passage was via a tiny sub-clause in a minor Foreign Office Bill debated by a handful of MPs. The clause itself was never discussed. To get the Bill through the House of Lords, the government issued two order papers for the same debate. The order paper with the correct date went to peers known to be sympathetic. The other, with an incorrect date, went to all the rest. The Bill passed.”
1992: Treaty of Maastricht. The EEC becomes the European Union, adding a common foreign and security policy to its activities and taking a first step to a single currency.
1993: EU becomes a single market for goods and services.
1995: Austria, Sweden, Finland raise EU membership to 15.
1997: Treaty of Amsterdam (the so-called “amending treaty”, also referred to as the “Treaty of Rome”). This is where we signed up to Europol.
1998: EU opens membership talks with Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus.
1999: Talks with Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania open. Turkey is also named a candidate, but membership talks with Ankara do not immediately begin.
1999: EU launches the euro. National currencies remain in circulation until 2002 but are given a fixed exchange rate with the euro.
2000 Treaty of Nice.

The following is a short explanation of the various branches of the European Union (courtesy of the 1999 Scottish Nationalist Party’s “Standing up for Scotland” brochure, the European Parliament’s brochure “The European Parliament and your MEP’s”, and a video entitled “Britain and the European Union: The Facts (9)”):

The Presidency: 

Candidates are taken from the head of each member state in rotation, for a period of 6 months.

European Council. The Council is comprised of national government ministers from each EU member state. The Council of Ministers discusses and amends the Commission’s (the EU’s civil service) proposals and decides whether or not a directive should become law. Once agreement has been reached within the Council of Ministers - and between the Council and the European Parliament - a directive can be adopted and will then be implemented through laws enacted by the national parliament of each member state. The European Council meets twice a year. (For your further information - the section on the Council within the EU website (10) only gives basic information on their Council members, i.e. Ireland provides: President, Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany provides: President, Chancellor, Minister for Foreign Affairs. The European Office (11) advised me that one way to learn the names of the other ministers is to check the press releases on their website, i.e. if there is a meeting of agriculture ministers or health etc., they will be named there). Ashley Mote in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.12, provides further information on this matter: “It [the Council of Ministers] is not a single body. It functions by areas of responsibility, and draws together all the ministers from member states who are responsible for particular portfolios. So, for example, all the home affairs or interior ministers meet as a Council of Ministers. So do all the foreign ministers. And the agricultural ministers, and so on. There is no such thing as the Council of Ministers. There are as many as there are government portfolios. They meet rarely. But what happens when they do finally meet? The short answer is ‘very little’. These meetings are never in public, and are tantamount to political horse-trading behind closed doors. No advocacy and opposition, no proper debate on issues, no close examination of detailed draft legislation, and no verbatim record of proceedings. Not even a summary. Just a bland public announcement of the decisions taken. But virtually all those are taken by officials beforehand, not by ministers at all. One Conservative minister, writing about his first visit to an EU ministerial conference, remarked that on entering the conference chamber he was given a copy of the final communiqué. When he pointed out that the subjects had not yet been discussed he was told: ‘Oh no, sir, the decisions have already been made. You are here only to sign the communique’.”

European Commission.

President: Romano Prodi. This is the EU’s civil service which is responsible for initiating and drafting legislation, implementing decisions taken by the Council of Ministers, administrating the EU’s various funds and supervising implementation of EU law by member states. It is headed by a president and a team of Commissioners (two appointed by each of the larger member states and one by each of the others). Its work is directed by 20 Commissioners, including two from the UK (as at 2002 these are Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten). The Commissioners are appointed for five years and are accountable to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

European Parliament: 

This is the only EU institution directly elected by the citizens of Europe and the only institution where our MEP’s (Members of the European Parliament) vote. It has 626 members from fifteen member states. The UK has 87 Euro-MPs, 8 of whom represent Scotland (as at 1999). The MEP’s are chosen at EU-wide elections every five years. Working in Brussels and Strasbourg, Parliament scrutinizes the activities of the other institutions and passes the EU’s annual budget. But its main task is deciding on the shape and scope of new European laws. It shares this responsibility with the European Council. However, in Vigilance: A defence of British Liberty, p. 15, Ashley Mote informs us that: “Yes, we have an elected European Parliament. But it is a mere talking shop, a paper tiger, nothing more than a sop to the people. It is certainly not a legislature, and can scarcely bring itself to use its limited powers of sanction over the executive.”

According to the EU’s official documentation, the Court of Justice settles disputes between member countries and the Union itself, and the Court of Auditors checks that the EU’s money is being properly spent.

It is helpful to understand the methods of voting by the European Council of Ministers. The following is from the European Parliament office, London (Library department):

Methods of voting: QMV (Qualified Majority Voting), Unanimity and Veto

QMV is the form of voting mostly used at present (2002). Each country (member state) has a certain number of votes, roughly depending on the size of the country and population. The Council of Ministers (who cover various areas, i.e. agriculture, health, etc.) of the various countries, vote on legislation.

The following information from the BBC News website (12) entitled “Qualified majority voting”, dated 30th April 2001 may be helpful: “The Council of Ministers has two ways of taking decisions - unanimity, when everyone has to be in agreement - and qualified majority voting - a system of weighted votes. QMV is the most common method of decision-making, used in all but the most sensitive issues.

Issues which are decided on by QMV are also voted on by the European Parliament. This means that the council and parliament act together in co-decision. Under QMV, each member state is given a certain number of votes in the council, weighted according to its size and population [see below]…. The qualified majority means that 62 votes are needed to pass a proposal, rather than the normal majority of 44. The reason for the qualified majority, rather than a simple 50%, means that at least half the population of the EU and half the member states must be in favour of a motion to pass it. But with enlargement, the balance between big and small countries will change. If the distribution of votes remained the same, a group of small countries could in effect gang up against the big countries and vote them down, even though the small countries together represent fewer people than the big ones…..The Nice Treaty allocates the 12 candidate countries their votes and adjusts the votes of the current member states. Once all the countries have joined, there will be 345 votes in total. To reach a qualified majority 255 votes will be required, as well as a majority of member states.”

Quoting from The Penguin Companion to European Union (1995) by Timothy Bainbridge: “The most widely used method of voting in the Council of Ministers, QMV, entails giving the vote of each member state a ‘weighting’, which very broadly reflects its population. These weightings are specified in the Treaty of Rome (Article 205), as is the total number of assenting votes (the threshold) necessary for a measure to be adopted under QMV. At present [prior to the Nice Treaty being ratified by all member states - TD] the weightings are as follows:

France 10                  Austria 4
Germany 10               Sweden 4
Italy 10                      Denmark 3
United Kingdom 10    Finland 3
Spain 8                      Ireland 3
Belgium 5                  Luxembourg 2
Greece 5                       The Netherlands 5
Portugal 5 
Total 87

The total number of votes necessary for a measure to be adopted on a proposal from the European Commission is 62 (an abstention is equivalent to a vote against). A very small number of Treaty articles allow the Council to take a decision by QMV without a Commission proposal: in such cases the 62 votes must be cast by at least 10 member states….The QMV system arose as a direct consequence of the enormous disparity between the original Six in terms of the size of their populations. Then as now, Luxembourg was much the smallest country, with barely a third of a million inhabitants, while at the other end of the scale France, Italy and West Germany each had a population of over 50 million. Giving each member state one vote was clearly not an option….”

Unanimity voting: There are certain areas where the Council of Ministers have to vote unanimously and a unanimous and majority decision has to be arrived at.

Veto: As its name suggests, this is a method of voting whereby a member state (I believe at the Council of Ministers level) has the option to say no to a proposal. I was informed by a past member of a political party, that as the EU expands and more countries join, the areas of veto will have to expand otherwise it will take too long for all the Council of Ministers representing the member states to come to a decision and agreement. Another researcher has informed me that in real terms there are no areas of veto remaining of any consequence (as at October 2002). There are ways in which the EU can often get around a country’s veto; for example, should a member state have the power of veto regarding “employment law”, but not under “social law”, then all matters of employment can be enacted as social!

This is a term which the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has been speaking about recently (August 2002). In a paper entitled Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht (1992) by Martin Howe (13) (a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and European Community law), we learn that: “It [subsidiarity] describes, or is supposed to describe, the concept that any decision should be taken at the lowest possible level: for example, decisions which do not bear on or affect other member states should be taken at national level or below. The principle is to be formally adopted as part of Community law as part of the Maastricht Treaty, which defines subsidiarity in a new Article 3b, to be inserted into the Treaty of Rome [this was written in 1992 - TD], as follows: ‘In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.’ It is suggested that by application of this principle, decisions and activities of the Community institutions will be kept within bounds and powers restored to national levels where they belong….. It [the doctrine of subsidiarity] is of Papal origin, and advocates the desirability of devolving power down to the lowest possible level. The very idea, however, involves the inevitability that it will be the centre which decides what power it thinks appropriate to devolve to the lower levels of the hierarchy.”

After giving further detailed information, Martin Howe provides the following conclusions on this matter in his booklet: “The conclusions of this Section are clear and can be shortly stated: 
(1) The doctrine of ‘subsidiarity’ is so vague that it will not by itself provide any effective limitation upon the ambit of Community action. 
(2) The drafting of Article 3b introduced by the Maastricht Treaty has serious limitations which detract from such limited practical effect as the doctrine of subsidiarity might otherwise have had. 
(3) The guidelines adopted at the Birmingham and Edinburgh summits have done nothing effective to remedy the deficiencies present in Article 3b of the Treaty text. They must be regarded essentially as a window-dressing exercise. 
(4) The institutions which are charged with interpreting that doctrine will not give it any effective weight unless they are fundamentally reformed. 
The doctrine of ‘subsidiarity’ is therefore, without profound institutional reform or changes of attitude or both, virtually worthless as a protection against further unwanted expansion of the European laws and institutions into further aspects of national life. It may, in fact, be worse than worthless if, by giving an illusion of protection, it encourages agreement to measures which would not otherwise be agreed to.” (My italics -TD)

Also, quoting an article from the EU observer’s website dated 27th August 2002 (14) : “The foreign secretary will also call for a ‘subsidiary watchdog’ comprised by MPs from the different member states to check that the EU is not taking power from national and regional bodies and that decisions are taken at the lowest practical level - which is the principle of the rule of subsidiarity.” One anti-EU researcher has remarked and I’m inclined to agree, that Jack Straw’s idea of a subsidiarity watchdog to monitor ‘unjustified legislation’ has merit but will be resisted by the European Parliament.

The European Parliament’s literature gives the impression that the EU cares about its citizens and is efficient and accountable. (One outcome of the Nice summit was an agreement to create a “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” for its citizens). There may be a few MEP’s (Members of the European Parliament), for example the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) members who do feel a sense of service and responsibility, but when one becomes aware of some deeper implications and reads, for example, the “Working Document on The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union” one can find possible loopholes. If an individual only reads the EU’s, more easily located brochures, and their new citizens Charter (of which a copy is supposed to be sent to each of the citizens of member states), I can quite understand that one may wish for their country to remain a member of the EU. It sounds so efficient and caring. It is my concern that many people will only connect at this level and therefore many of the people of Britain may well find themselves manipulated into supporting a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum on the single currency without knowing as many of the facts as possible. I will quote from the European Parliament’s working document “The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union” later, but first I wish to begin with the following:

A UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party (15)) document entitled “Better off Out” by Lord Pearson of Rannoch provides the following introductory information (this document includes 16 common misunderstandings):

“The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community (‘The Treaty of Rome’) set up the Common Market. From the start, this had as its goal ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. The other signatories have always understood this to mean the gradual creation of an EU megastate. Only British Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have consistently fudged the issue. Edward Heath agreed the Treaty in 1972 and took us into the Common Market….During the 1975 referendum, when the British people voted to stay in the Common Market, the Labour Government sent a leaflet to every household in the land, saying: ‘There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.’ Radio 4 has confessed that the BBC was heavily biased in favour of a ‘yes’ vote before and during the 1975 campaign. The ‘yes’ campaign was also generously funded by the CIA. The BBC Independent Television remain biased in favour of our EU membership today.

“All subsequent amendments to the Treaty [of Rome] have increased the power of ‘Brussels’ at the expense of national sovereignty. These amendments were: the Single European Act of 1985 [1986 - TD], the Treaty on European Union - ‘Maastricht’ - of 1992, and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 (collectively referred to as the ‘Treaty of Rome’). Thus the original European Common Market has been subtly changed into the European Union of today, without the peoples’ understanding or consent. Of all the Treaty changes, the Single European Act has turned out to be the most destructive, because it set up the Single Market (not to be confused with the former Common Market) and gave control of our industry, commerce and environment to majority voting in Brussels.” (My emphasis -TD)

Quoting further from the same document:

“The emerging EU megastate already has its own parliament, executive, supreme court, currency, flag and anthem. It is planning its own written constitution, army, foreign policy, police force, legal and tax systems…..The Treaty takes precedence over Acts of Parliament. So if our Government (the executive) is outvoted or agrees EU legislation in Brussels, our Parliament must put it into British law, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court (Source: Sections 2 & 3 & Schedule 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 & Articles 226-229 of the TEC).”

Proposed EU Constitution

On 28th October 2002 the European Convention was presented a 17-page skeletal outline for a future constitutional treaty of Europe with 46 articles divided into three parts. Quoting the EU Observer’s website in an article dated 28th October:

“Giscard presents draft constitutional treaty.

Officially handed out to members of the Convention on the future of Europe on Monday [28th October 2002], the skeletal outline for a future constitutional treaty of Europe has 46 articles and is divided into three parts and a preamble. Introducing the draft as a ‘basic structure,’ Convention president Giscard Valéry d’Estang, requested that the debate be on ‘structure and not on substance.’ ….The new EU provided for by this outline will be built on ‘a federal basis’ (article 1) including a ‘common defence policy to defend and promote the Union’s values in the wider world’ (article 30). In article 38 the draft provides for European direct taxation by stating that ‘the Union budget is fully financed by own resources.’ The outline has also followed recent debate in the working groups of the European Convention. It proposes a single legal personality (article 4) and a merging of the pillar structure so that justice and home affairs and common foreign and security policy would appear in the same treaty [with the power to sign treaties and take a seat on international bodies such as the United Nations - in place of, not as well as, the member States -TD]. Citizens would enjoy a ‘dual citizenship, national citizenship and European citizenship’, the paper says and people would be ‘free to use either, as he or she chooses’. (Article 5).

“Built on a federal basis

The draft presented by Mr. Giscard is the basic architecture of the future treaty and the specific elements are not yet filled out. As the whole system would be built on a federal basis some competences would be exclusive Union competence, other areas would be shared competence between the Union and the member states and finally some areas, would be left for the member states. The article 8 says, similar to the Swiss and the American tenth constitutional amendment: ‘any competence not conferred on the Union by the Constitution rests with the Member States’.

“Congress of the Peoples of Europe disputed

Mr. Giscard’s paper includes a proposal for a new institution, a ‘Congress of the Peoples of Europe’ but the concrete composition of this new body will be drafted later in ‘the light of the Convention’s work’, (article 19). This formula was found after heated debates in the leading body of the Convention, the presidium where small states opposed to such a new body, while France and Spain were strongly in favour. The division in the presidium was reflected in the plenary on Monday afternoon with many delegates opposing the creation of a new body.

“Exit clause

The paper does not take a stand in the discussion of electing a new EU president of the Council. Mr. Giscard suggested that such ‘specific’ elements be proposed at a later date, after the skeleton is approved. The draft treaty includes paragraphs for accession of new member states to the Union, of suspension of Union membership and of voluntary withdrawal from the Union ‘by decision of a Member State’. (Article 46). The final and third part of the draft treaty includes provisions for the ratification and entry into force of the constitutional treaty, however it does not specify how this will happen. [An activists comment: ‘This is subject to agreement by all the other member states, and with such a high threshold would we ever achieve it?]

“Beginning of a new Europe

Saying that some thought it ‘too general’ and some ‘too technical,’ Mr. Giscard said it was an ‘outline’ for a constitutional treaty needed for the ‘beginning of a new Europe.’ Joshka Fischer, the German foreign minister and first-time participant in the Convention said it ‘was a very important step’ before adding that ‘of course there are many unresolved questions.’ Henning Christopherson, representing the Danish government in the Convention and a member of the presidium, said that it was an ‘ambitious’ and ‘visionary’ proposal. In a pointed reference to the notorious one-time-or-out ratification clause, which was left out of this final version of the draft, Mr. Christopherson said that such an action should only be taken ‘unanimously.’ In the run up to today’s presentation of the outline, there had been a feverish debate in the presidium on whether a member state should be outside the new EU if they fail to ratify a new treaty. Fellow presidium member Klaus Hansch insisted that whatever name it took, this was ‘definitely’ a constitution.

‘Slowly but surely’

To sum up Mr. Giscard said that ‘slowly but surely’ the Convention was moving towards its goal. The presidium, he said, would submit ‘draft sections’ of the treaty based on plenary contributions with the final constitution being ready around summer 2003.”

Some researchers also believe that the Vatican supports the European Union. In The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire (1997), the author Adrian Hilton, remarks that Roman Catholicism has a strong tendency towards centralisation and views it as wholly necessary for individual nations and churches to merge their individual identities into a larger body, beneath the guise of avoiding future wars.

The Soul for Europe programme started ten years ago. It is part of the little-known “Forward Studies Unit” of the European Commission. The Forward Studies Unit is based in Brussels and reports directly to the Commission President. The core of its work is “legitimising and constitutionalising the European Project”. Applications for funding are filtered through the Soul for Europe Screening Committee whose precise membership is secret. According to some estimates the Soul for Europe programme has provided over £25 million in grants to ecumenical and pro-EU projects throughout Europe.

Quoting an article by Celia Wright, Higher Nature’s “Health News for Health Professionals” dated October 2002 (16):

“The Proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive

…. The THMPD [Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive] is a relatively new Directive coming from the EU. At the moment it is only a proposed draft and (hopefully) a lot of water will pass under the bridge before it becomes so. The hope that we might simply get rid of a Herbal directive in any shape or form is almost certainly impossible. However there is a lot that can be done to see that the present document is redrafted to protect our freedoms and our health industry. In many ways the THMPD is far more of a threat to our basic rights than the Food Supplement Directive. Essentially, as it stands, the THMPD would mean that companies such as Higher Nature would no longer be able to sell products containing ‘medicinal’ herbs (this would only happen several years hence). This restriction may or may not include what could be termed ‘culinary’ herbs - herbs that are regarded as food, for example garlic, because we eat it, or chamomile, because we drink it as tea.

“The THMPD would not directly prevent us from marketing herbs, but the financial investment required to meet the Directive’s demands would mean in effect that we could not. Although as a company Higher Nature would be able to adapt and survive by providing only food supplements, I believe that this situation will be the same for many small and medium sized companies currently selling herbs, and that the bottom line is that we, the people, will be deprived of many good products as a result.

“One of the really iniquitous aspects of the THMPD is that herbs will not be able to be combined with vitamins and minerals. Actually this is also the current situation under UK law. Until recently the UK Medicines Control Agency has turned a blind eye to the many excellent herb/nutrient combinations on sale in this country, but in 2001 they began enforcing this law. In Higher Nature’s case this entailed reformatting about 25 of our products….At present we are marketing these formulations under UK law, but if the proposed draft of the THMPD becomes law we will have to drop all products containing medicinal herbs.

“What is saddest of all, here, is that there is absolutely no nutritional or scientific reason why herbs and nutrients should not be combined - in fact they are complementary and, when formulated correctly, offer greater benefit than when they’re separated. So why are we having to separate them? The only reason is that when legislators sit down to write Acts of Parliament or EU Directives they think with blinkers on. In other words they write one set of laws to cover herbs and a completely separate piece of legislation to cover foods and food supplements. So nutrients and foods can’t be combined!….But the news is not all bad. The Health Food Manufacturers Association, of which Higher Nature is an active member, is fighting the THMPD just as fiercely as it has been lobbying to get the best result from the Food Supplement Directive. In particular the HFMA is working with Lord Hunt at the Department of Health (DDH) to make sure that the UK government a) gets our message and b) transmits it forcefully to the EU. The HFMA has now sent the DCH a full list of herbal remedies on the UK market that will not survive the THPMD in its present form, including the herb/nutrient mixed products I’ve talked about.

“The HFMA’s sister body, the Irish Health Trade Assocation (HTA) has produced a potentially very helpful amendment to the THMPD, which the HFMA consider a step in the right direction. At the European level, another organisation, the European Health Product Manufacturers (EHPM), is putting pressure on the Commission to delay the progress of the Directive to allow a better understanding of the difficulties by all parties. And generally speaking that is the conclusion: we must delay the THMPD for as long as possible, to give all the organisations that are working to preserve our rights the time to draft and redraft the Herbal Directive until our freedom to use safe herbal supplements (with or without added nutrients) is safely enshrined in this law.

“If you want to take action yourself write or fax your MP  http://www.faxyourmp.com  do the hard work for you) to make sure that he or she puts what pressure they can on the Department of Health to delay the Directive for as long as possible, and to work as hard as they can to protect our right to obtain and use herbs for our health.”

 1985 Weights & Measures Act and the EU

Steve Thoburn, a Sunderland market trader, was convicted on 9th April 2001 for continuing to use scales that could only weigh in pounds and ounces, instead of both Imperial and metric as required by EU law. Quoting the March 2001 issue of Sovereignty (17):

“Vivian Linacre, Director of the British Weights and Measures Association told Sovereignty ‘The whole trial hinges on one issue only: The fundamental constitutional issue as to whether a mere EU regulation imposed by statutory instrument in compliance with EU directives, can overturn the primary legislation - the 1985 Weights and Measures Act - which was passed by Parliament and has not been revised, repealed, or amended. In short, this case is about whether UK or EU law is supreme. It is a momentous case.” Information from the Sunday Telegraph, dated 10th April 2001, stated that the Judge decided that EU law took preference over UK law and said: “It would destroy the concept of a union if member states could go off on legislative frolics of their own.” Steve Thoburn was given six month’s conditional discharge but could face costs of up to £60,000. The human rights group Liberty confirmed that it is backing the Metric Martyrs (Steve Thorburn and four others) in their fight and an appeal will now (as at August 2002) be lodged, ironically, in the European Court of Human Rights, which could take five years to complete.

Quoting again from the UKIP’s “Better off Out” by Lord Pearson:

“The Euro-philes’ [pro-EU]….claim is that the EU is essential to keep peace in Europe. However, democracies do not provoke war, whereas forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations do (eg the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and much of Africa)….The word ‘Europe’ has been appropriated by the Euro-philes to mean both the continent of different nations and the emerging megastate. So when a Euro-realist [anti-EU] is rude about ‘Europe’ - referring to a product of the Treaty and Brussels - he is easily cast as ‘Euro-phobic’, a ‘little Englander’, or a ‘dangerous nationalist’ etc. Most Euro-realists love the Europe of different nations, but hate the Treaty and the dictates from Brussels.

“Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) - the ‘Single Currency’ - is a political project, designed to force the creation of the megastate. Only in the UK do politicians pretend it is an economic project.”

The annual payment to the EU in 2001 was over £11 billion which works out at the incredible figure of 1 ¼ million every hour of every day (18), of which we receive back about half in grants. In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.151 we learn that: “The government’s 1999 ‘Pink Book’ shows that the contribution by UK taxpayers in 1998 was £10.3 billion. Some £5 billion came back in the form of grants, with costs and strings attached, and are not what they seem. Also, they are based on the astonishing proposition that the EU knows better than we do how to spend our own money….Looked at in another way, that £10.3 billion was an export tariff on the £96 billion of goods and services we exported to the EU. In that case, at 10.4 per cent, it was nearly three times the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] world average of 3.6 per cent paid by the USA, Norway and Switzerland as non-members. Even discounting the grants we receive still leaves a tariff of over 5.5 per cent. A cost/benefit analysis prepared by the Institute of Directors (IOD) in early 2000 calculated the actual cost of UK membership of the EU at some £15 billion a year, which is higher than the official figures because it took into account other costs the government chooses to ignore. However, it also took account of the net benefit of inward investment from EU countries, which the government also ignores in its own calculations. The IOD report claimed that these figures were on the low side, but they established with solid facts that the costs far outweigh the benefits of membership of the EU.”

Quoting extracts from the Democracy Movement’s document: “EU Cannot be Serious: the Truth about Europe”(19) under the heading: What has happened to our fisheries?

“Fishing was the livelihood of thousands of British workers and indirectly of thousands more. The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has destroyed most of this. We can no longer simply catch fish in our waters. Instead, the EU tells us what we can and cannot catch. Britain used to own over three quarters of the fish in EU waters. Now we are allowed to catch only one third of the EU’s fish [source “Free to Chose”, Bill Jamieson, Global Britain 1977]. By the end of 2002, all the EU’s fishing fleets will be able to fish in our twelve mile coastal belt. The Brussels bureaucrats who designed this absurd policy thought they could conserve fish by limiting the numbers landed in port. They did not realise that most fish are dead when they come up in the nets, so millions of tonnes of fish are thrown back into the sea each year in the name of EU conservation….

That is what most politicians tell you. They say that Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is only a commercial project. But in Europe all politicians accept that it is designed to create a single European Government, with its own foreign and defence policies and its own legal system. You have only to listen to what some of the key people in the EU have been saying for years:

· A previous President of the EU, Jacques Delores, said: ‘Yes, we have to have transfers of sovereignty to achieve economic and monetary union.’

· …..the new President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told the European Parliament: ‘We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.’

· Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, said: ‘The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.’

· Hans Tietmeyer, former President of the German Central Bank, said: ‘A country that merges its currency with that of another currency cannot be politically independent’.”

From Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 87 we learn about the high cost of converting to the euro: “The ultimate cost of converting the whole country to the euro has been estimated at £36 billion - or 4.2 per cent of our GDP [gross domestic product]. That is roughly equal to £650 for every man, woman and child in the UK.” Further, on p. 171: “This huge sum includes updating all computers, vending machines and cash tills, as well as staff-training and merchandising costs.” Also, on p. 165: “….research by the Bank of England at the end of 1999 showed that joining the euro would cost the UK up to £9 billion a year. Pension-fund managers Phillips and Drew have calculated that British pension funds alone could lose up to £5 billion if the UK scraps the pound and joins the euro. The company estimated that the total loss faced by the entire UK institutional investor community could be as high as £10 billion.” It boggles the mind as to how any sane person, knowing these facts, could envisage the UK remaining a member of the EU.

Quoting again from the Democracy Movement’s document: “EU Cannot be Serious: the Truth about Europe”:

“Can you think of any argument in favour of the Single Currency?

Not on balance. There are three main points in its favour but there are far more against. There would be some savings on business transaction costs. It would be easier to compare European prices with our own. We would not need to incur the cost of changing pounds into other Eurozone currencies. However, when put on the scales against being forced to accept the wrong interest rate for the UK, the loss of exchange rate flexibility, higher taxes, higher unemployment costs and massively increased regulation and bureaucracy, there is an overwhelming case against joining.”

“At some point in the future, can we leave EMU, like we left the ERM, if it does not work out well for us?

No, if we join EMU [European Monetary Union - the Euro], it will be irreversible. We will lose the pound, our gold reserves and domestic monetary control forever. EMU is the ERM without the escape hatch.” However, there are other opinions on this. See overview at the beginning of this document. Also, in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.161 we learn that a referendum will be a farce: “The threat that the UK could be forced into the euro, regardless of the UK government’s view and a possible ‘no’ vote in a referendum, was established several years ago. It stems from a protocol added to Maastricht in 1997, despite the fact that the same treaty appeared to give the UK an opt-out on the euro. The protocol said that no member state could prevent entry [of all members] to the third stage of economic and monetary union. The UK has had no choice since 1997….The idea of a referendum on joining the euro is a practical nonsense as well as constitutionally illegal. How can we be asked to say ‘yes’ to joining when the economic conditions are right, when the result of a ‘yes’ vote would eliminate the chance to vote ‘no’ later when the economic conditions were wrong again!”

In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 173, we read: “When the UK foolishly joined the ERM (a prelude to the euro) in the late 1980s, unemployment rose to 3,000,000, and the national debt spiralled upwards with it. The UK suffered five years of recession or no growth….Today, unemployment is under 4 per cent in the UK, but averages over 11 per cent across euroland, when UK figures are included, and 13 per cent when they are not…..In the USA, almost three-quarters of the population has a job. In the UK 71 per cent, in Germany 64 per cent, in France 59 per cent and in Belgium a mere 28 per cent work for a living. Those last three countries all have taxation levels and social security costs that positively discourage people from working. Much of the new employment that has been generated in the EU, especially in France, has been in the public sector, which in turn has added to the tax burden….

“The Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederation in Europe (UNICE), in a 1998 report on European job prospects, co-signed by the Confederation of British Industry, said: ‘The EU’s employment record is dismal. Since 1970 the US economy has created just under 50 million new jobs, whilst the EU has created just over five million. For every ten jobs created in the US, only one is created in Europe. Unemployment stands at 17 million in the EU - 10% of the workforce.’ Dr. Gerald Lyons, chief economist of DKB International, speaking in London on 17th November 1998, coined a new definition for EMU. He said: ‘This poor jobs performance in Europe has not been a short term development. It has been a sustained problem. This problem is not about to be reversed…. European monetary union will make Europe’s jobs problem worse….There are nearly 4,000,000 companies in the UK, but only a third of them employ more than one person. Only 0.1 per cent of British businesses employ more than 500 people each. The other 99.9 per cent do not, yet they are responsible for well over half of all employment in the UK. Also, barely three per cent of them have any trade with the rest of the EU, either as exporters or importers.

“So the scare-mongering claim that 3,000,000 UK jobs depend on EU membership is entirely false. A few thousand jobs would be directly affected if we left the EU, but only in the short term. An explosion of new activity and confidence would quickly replace them, and create many more. Only 87 MEPs, 2 commissioners and a few civil servants would be permanently out of jobs.”

The following extracts are from a report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the effects on Britain of withdrawal from the EU (20)

“…..Some of the potential costs of withdrawal [from the EU] are now widely perceived to have fallen. Moves towards a more open world trading system over the past two decades, helped by the completion of the Tokyo and Uruguay rounds of trade negotiations, mean that any additional tariff barriers facing UK exporters if the UK were to leave the EU are likely to be much smaller now than they once might have been……Of course, a full analysis of EU withdrawal is a difficult and somewhat subjective task….

According to the UK national accounts, the UK paid about £4.5 billion more to the EU in 1998 than it received. On average, the net annual payment in the 1990s (up to and including 1998) was £2.4 billion…..In total we assume that withdrawal means that net public expenditure is £3 billion per annum lower than would otherwise be the case, after taking account of the lower level of import duties on agricultural products. There are many different uses to which this windfall ‘gain’ might be put. Given that there are likely to be some short-term employment costs associated with withdrawal from the EU, it seems reasonable to assume that additional expenditure might be used to try and alleviate these. We assume that the government would reduce employers’ national insurance contributions by £2 billion per annum and allow the remaining £1 billion per annum to be used to reduce income taxes….

“[Impact on employment]

The effect of EU withdrawal on employment is relatively small in relation to the change in output. ….If monetary policy is relaxed as the economy contracts, then the maximum decline in employment is around 75,000. If interest rates and the exchange rates do not fall, then employment would fall by around 160,000 after three years as a result of UK exit from the EU. The reason for the relatively small decline in employment in spite of a large shock to output is that wages fall in real terms as the labour market slackens. This makes labour relatively more attractive to companies, compensating for the effect of lower demand. It is also the case that with lower labour-saving technical progress, firms need relatively more labour for each unit of output…

…We estimate that 3.2 million jobs are associated directly with the production of goods and services which Britain currently sells to the EU. The incomes of those employed in producing goods and services for the EU market also help to support other jobs at home. But, as the experience of the 1960s shows, there is no reason to suppose that the UK would experience mass unemployment outside the EU. Withdrawal could cause disruption to the economy, but it is most unlikely that export sales to EU markets would cease completely, and monetary policy can be relaxed. In the longer-term flexible wages and prices would help employment to recover….Our best estimates are that withdrawal from the EU would mean that the level of output in the UK economy would be 2 ¼ per cent lower permanently than it otherwise would have been. This estimate is uncertain, and to some extent may be argued to err on the side of caution, but it is broadly equivalent to the gains that other EU economies are estimated to have made from participating fully in the European integration process.” (My italics - TD)

The, admittedly estimated, and probably cautious, maximum decline of 75,000 jobs indicated in this report is a completely different proposition to the figure quoted by Tony Blair, that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU. Also, Sir Kenneth Jackson, Kenneth Clarke, Keith Vaz, Robin Cook and others variously claim that 3m, 3.2 or 3.5m jobs will go if we remain outside the single currency.

It has been said that we should beware of ‘nationalism’ as the Nazi’s tried that in the second World War. Many terrible things have happened throughout history, does it mean that we are going to allow this to manipulate us into remaining in the European Union?

Quoting “On Target” Vol. 26, nos. 12 & 13, 7/21st December, 1996: Sovereignty and the Nation State: World Orders: “In October, 1996, The Times reported a speech by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl as ‘Nation states day is over, British told’, but in his address at the University of Louvain, in Belgium, Herr Kohl said ‘European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century’ and he endorsed an earlier remark by the late President Mitterand, of France, that ‘nationalism is war’. Here lies much of the argument about the European relationship, but it ducks the question of the banking system, who will control this as the life blood in the European ‘arteries’, and its relationship to the global financial system as a whole? This question is critical when tabling visions of European expansion, not only to include the former East European countries of the Communist Bloc, but to encompass Russia, too. A United Europe ‘from the Atlantic to the Urals’ has often been identified as a long-term objective by some. However we see this, it is an expansion, a consolidation, a centralisation of power.”

This is an organisation that was set up in 1948 to promote the European Union. It was originally a limited company but is now known simply as “The European Movement”.

In a web page article entitled “European Movement Exposed”(21), the author, Brian Mooney, describes the history of this movement: “It was formed in 1948 to promote the idea of European Union - ‘a United States of Europe’. It also has the aim of keeping up the pressure on Europe’s governments towards realising this. Ernest Wistrich, one of its Directors, went on record in the 1970s as believing that European Union could ultimately become a blueprint for World Government. It set up and remains active within the European Education Programme, which organises conferences and publishes teaching materials. The programme is run by the Federal Trust, which describes itself as an independent charity holding no political views of its own. Presumably this is to take advantage of the tax exemptions available to a registered charity. With the Maastricht Treaty being revised, the Trust has set up a Round Table whose members are all committed to building the ever closer union prescribed. Its proceedings are edited by a President of the Union of European Federalists and published as recommendations through the Federal Trust Papers. Hardly politically neutral?”

The following information from the European Movement’s website (22) may be of interest: “The European Movement has a unique place in British politics. It is a democratic membership organisation, governed by an elected Management Board. It has separate national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and branches throughout England, supported by the work of professional staff in the London office. In addition, there are Regional Organisers throughout the country to assist in the development of the branches and the delivery of the grassroots campaign. The Young European Movement is an important part of the European Movement, working among students and other young people to put the pro-European message on campus and among youth organisations. The European Movement also works closely with groups within political parties, such as the Conservative Group for Europe, the Labour Movement for Europe and the Liberal Democrat European Group. There are national sections of the European Movement in most other European countries, coordinated by an international secretariat in Brussels. The different national sections assist each other in their campaigns, and promote contacts and exchanges amongst their members.

“The European Movement is Scotland’s leading pro-European organisation….It is an international movement with branches in most European countries. It is a non-governmental organisation owned and funded by its members in each country. The European Movement organises a programme of events - evening meetings and seminars, lunches and conferences - and publishes material to inform our members and the wider public about European affairs. Foremost among these issues in the future will be the European single currency.” (My italics - TD)

Quoting Nigel Farage, MEP for South East England (January 2000): “Many people were surprised when the UK Independence Party polled 10% of the vote here in the South East in the European Parliament elections on 10th June 1999. It meant that I was off to Brussels and Strasbourg, with a mandate to report back on the activities of this somewhat anonymous institution. I had been warned that others had trodden this path, with good intentions of fighting the system - only to find that they had very quickly ‘gone native’. The reason soon became obvious: money is no object in the EU and MEPs are made to feel very important. There are chauffeur driven cars, endless champagne receptions and an expenses system capable of corrupting almost anyone. The UKIP pledged that any excess travel allowances would be used to help the victims of the EU in this country. That is precisely what the three of us are doing, much to the annoyance of other MEPs…. There is a building in Brussels that cost £800 million, a brand new one in Strasbourg that cost £300 million and an administrative centre in Luxembourg for the 3500 staff employed by the European Parliament. Every week, tin boxes full of EU documents and MEPs’ papers travel up and down the motorways of Europe between these ‘centres’…. I wish I could take every elector to the European Parliament - if only to hear the language being used. The dream is of a European empire, with its own currency, legal system, police force and army. The project is moving ahead rapidly. No room here for being ‘in Europe, not run by Europe’!”

Whilst I believe that some spiritually aligned NGOs have attempted to exert pressure on the UN to walk its talk, some researchers say that they enhance the UN’s power, prestige and credibility. In “EU Adapts UN’s NGO Strategy” in the 15th July 2002 issue of The New American (23) we read: “In recent years, many conservative and pro-family groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have created UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in order to participate in UN conferences and summits. Such activists reason that there is value in having a seat at the table to network with like-minded people from other nations to restrain the more outrageous elements of the UN’s agenda….The problem with this approach is that it actually enhances the UN’s power, prestige, and credibility, and forces traditionalists who choose the NGO route to support the ‘purposes and principles’ of the UN as a condition for accredition. And in any case, the UN always arranges to control what it calls ‘international civil society’ by funding an ever-expanding chorus of radical NGOs, thereby ensuring that genuinely independent voices are shouted down. In a critique of the European Union’s constitutional convention published in the June 8th issue of The Spectator of London, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP), describes how this charade functions in the EU. To the Eurocrats, writes Hannan, ‘the goal of a united Europe is a self-evident good, and anyone who opposes it is either foolish or wicked. If ordinary voters are insufficiently enthusiastic, they must be better educated. If they persist in voting the wrong way, they must be made to change their minds…. Additionally, the architects of what Mikhail Gorbachev called the ‘new European soviet’ have taken a page from the UN’s playbook by creating a forum for NGOs representing ‘international civil society.’ This would be dominated by NGOs such as ‘the European Movement, the Union of European Federalists, the European Women’s Lobby, the European Council of Artists, the European Humanist Federation, and the European Social Action Network. These are not simply NGOs that happen to be pro-EU. They are, in many cases, creatures of the European Commission, dependent on Brussels for their funding.”

The following article in Living Lightly (comes with Positive News Autumn 2002, entitled “Summing up the Summit” by Rory Spowers http://www.hope.se  provides some grassroots information:

“Summing up the Summit

Several worlds co-existed and collided in and around Johannesburg and many felt that the real action was not necessarily going on in the Sandton Convention Centre but in the numerous parallel activities, as existing networks of NGOs and activists started fusing to­gether, expanding into one global coalition calling for radical action and change. As indigenous tribal elders joined activists from around the globe in their exasperation and despair at the Summit proceedings, something else was going on at a different level, something new, something that promises to both eclipse and transcend the stagnant world of international diplomacy. While the US, Canadian and Australian delegations system­atically undermined the official process, seemingly hell-bent on making sure that nothing of any consequence came out of the whole event, people from around the world were coming together with a common purpose.

“The escalating power and influence of multi­national corporations, has now become so glaringly transparent that many began to see the futility of even engaging with the official process. For many, the ultimate conclusion from Johannesburg was that we can forget all aspirations of the change we want to see coming from the top down. It is more evident than ever that the step change, the paradigm shift, the quantum leap that so many of us want to see, has to come from us, from the grass roots, from people just like you and me. We have to build the world we want to live in. Many now feel that energy expended in fighting the existing system is energy misdirected and energy wasted. As Buckminster Fuller once said, ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete.’ Similarly, Einstein remarked that ‘Problems are never solved by the same level of awareness that created them.’ There is much to suggest that the new model is now emerging, consisting of new economic frameworks, new systems of governance, breakthroughs in ecological design, the principles of 'industrial ecology', agro-ecological farming methods and sustainable lifestyles. In fact, for many of the NGOs in Johannesburg, the official process had become so corrupted by the corporate agenda that they refused to engage any further as a matter of principle.

“This is not to say that the direct lobbying tactics so expertly handled by organisations like Friends of the Earth does not continue to play an important part. One of the most comforting realisations of the week was to see that veteran campaigners like Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett, who were doing such a skilful job at the interface between governments, the UN and the Civil Society, appeared infinitely more articulate and informed than those on the other side of the table. However, despite winning several battles, most notably within the media war, they remained realistic about the overall situation. ‘Basically these people have convinced themselves that free trade is the same thing as sustainable development,’ Tony Juniper told me. ‘Rather than implement­ing measures for corporate accountability, they are pushing the agenda in precisely the opposite direction.’….

“Sandton, site of the official UN Summit, certainly seemed the most alien of the parallel worlds. I made my way towards the entrance, expecting to find huge rooms heaving with heated negotiations. Instead, I found myself inside a five storey shopping mall, confronted with a vast BMW promotion, surrounded by well dressed men and women eating lobster, drinking chilled Chardonnay and browsing through Gueei. It took a full ten minutes to find my way past this unashamedly ostentatious commercialism to gain access to the Convention Centre itself, where the passion and conviction of Civil Society representatives continued to fall on deaf ears all week.

“Amongst the many other parallel activities which had been planned for the week, perhaps the most radical and challenging to the mainstream agenda was the People's Earth Summit at St Stithians College, a 200 acre school campus just outside the Sandton district. This was not only home to the international Friends of the Earth delegation but also the focus for many of the most prominent activists from around the world, including Vandana Shiva, Martin Khor and the Third World Network, Herbie Girardet representing the Earth Emergency Call to Action, and a diverse collection of writers, local Sangomo healers and tribal elders from the ice sheets of Greenland to the humid tropics, largely coordinated through the auspices of the London­ based Gaia Foundation. When Michael Meacher visited the event, he commented that, ‘This is where it's all happening,’ and there were certainly moments during the week that the charged atmosphere of the event was palpable: landless local farmers and their wives singing modified protest songs from the apartheid era with such gusto that the police appeared; marathon drumming circle sessions which encompassed men and women of every race, colour and creed; intense late night discussions about building networks and the acceleration towards critical mass; disturbing debates about the implications of new nano-technologies and heart rending accounts of corporate malpractice inflicted on indigenous populations.

“However, despite the pervasive doom and gloom and the inevitable frustration with the official process, many feel that Johannesburg will be remembered as an important moment in the crystallisation of a global movement creating a tide of Hope. Little may have been achieved in the corridors of power, but existing global networks are coalescing into one coherent voice like never before. The world we want to live in may seem further away than before, but the lines of communication which link this rising tide are buzzing louder than ever.

“There is considerable evidence that the paradigm shift so many of us read and talk about is already upon us, manifesting in progressive examples in the corporate sector which have actively embraced new frameworks like the Swedish Natural Step movement, through to new initiatives for global governance and the expanding web of eco-villages and ecological communities which are already living a new way. Robert E Kennedy once said that ‘Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the life of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples, crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.’ Despite the abject failure of world leaders to produce anything of any consequence out of this Summit, Kennedy's words serve as an inspiration for our times. The runaway train of the corporate neo-liberal agenda may be racing towards the end of the line, but the cyclical networks which will replace it are laying the foundations for a new and different world. Each one of us can become a ripple of Hope within this ever-expanding network, spinning the web to the four corners of the globe.”

Quoting again from “The meaning of the Maastricht Treaty” by Professor Stephen and Mrs Gill Bush. “To understand the Maastricht Treaty it is necessary to realise that it is made up of a set of Common Provisions, which announce the formation of the ‘European Union’ (Articles A-F), plus a complex series of amendments to existing Treaties (Rome, Coal & Steel and EURATOM [European Atomic Energy Community], as amended by the Single European Act of 1986) (Articles G, H, I) plus 16 entirely new articles (J-S), 33 declarations and 17 protocols. Copies of all Treaties are needed to understand the Maastricht Treaty, since the latter refers to articles in the other Treaties which are not reproduced in the text supplied by the Government. The Treaty of Rome thus amended by the Maastricht Treaty becomes the Treaty on European Union…. The Maastricht Treaty itself is a massive and highly complex affair of 306 pages…..It is doubtful if more than a handful of our legislators will have devoted enough time to be able to digest this treaty before they vote on it. [Remember - this document was written around 1992 -TD]. Certainly our representative at Maastricht did not: ‘Now we’ve signed it - we had better read it,’ as our Foreign Secretary reportedly said on February 7, 1992 - a frivolous remark - but tragically for us, all too true…..

NEXT PAGE The Most Threatening Provisions for Britain

FOOTNOTES
(1) Available from Bloomfield Books at £4.95 inc. p&p. See Appendix C. Martin Howe is a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and European Community law

(2) From media statement from Anthony Coughlan, Secretary, The National Platform, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9. Tel: 00 353 1 8305792, website: www.nationalplatform.org

(3) In Defence of the Realm (published by Subjects for Sanity against the Nice Treaty) Legal Advisor: Leolin Price, CBE, QC.  Copies are available from myself. E-mail: theresa@sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk for details. This booklet has also been added as an appendix to "Vigilance: A defence of British Liberty"  (2001) by Ashley Mote, available from Bloomfield Books (see Appendix C)  £12.95 (inclusive p&p). Cheque payable to Donald Martin.

(4) International Banking families, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilaterial Commission, multinational corporations, etc

(5) Available from: Bloomfield Books, 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD, £12.95 incl. p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin.

(6) The Messianic Legacy (1986) by Michael Bagent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln

(7) Available from: Bloomfield Books, 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD, £12.95 incl. p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin.

(8) The Messianic Legacy (1986) by Michael Bagent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln

(9) "Britain and the European Union: The Facts" (video) is available from Bloomfield Books (see Appendix C), price: £6.00 (including p&p, UK only). Cheque payable to Donald Martin

(10) http://ue.eu.int

(11) European Office, Brussels, Information to the Public: 00 322 285 5650

(12) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/euro-glossary/1054052.stm 

(13) This paper was later published as a booklet and is available from Bloomfield Books at £4.95 inc. p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin. See Appendix C for address

(14) http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?print=true&sid=18&aid=7351

(15) United Kingdom Independence Party, Room 407, Triumph House, 189 Regent Street, London W1R 7WF, Tel: 020 7434 4559, website: www.independence.org.uk 

(16) Higher Nature plc, Burwash Common, East Sussex TN19 7LX, UK, Tel: 01435 883702.

(17) Sovereignty: Freedom from Debt Slavery, 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR

(18) From the video "Britain and the European Union: The Facts" available from Bloomfield Books (see Appendix C). Price £6.00 inc. p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin

(19) The Democracy Movement, Freepost LON 10777, London SW6 1YZ

(20) Available on their website: http://www.niesr.ac.uk  National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2 Dean Trench Street, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HE, tel: 020 7222 7665, Fax: 020 7654 1900, e-mail: npain@niesr.ac.uk 

(21) www.keele.ac.uk/socs/ks40/em.htm 

(22) European Movement, 200 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9TJ, Tel: 020 7881 8989. 
European Movement (Scottish Council), 13A Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7PE.
Tel/Fax: 0131 220 0377, e-mail: Scotland@euromove.org.uk Website: www.euromove.org.uk 

(23) www.thenewamerican.com 

Farming Politics Government Posters Humour Technology Religion Nature Me Links  
Email - b e r n a r d - c l a y s o n @ s h u a r t f a r m . f s n e t . c o . u k