Whenever I’m asked for assistance, mainly in programming forums or the electrical industry that I work in, I say the same thing; one should first get perspective and approach an issue from a topographical point of view.

A simple analogy might be thus: If you woke up in a forest, you would only know it by looking around and seeing the trees. Perhaps you climb a tree and get to see for some distance and note that you are in what appears to be a forest. By rising above the canopy in your balloon, the forest turns out to be more of a jungle and still the more you rise, the summation of clues may reveal your location and show you which direction to take.

Having a top down approach means you start with the big picture, it helps with a complicated topic such as the EU, and you decide which avenues to explore. On the other hand if you focused your efforts in a limited area, for example to research UKIP, how they got to Brussels and what their aims are, then that would be a modular approach but it means that however expert you became, there would be a fundamental ignorance due to the lack of understanding how the EU works at a higher level.

These days it’s common for people to think of the EU in very simple terms, as an organisation that was created in order to bring together the western nations of the European continent that share similar beliefs and policies. Whole groups of people such as the youth, have done away with ‘similarities’ and replaced them with ‘common beliefs’, as they come ever closer under one un-elected, non-national, un-democratic but federal flag of allegiance.

So the question is, how do you look at Europe in the context of Brexit. As time passes, more people think primarily as Europeans with their national identity, if any, in second place – flag waving these days is just for sports events. How long before personal identities cease to matter and people are wholly committed to the EU ethos and place no real importance on restrictions and the freedom of expression. Like the Hitler youth once did.

When your rights become wronged and free speech is heresy, and protesting is akin to treason, what then, what then when a human life is tantamount to a meaningless existence. Did the German people of two world wars put an end to their runaway regime, did they vote it out or overthrow it – No, they did not. When you have no freedom by definition that is enslavement and history shows that many civilisations have worked very well with an enforced slave culture. The German people also required liberation because they too were victims of an authoritarian regime.

Whenever I’m asked for assistance, mainly in programming forums or the electrical industry that I work in, I say the same thing; one should first get perspective and approach an issue from a topographical point of view.

A simple analogy might be thus: If you woke up in a forest, you would only know it by looking around and seeing the trees. Perhaps you climb a tree and get to see for some distance and note that you are in what appears to be a forest. By rising above the canopy in your balloon, the forest turns out to be more of a jungle and still the more you rise, the summation of clues may reveal your location and show you which direction to take.

Having a top down approach means you start with the big picture, it helps with a complicated topic such as the EU, and you decide which avenues to explore. On the other hand if you focused your efforts in a limited area, for example to research UKIP, how they got to Brussels and what their aims are, then that would be a modular approach but it means that however expert you became, there would be a fundamental ignorance due to the lack of understanding how the EU works at a higher level.

These days it’s common for people to think of the EU in very simple terms, as an organisation that was created in order to bring together the western nations of the European continent that share similar beliefs and policies. Whole groups of people such as the youth, have done away with ‘similarities’ and replaced them with ‘common beliefs’, as they come ever closer under one un-elected, non-national, un-democratic but federal flag of allegiance.

So the question is, how do you look at Europe in the context of Brexit. As time passes, more people think primarily as Europeans with their national identity, if any, in second place – flag waving these days is just for sports events. How long before personal identities cease to matter and people are wholly committed to the EU ethos and place no real importance on restrictions and the freedom of expression. Like the Hitler youth once did.

When your rights become wronged and free speech is heresy, and protesting is akin to treason, what then, what then when a human life is tantamount to a meaningless existence. Did the German people of two world wars put an end to their runaway regime, did they vote it out or overthrow it – No, they did not. When you have no freedom by definition that is enslavement and history shows that many civilisations have worked very well with an enforced slave culture. The German people also required liberation because they too were victims of an authoritarian regime.

Brexit Betrayal – Treachery or Treason?

It’s true that some brexit supporters believe many stories about the failings of the EU which are simply not true. It’s down to what we discussed earlier about having taken a modular approach. The EU is not an overt organisation like NATO or the UN, it keeps a low profile but crucially, moves slowly using stepping-stones to cross rivers. Indoctrinating the youth is not solely to engineer loyal EU citizens for tomorrow, but to recruit staunch supporters for the EU armed forces that are on the horizon. How can a soldier die for patriotism without a flag to defend, even if it is the jolly roger of a federal European superstate that answers to nobody.

The single-most thing the EU say, is that Europe is living through the greatest period of peace and prosperity since its inception. This is really due to one fact, that Germany’s military hasn’t risen again since the last world war, wholly due to the restrictions placed upon it. However, the EU un-ashamedly takes credit for this. The modern way is to conquer territory through economic means and not with war. In an address to the President of the EU Parliament, Nigel Farage told Mr Tajani the following after he claimed that that the EU had kept the peace in Europe since 1945:

We do seem this morning to be struggling just a little bit with our history. To claim Mr Tajani, that the European Union brought about the fall of nazism and soviet communism isn’t only laughable, it is very un-gracious and deeply insulting to the United States of America who made massive sacrifices so that Europe could be free twice in the twentieth century. And to a slightly lesser extent the United Kingdom, as 30,000 British dead in Italy will attest. So, you know, you can claim what you want for the European Union but please do not rewrite history.

And I would add to that, the bodies of 120,000 British dead in Belgium in the First World War. What is being played out in Europe is an unstoppable creep towards centralisation headed by un-elected men with incredible power that they themselves do not know what to do with.

EU Censorship

On the one hand the EU shows a facade of democratic values and collective politics but on the other they remove rights and freedoms piece by piece. E.g. 16 April 2019 – The EU accepted the UN move to re-define the meaning of what a refugee is, making it illegal to report or portray refugees with any form of negativity and warning media outlets that they could face being shut down – i.e. censorship.

Fox News and Nigel Farage discuss the EU’s move to outlaw migrant negativity.
Immigration

The UN Migration Compact is a pact that was established in 2016 following the one million migrants that arrived at the EU. By December 2018 almost all UN members, except notably the U.S. and Australia, agreed for this body to re-classify refugee status to mean someone that is seeking refuge in another country as having the same weight as someone seeking refuge because they are in fear of their life should they be forced to return to their country of origin.

In April 2019 Compact cemented that move by ensuring UN laws override any existing refugee legislation by nations. It was surprising to many because refugees and immigrants have been predominantly younger males prompting the question of where are the women and children if things are so bad back home. The term ‘political refugee’ has emerged.

In the streets, protests were held in Brussels which led to the Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, offering his resignation. Germany backed the new legislation with stern opposition from Alice Weidel, the leader of the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD); she said “In effect, illegal migration is being legalised. 

Rising opposition to immigrant and refugee policy across Europe in 2018.

The UN says the move will improve the global migrant situation but who does it aim to improve it for, immigrants? and what of the people who are being told to make way. There has been no agreement between more than 150 countries that signed the agreement, certainly not among the EU members. The whole thing claims justification on account of the signatories being UN members and the inference that this ballot in theory ratifies a mandate for progressing the policy on immigration and refugee status.

The UK Government has not only endorsed it but positively praised it, despite an online petition signed by more than 100,000 people asking the Government not to agree to it. Marches and riots in Europe as well as around the world such as in Canada, have vented anger, which in turn has helped to highlight the collusion of organisations such as the UN  and the EU to implement laws that suit their common interest.

Yes of course a certain discretion is allowed for the common good otherwise what would be the point if organisations had no power at all. Who would argue efforts made to hinder the ivory trade, fight a drug war, engage in peacekeeping missions, tackle human trafficking, fight crime or apprehend child abuse rings. But when something effects a populace it should not be simply taken for granted that it is the will of the people, especially when an organisation puts itself above a government.

Take Germany as an example, whose government embraced immigration but whose people have seen their idyllic towns flooded and turned into mini-slavic quarters. A people who may have been quite agreeable to a sensible immigration policy in order to bolster the country’s industrial labour needs, did not expect to struggle to integrate them. In fact the country had to deport 9,000 in 2018 according to a report by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany.

Anti-immigration protestors at an encampment at Helsinki’s Central Railway Station.

The UN Global Compact on Migration document is apparently non-binding on nations according to the statements disseminating to the global media. Its 34 pages are requirements for member-states to adopt and commit nations to agree to make their own laws and regulations that incorporate a human right to migration. It commits governments to provide extensive care and labour rights, regardless of any qualifications and to give them total family reunification rights.

Now we can appreciate Australia not signing this agreement in Marakesh. Their global message for years has been to welcome migrant workers based on what qualified skills they have to offer. The Compact is just one of several moves by the UN to push for a borderless world but just who are the people coming up with this stuff, and who the hell do they think they are.

The agreement is divided into 23 objectives toward which signatories must work towards. Here is an extract:

Launch and publicise a centralised and publicly accessible national website to make information available on regular migration options, such as on country-specific immigration laws and policies, visa requirements, application formalities, fees and conversion criteria, employment permit requirements, professional qualification requirements, credential assessment and equivalences, training and study opportunities, and living costs and conditions, in order to inform the decisions of migrants.

Once a migrant chooses a country, the signatory should:

Provide newly arrived migrants with targeted, gender-responsive, child-sensitive, accessible and comprehensive information and legal guidance on their rights and obligations, including on compliance with national and local laws, obtaining of work and resident permits, status adjustments, registration with authorities, access to justice to file complaints about rights violations, as well as on access to basic services.

With this clearly supportive route into any country in the world, it doesn’t stretch the immagination too much to see an agent that can offer the full service. Someone only has to pay a fee and they are transported to a new life with unarguably more rights than the people they are displacing.

Tanya Gaw, head of the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Government and who organised the rallys in Canada, said, “The goals of the UN Compact for Migration are unrealistic and must be rejected.”

As I mentioned the stepping stone approach earlier, we will see in the next section on religious influence why UN/EU moves like this affect all our lives directly and why it is so important to value sovereignty above all else, as it gives the ability to regain control of things like immigration if that becomes necessary.

Religious implications

Ever since 13 April 1791, when the Pope denounced the French Constitution resulting in a split in the French Catholic church, France remains overwhelmingly represented by 80% of French citizens that are nominally Roman catholics. France is the sixth largest catholic country in the world, yet France regards herself today as a secular country.

In 2015 there were 50 muslim-majority countries. Of the 1.5 billion muslims in the world (22% of the world’s population), the exact number living in Europe is unknown, but one estimate puts it at around 6% of Europe’s population (excluding Turkey) of which about half live in the EU (i.e. 3.8% 19 million). Of these there are about 3 million in the UK, that’s 5% of the population. There are an estimated 1,750 mosques and between 30-85 operating sharia courts, according to the Mail Online.

It would appear the door is open for muslims to live where they please. Jews on the other hands feel threatened in Europe with multiple sources claiming that up to 40% have considered emigration due to anti-semitism. With just under 20 million jews in the world, one third living in Israel and another third in the U.S., the remaining third (i.e. 6 million,) are scattered around the world – Even the Falkland Islands has one registered jew.

An EU poll in December 2018, the largest ever worldwide, surveyed over 16,000 jews from the twelve EU member states that have 96% of EU jews, and found that 85% rated anti-semitism as the biggest social problem in their countries. Of the remaining countries excluding Israel and the U.S., the UK comes in third place after France and Canada with 290,000 jews. According to Pew Research there are about 1.4 million jews living in Europe or around 10% of the world’s jews.

In a long winded way what I am trying to demonstrate is that there doesn’t seem to be much fuss around other religions like the anglican church or other protestant churches, neither does there seem to be any issues involving mormons or jehovah witness, it seems the whole world and its religious troubles always centres around muslims and jews and the rest of us have to put up with it.

Another aspect of the UN Compact is that it brings Shariah legitimacy on account that 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest bloc of member-states in the UN. One can therefore see how the Arab bloc has inserted ‘its’ will over the EU bloc in encouraging the UN to enable the proposal though its humanitarian facilitator to affect laws and policy. The nett result is an OIC/EU partnership within the UN that enshrines compliance with shariah law.

The UK therefore has not and can not condone Sharia law, a law practised by fifteen Arab Islamic countries which includes: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and the Yemen – all which contribute to the UK’s list of 20,000 extremists living in the UK. There are inevitably instances that crop up given enough time and set precedence. Notably in July 2018 when Kate McCann, a senior correspondent for The Telegraph reported that a British court made a landmark ruling that an Islamic faith marriage, conducted in a ceremony called a nikah, falls under British matrimonial law despite it not having any legal validity.

The court ruling aligned Islamic law with British law despite British officials sticking to the byline that British law is absolute and must remain so. In this court case the judge said the union should be recognised because the couple had lived as man and wife and as such was similar to a British marriage contract and was therefore recognised as such.

I might totally agree with what the judge said because a common law wife in the UK does hold some standing but this case has significant implications for women who marry under sharia law but not UK law, giving them a right to divorce and a split of the assets when that marriage is not actually a marriage under UK law and therefore to base a legal decision on it is in part adoption of sharia.

This is how things are brought into the mainstream underhandedly, by setting precedents like this until such time as someone will state that it has become common practice and therefore tacitly agreed upon in legal definition. Even though as far back as 2015 Home Secretary Theresa May set up a review by Lord Bates who reported that: “Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way.”

And it didn’t help that Lord Williams of Oystermouth, then Archbishop of Canterbury, said aspects of sharia in Britain seemed unavoidable. Yet in his book, Re-imagining Britain, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, says sharia should never become part of the British legal system because it is incompatible with our laws.

The Baroness Cox warned that creeping normalisation of sharia “would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves”. And this is how I see it – it creeps in. Even an e-petition to the government to prohibit and criminalise sharia courts in the UK received over 15,000 signatures and the government’s response was that sharia rulings are only permitted if legal under UK law – in others words their reply was ‘no comment’. Sharia permits a muslim man to have four wives therefore permitting polygamy without breaking Britain’s bigamy law.

Under sharia law women appeal to sharia councils, largely made up of men but men are not obligated to do the same when seeking divorce. Now imagine if a muslim woman were to be denied a divorce and she headed for the British court, what would a judge do then when there have been precedents. Think of the riots when a British court overturns a sharia court decision. And according to the Home Office there are about 100,000 British muslim couples of which 60% are not legally married.

On a similar note in 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding as neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.

On 21 April 2019 a report published by Tony Blair’s institute for Global Change he says in the foreword that the word multiculturalism has been misinterpreted as meaning a justified refusal to integrate and he says of migrants that they have a duty to integrate, to accept the rules, laws and norms of our society that all British people hold in common and share.

Populism

Whatever your opinion on the EU, unless you are one of the powerful individuals that sit around that table of enormous power, it would not have escaped your attention that the EU agenda is accelerating and has moved up a few gears partly perhaps due to the rise in peoples’ awareness, what the EU likes to call ‘populism’.

Probably the common theme for public national outcry has been to do with immigration. The recent move broaden refugee status hasn’t helped either. In some situations the protesters are described as neo-nazis, as Leave voters were that protested in Parliament Square on what should have been Brexit Day on 29 March 2019. I was at that demonstration, I am a neo-nazi according to the EU – and I thought the nazis were a populist group in Germany.

One politician, David Lammy MP, has jumped on the EU band wagon to a point where he has likened people that do not agree with his point of view as nazis. This type of petulant behaviour is typical of EU indoctrination. It’s not as if Leave voters are trying to overthrow the Government, they did nothing wrong and are simply waiting for a referendum result to be enacted. Yet Mr Lammy’s behaviour sums up the protectionist nature of the EU soldier and brings shame to every descent person.

Without wanting to display the same idiotic behaviour by denigrating this incredibly aggressive and silly individual, let me inform you that he appeared on Mastermind once, on television, when he was asked who Henry VIII’s son was and he answered in all seriousness, Henry VII.

Indoctrination

This is Welsh MEP Nathan Gill, often seen at the EU Commission sitting at his desk behind Nigel Farage. What was a majorly UKIP representation at the EU is now a reformed group called the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group, Chaired by Nigel Farage and with around 44 members, around half of which are British.

Nathan Gill MEP

Mr Gill is an EFDD member and member of the new Brexit Party. Here he is addressing his concern on the stuff the EU has seeped into the education system. It is understandably in response to what the EU calls the rise of populist Europe but of course the EU has instigated these movements by crippling the economies of weaker countries and driving immigration to that end.

Why would the EU seek to indoctrinate the youth to protect its future, well I don’t care, it’s just happening that’s what matters. As is always the case the teachers are not evil, they just follow the rules and people do not question it, in the same sense that when greater powers are given to police, people say ‘it shouldn’t be an issue if you’ve got nothing to hide.’

So Judith Schilling, the Publications Manager for the European Commission, says: “We will never succeed to convince people about the value of being a member of the European Union if we don’t start early enough with the young people before they have formed prejudices and are misinformed by other sources.

However, Article 406 of the UK’s Education Act 1996 forbids any political indoctrination in schools. Here is the clause:

(1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid

(a) The pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b) The promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school (Gov.uk).
Thank goodness the EU’s education policy hasn’t reached us yet and that at least here in the UK it remains illegal to spread political propaganda in schools.

How the EU works

A major thing about the EU is that people often say it is run by unelected bureaucrats. It’s important to explain that here briefly. When it’s said that these people are making decisions at the EU, it is usually the European Commission that is being referred to, the presidency of which is nominated by the national leaders and then elected by the European Parliament by majority vote.

It’s true that nobody outside of politics knew who these guys at the EU were before Brexit and now many of them are household names: Guy Verhofstadt, Michel Barnier, Donald Tusk, Elmar Brok,  Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Nathan Gill, Jean-Claude Juncker, Frans Timmermans and the very pleasant Hans-Olaf Henkel.

EU member states are represented by elected MEPs (Member of the European Parliament) and it’s misleading to say that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are making the decisions in the EU because member states are represented by their MEP quota. The Council of the European Union represents governments, the Parliament represents citizens, but it is the European Commission that represents the European interest which is essentially the unelected part.

A Commissioner is appointed by a member state and the president of the European Commission. So there are 28 Commissioners. They are not elected by ballot as the role is such that a Commissioner is expected to be impartial of their government and act in the interest of the EU, much like a civil servant.

A new Commission is appointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. Essentially, the Council, Parliament or other part of the EU, place a request for legislation to the Commission. It is the role of the Commission therefore to propose EU legislation as well as manage EU policies, funds, and make the EU’s trade agreements.

That being said, the European Commission then, manages the EU as a whole with it’s Commissioners operating as a cabinet (unelected). It also manages the EU treaties and can resort to the European Court of Justice if there is an infringement. Judges of the ECJ are required to be qualified for high judicial office or be experts in law of recognised competence in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

So we can see just how powerful the European Commission is. And although only the top tier holds the appointed officials it’s enough for many people to label it as undemocratic. It is a contentious point as EU officials are appointed by elected governments and could be said to be just government representatives. But it is the move away from a trade organisation to a political one that fires up the warning signals for many people that view its modus operandi as un-democratic and authoritarianist.

Nigel Farage desbribed it to Jean-Claude Juncker once, in 2014, like this:

I don’t think that the European public or commentators understand what the European Commission really is. The Commission is the executive, it is the Government of Europe and it has the sole right to propose legislation. It does so in consultation with 3,000 secret committees staffed mainly by big business and big capital and all the legislation is proposed in secret.

Why did the UK join the EC

The Common Market as it was referred to back then, was more precisely called the Economic Community, so from the very start things had began with confusion for many people who found it difficult to keep up with the debate on Europe and rather naively entrusted that issue to the powers that be. Remember it was a time before mobile phones and the internet and news was more unified across the media with with a narrower diversity of debate.

It was said after both future referendums of 1975 and 2016 that people had voted based on too little information. But one thing did prevailed in both, whether the dissemination of information was sufficient or not, whatever the level of technology was at the time, or whatever the news reporting styles of the day; the outcome reflected the mood of the people, despite all the political wranglings behind the scenes to persuade voters one way or the other.

When one rises in that metaphorical balloon and looks back down, the decision to join the EC made sense based on where the UK was in a historical context. Doubtless the UK would have prospered given time, but EC membership did offer the faster, more sensible route to greater prosperity. And having been a member for 70 years, it also makes sense to want to leave the EU and take a different course – should that turn out to be a disaster then what would prevent the UK from applying to re-join it.

If one sifts through parliamentary debates from the early 1970s (ed. as this poor author did) it’s clear that many MPs took the view that public opinion had no place in the day to day running of parliament because that voice was decided by ballot and whose elected representatives were now entrusted by the constituencies to act in their stead. Following the 2016 referendum things were far more transparent with live televised parliamentary debates and voting and the tensions of public opinion being vividly expressed by MPs but still, behaving in such shambollic manner that it became evident that a parliament that had been entrusted to ‘leave’ the European Union, consisted overwhelmingly of MPs that had voted to ‘Remain’, and therefore not representative of the people.

The referendum in 1975 opened up the door for debate again and offered those who had not wanted to join the EU another chance to try and turn the vote. Politicians such as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell tried to put the case that it was not just trade but as much about sovereignty. But again, the will of the people filtered the debate to an affirmation for a ‘stay’ vote.  And presumably should that turn out to be a disaster then what would prevent the UK from leaving in the future. What almost half the country still did not grasp was that this time it is permanent and there can be going back after sovereignty had been given away.

I confess that I am uncertain, after Britain’s entry into the EEC, how far hon. Members or indeed the public of this country care at all about parliamentary democracy—which is the same thing as parliamentary sovereignty, because sovereignty and responsibility to the electorate are two sides of the same thing.
Enoch Powell (UK Bill of Rights debate 7 July 1975)

It must seem strange for the elder generation to recall the days you could hardly pick up a newspaper without finding a story about the UK’s desperate efforts to get in to the Common Market and then seventy years later, that it’s become all about getting out of the EU.  There was a greater sense of sovereignty back then, a period in time not more than twenty years since rationing stopped after the war. The negotiators at least protected UK sovereignty for future generations. However in 2016, patriotism and national identity had been watered down to such an extent by cultural policies like the fanatical implementation of muticulturalism from the migrant perspective, and the promotion of excessive immigration resulting in wholly segregated communities – that the younger generation appear not to understand the value of sovereignty at all.

In the post-war economic boom of the 1950s millions of people had seen their standard of living rise. Prime Minister Harold McMillan had said famously in a speech in 1957, “most of our people have never had it so good.” The UK was benefiting from increased production in major industries such as coal and steel and they had declined to join the European coal and steel organisations that ultimately became the founding members of the EC.

McMillan’s government was tasked with managing that prosperity, to maintain growth and employment but keep down inflation. But inflation rose and the Prime Minister in 1961 imposed an unpopular wage freeze. It was though that the UK might have taken that opportunity a decade earlier to be a part of the formation of the European Community but nonetheless the scene going into the 1960s was set for the UK to be denied membership, something that was opposed only by France.

Edward Heath betrayed his country and the British people.

It was the Conservative chief negotiator Edward Heath that had been passionate to join the EC in the early 1960s but by 1964 Harold Wilson’s government wasn’t so keen and perhaps did not find it too disappointing that de Gaulle had blocked the way in 1963 and was now blocking it again in 1967. But following the general election of 1970 Edward Heath again applied for a third time, when de Gaulle was no longer alive, and this time he proved to be successful.

The UK in the 1970s was a nation of shop-keepers, not the great industrial nation or empire ruler of Victorian times. On joining the European Community on 1 January 1973 the UK was thought of as the the sick man of Europe and on this historic day it also ended long years of preferential ties with the former colonies. The UK had joined the EC because it was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline at a time when just 5% of working-class families had a fridge.

The UK had been desperate for a solution through which times a striking coal and electricity industry saw hospitals working by battery and candlelight. An economy that had been at the mercy of a belligerent and ungrateful workforce which reflected in the UK’s GDP, as was relative to the EU founding members, declining steadily from 1945 to 1972. By comparison economic historians refer to the period from 1950 to 1973 as the Golden Age of European economic growth; a period marked by steady recovery with full employment, rising wages, and affordable consumer goods – on the whole.

In the year of joining the EC Prime Minister Edward Heath had attempted to impose a prices and incomes policy to cap the rampant inflation, but the unions resisted, something that would have to wait until Margaret Thatcher’s term in the future to be addressed fully. And then came the oil shock of 1973. Although oil had been discovered off the Anglican coast in 1965 it was not produced until 1976 and so when in October 1973 an oil embargo was imposed by OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) against the U.S. for supporting Israel in the post Arab-Israeli War negotiations, that embargo extended to all countries perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War also known as the ‘October War’, and the UK found itself in a jam.

Little could the UK known that in 1974 they would find that North Sea oil could provide a massive source of energy and revenue, making the nation self-sufficient in oil and natural gas. As mentioned a little earlier about the Golden Age, it may be perceived that the economic growth was wholly attributable to joining the EC in that studies have shown there was a relatively stable period between 1973 and 2010 and that by 2013, Britain had become more prosperous than the average of the three other largest European economies for the first time since 1965.

But of course the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea had a lot to do with that prosperity as well as the deregulation of the energy industry which had brought an end to the widespread blackouts which had plagued the country. Just two years after joining the EC and one year after realising the economic potential in the North Sea, during a tumultuous Labour government of 1970-74, Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to introduce a referendum on the issue of continued membership of the EC, in an attempt to cover up the divisions in the cabinet of the day.

The 1975 Referendum

What if the UK had put all its endeavours into the North Sea and invested in it sooner, would it have obviated the need to join the EC? Harold Wilson won two general elections in 1974 but in the October election he had only succeeded in turning February’s hung parliament into a three seat majority presumably due to inflation being around 20% and Chancellor Denis Healey having raised taxes. But the miners’ strike had been resolved and the state of emergency imposed by Edward Heath had ended.

However personalities in the government clashed over Europe and the matter of the day turned to EU membership. The Pro-Europeans or marketeers as they were termed, were unnerved with MPs Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins threatening to quit politics should the referendum decide to exit the EC, or the EEC (European Economic Community) as it had become known as.

The conservative party voted against having a referendum. Supporters calling for it were Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle and Peter Shore and former Conservative Enoch Powell, the MP for the Ulster Unionists in South Down, who called on his supporters to vote Labour in order to secure the referendum that Labour’s manifesto for the October 1974 general election had promised.

In the 1970 general election the Conservatives had promised Britain that they would not enter the EEC without the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and the British people. They reneged on that promise by not offering the people a vote and showed themselves to be profoundly undemocratic. This was the reason Labour pledged to offer and honour a referendum and they consequently won both general elections of 1974.

The referendum was planned for 5 June 1975. Enoch Powell said in a speech (audio further down on this page): “… it is to be hoped that the people will not be taken in twice, but will listen to those who warned them correctly before“. And Lord Tonypandy, the former Speaker of the House of Lords noted: “A national referendum conducted before and not, after further decisions are taken, is our elementary right.”

The referendum from 1975 to 2016 – a timeline from the France24 news channel.

Firstly the Government had not given people a vote on whether to enter the European Community and then it was advising them to vote to stay, in a referendum. The Government sent a sixteen page pamphlet to every household promoting membership of the Common Market which also had a section about sovereignty as follows:

Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.

The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.

The full pamphlet can be seen at the Harvard repository here.

Soon after joining, the Common Market became less popular. A MORI poll of 1979 showed that 60% of the country would now vote to leave the EC and with Margaret Thatcher in power that figure rose.

The majority of MPs in both referendums were for staying in the EU and there were also those saying it was all a  waste of money and those against offering a referendum.  Of course there are differences, the population has doubled from 250m to 500m is one, but the referendums of 1975 and 2016 do share many similarities as I have been pointing out along the way in this discussion.

The pamphlets sent out by the government for both referendums made it clear that it was in favour of and advising staying in the union. The 1975 pamphlet reflected the issues of the day; food, money and jobs, and at least attempted to allay people’s fears of losing their national identity, and of course we now know they were lying because giving away part sovereignty was always in the secret deal.

The 2016 pamphlet was sent to 27 million homes and outlined the issues of the day but discussed ‘the benefits of EU membership’ and none of the disadvantages nor any advantages for leaving the EU. It too lied in stating that over three million UK jobs were linked to exports to the EU; a highly dubious claim due to way in which the Treasury calculated that. They calculated the percentage of the UK’s total economic output and then applied that percentage to the total UK labour force.

The claim: Less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

Those percentages were true but purposefully misleading. As you can imagine, 44% of one country was compared with 8% of 27 countries. It would have been more honest to declare that 53% of UK imports came from the EU. In cash terms, the UK exported £227bn to the EU and imported £288bn, which makes the UK look like a much more important customer for the rest of the EU doesn’t it.

Yes, but what of the alternative, isn’t it supposed to be about making a choice.

A government can advise how it would prefer you to vote, in line with its preference, but it should also have a duty to present information about the choices in an unbiased way. There should be a real interest to learn the true intent of the majority of people, that is democracy and considering it’s just a survey albeit a very important one, which has no obligation for a government to invoke. The Referendum Act 1975 was the legal provision to hold a ‘non-binding’ referendum.  

Only one side of the coin is shown, the information is put together by experts and designed to heavily influence you. The complaint following both referendums was that sufficient information was not offered in order to make an informed decision. Therefore it led to a generality on both occasions that the Parliament had misled the people.

The side that has lost the referendum then feels embittered by the winners and uses this angle of a lack of information to assert that the referendum was won by people that didn’t really understand what they were voting for. The arguments that follow are revolve around this, saying thing like “If people knew it meant this or that, then they would never have voted to leave.” But the fact is that referendums are specifically abrupt to solicit the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote, and it’s not about ensuring someone is aware fully aware of all the ins and outs, that is for the voter to educate theirself about if they intend to use the vote.

In 1975 with less information available like social media sources, many people saw it as an unnecessary exercise and thought that the government should just get on with doing whatever they do without asking the people to do it for them, they are the ones paid to run the country after all.

There are many people in my constituency who are bewildered by the issues and would prefer the guidance of Parliament. That has not been sufficiently stressed in the debate. During the last election a woman came up to me and said ‘I do not understand what all this is about. Why cannot Parliament decide?’ I am sure there are many people who share that view.” – Miss Janet Fookes MP Plymouth.

One MP, Mr David Walder of Clitheroe made a funny mini-speech in which he said:

Every speech I have heard in the debate so far has convinced me of the difficulties inherent in trying to combine our accepted system of parliamentary democracy and the running of a referendum. In a sense I am rather sorry for the Government. I am certainly sorry for some Ministers.

It is interesting to think of the origin of this referendum. There were a number of people who were opposed to the Common Market some time back and who thought that, if there were a referendum, the people of Britain would vote against the Common Market. The idea grew. It became a popular cry in the ranks of the Labour Party when Labour was in opposition. It sounded good— “We should take the opinion of the people.”

Since those days, when the leaders of the three main political parties were all in favour of entry into the Common Market, many people— I do not wish to mention any names— have come a long way. The Government are now in the position that I am in on a Saturday morning with my dog. I feed my dog regularly, but on Saturday it gets a bone. I know— I do not know whether my dog knows— that its normal meals are of more value than the bone, but having given it a rather valueless bone it is very difficult to get it away from it. That is the position of Ministers now. They are stuck with the idea of having a referendum.

(above: EEC membership (referendum) debate 11 March 1975)

In 1975 there was a clear vote to stay in the EU and that was the understanding for fulfilling the referendum. As Mr Powell stated in the House of Commons: (Hansard) 

I had assumed that a bare majority would be unlikely to be regarded as indicating the full-hearted consent of the people which leaders of both parties have regarded as the essential condition of continued British membership.

Mr Powell was obviously had expected the lose and for the outcome to be close and so was paving the way for a null referendum or a second vote, in that eventuality. However he needn’t have bothered as the result was indisputable with a national turnout of 64.5% (25.9m) the final vote was 67.2% (17,378,581) to 32.8% (8,470,073) in favour to stay in the EC with 54,540 rejected ballots.

In 1975 there had been no such understanding between parties as Mr Powell ‘assumed’, and again in 2016 Remain voters were claiming that the majority of 1.4 million people was not sufficiently representative. In 2016 the national turnout was far higher at 72.2% (33.6m) and the vote went: 51.9% (17,410,742) to 48.1% (16,141,241) in favour to leave the EU with 26,033 rejected ballots.

The Thatcher Years

Most people would perceive Margaret Thatcher to be a staunch supporter of the EU. In many ways she was amenable to the idea of the EU as a facilitator of trade deals as the by-name, the Common Market, suggests, and she would have formulated her pro-European opinions at the start of her career when she became MP for Finchley in 1959 during which time the government of the day was debating EEC membership and applying to join.

It is remarkable that a woman that was given the nickname of Iron Lady by a Soviet journalist, who took the country to war in the Falkland Islands and who survived a terrorist assassination attempt at a party conference in Brighton, should all of a sudden completely change her views on the European Community. Throughout the 1980s she was frequently described as the most powerful woman in the world.

Margaret Thatcher became Conservative Party leader on 11 February 1975, so she was opposition leader at the time of the referendum and her party was in favour of staying in the EEC.  She was not for coming out of Europe but for only staying in for trade. Whereas Edward Heath had viewed sovereignty as a non-tangible price for a place at the table, like putting in to a pub whip round, Mrs Thatcher thought that it was unacceptable  to share any part of it.

In 1988 EEC President Jacques Delors contacted the Trade Unions Congress to persuade them to adopt the EEC model and he also offered support with greater powers to the unions to that end. Mrs Thatcher was outraged that she had spent the last nine years controlling the unions to improve the economy. Delors then made a statement in which he signalled his wish for greater power in Brussels by stating that within ten years all major decisions would be made by the EEC.

Mrs Thatcher’s response was to go to Belgium in 1988 to address the College of Europe with a speech subsequently being referred to as The Bruges Speech, in which she outlined her opposition to the plans of the EEC in moves to centralise power and monetary matters. She said:

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.

The author of that speech, Charles Powell asserts that Thatcher was not making an anti-EC speech but simply making criticism and outlining her vision for Europe. It has to be noted that she did criticise the EC and fiercely believed that member states should govern their own affairs.

Margaret Thatcher making an observation about EU beaurocrats

In 1989 she removed her Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe for colluding with Chancellor Nigel Lawson in forcing the UK into the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) which took place in 1990, effectively pegging the pound to the Deutsche Mark instead of the US Dollar.

The ERM was one of the policies of the European Monetary System (EMS) a group of policies to bring the economies of member states together as well as others from outside the EEC in the eurozones. Mrs Thatcher’s opposition to the EMS was in contrast to the views of her cabinet and she was virtually ousted from 10 Downing Street.

At Prime Minister’s Questions in 1990 she repeated the famed words “No No No” in a riposte to the European Commission chief Jacques Delors over his wish for an EU Parliament.

Margaret Thatcher’s famous riposte at PMQs November 1990
The Treaty Years

Following the demise of Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1990, almost immediately the EU set about re-structuring and positioning itself for a more powerful role than mere trade organisation.

Over the next decade sovereignty was the key area of change and the tenet of the EU to acquire little pieces of a country’s sovereignty here and there that in effect the EU was in control of that country. The strange thing about it was that the EU was open about what further integration would mean for a country and it was the country that allowed it, regardlessly and in several cases embraced it.

For example, Edward Heath had known all along that joining the EC in 1973 meant giving away some sovereignty. Little did a nation know that he vied sovereignty like a stack of casino chips to be placed into a pot whenever a new deal was in the making, and believing this gave him leverage in that a chip from the UK was worth more than a chip from a country like Greece or Spain.

In order to appreciate the major shift from trade to political control and to understand the reason behind the many re-structuring treaties of the 1990s let’s look briefly at the timeline of events so far. Treaties are what hold the EU together in the absence of a European constitution and sovereign government.

In order for an organisation based on agreements to become a federal state based on treaties, things had to evolve quickly and for a federal state to turn into a sovereign superpower member states need to be subjugated; politically as well as economically by converting treaties into law which is only possible by controlling sovereignty.

The political intention was declared from the very start. The EEC was often called the Common Market since this described its core function and in the preamble of the treaty that had established it, the Treaty of Rome, it states that it is: ‘determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe‘.

Indeed the initial formation was somewhat stunted by the UK’s refusal to participate. At that time the UK understood the implications that joining such a club would hold for the Commonwealth countries and they adamantly refused to join a customs union and absolutely disagreed with the commitment to surrender sovereignty piece by piece over the long-term.

The EEC’s policy was to create institutions that over time brought countries economically and politically together one stage at a time, slowly, over many years. No secret was made to hide what this would mean, that with each phase a little more sovereignty would be surrendered by individual member states. Only the UK opposed it and that’s why the UK was not the seventh founding member.

When Edward Health pulled the UK into the European organisation he knew full well what the implications were and deliberately obscured the details from the public. In any case during the 1960s, as we have already discussed, the UK was at such an end that it felt it had no choice but to join and in August of 1961 the British Prime Minister requested the beginning of negotiations with the EEC.

The timeline of significant events:

1950 The Schuman Plan begins. Proposed by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman on 9 May for an authoritive body to control the production of steel and coal in France and West Germany.

1952 Formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

1957 The Treaties of Rome 25 March were three treaties that established two new structures; the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaties came into force on 1 January 1958. The other essential agreement was the adoption of a Common agricultural policy (CAP).

1962 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) was established to regulate the financing of the CAP which consumes a large part of the EU budget.

1963 General de Gaulle ensures UK does not join the EEC due to the mistrust that the UK would really mean the US had a seat at the table.

1967 The ECSC, Euratom and EEC are brought together meaning that the official name becomes the European Communities. In practice it continued to be commonly referred to as the EEC or Common Market. The name change removed the word ‘economic’ part to subtly move towards a political union.

1967 In November Charles De Gaulle again vetoes the UK’s application to join the EC, accusing the UK of a deep-seated hostility towards European construction.

1968 In July all tariffs among the EC members were abrogated

1969 The resignation of Charles De Gaulle opens up the possibility of the UK joining the EC.

1973 The EC expand when Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, and Spain become members.

1979 The European Monetary System (EMS) and the European Currency Unit (ECU) come into force.

1979 The first elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage are held a European Parliament takes office.

1985 The three countries of the Benelux, France and Germany sign the Schengen Agreement; the start of an agreement to remove frontiers and for the free movement of people. Most of the member States would join in subsequent years.

1986 The signing of the Single European Act in February, came into force on 1 July 1987, brought legitimacy to the title ‘European Parliament’ that had been used since 1962 and which was in force from 1979. It was the first thing Jacques Dolors did after his appointment as President of the European Commission in 1985 and it extended the powers of the community.

1992 The Treaty of the European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty was signed 7 February and came into force on 1 Nov 1993. It set up three pillars; the EC, Common Security and Foreign Policy and the these were collectively called the European Union (EU).

1993 The European Single Market is established by 12 countries to cover the so-called four freedoms: the movement of goods, services, people, and money and is regarded by the EU as one of its greatest achievements. On 1 January the borders between EU members disappeared physically.

1995 Sweden, Finland and Austria join the EU.

1999

The Euro is introduced on 1 January. The UK and Denmark have opted out which means they agreed in the principle of a single currency but on the implementation on the basis of handing over control in the form of sovereignty and therefore they retain their own currencies. It was the European Single Market Treaty of 1993 that created the Euro as the single currency between EU members which itself had been based on the ECU from 1979.

2004 Ten new countries join the EU.

2007 Bulgaria and Romania join the EU.

2007 The Treaty of Lisbon in essence amended the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) and other treaties (Amsterdam, Nice, EAEC et al) which completely renovated the European Union and abolished the pillar structure. It was a fresh attempt to legitimise the Union.

2008 The Banking Union is established to deal with the global economic crisis.

2013 Croatia joins the EU becoming the 28th member.

The 2016 Referendum
Nile Gardiner on Margaret Thatcher and brexit. (Conservative former aide to Margaret Thatcher)

http://www.tonyabbott.co.uk/mediax/brexit/brexit-gardiner-on-thatcher.mp3

Angela Merkel calls for a EU army

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

How dangerous is the EU?

There used to be a wealth of political parties but most systems now employ a bi-partisan system such as the US model of Democrats and Republicans. In the UK we have the Conservatives and Labour. Have you ever wondered why there is such polarisation, why people vote for one of the big two. It’s because they want to make their vote count.

This system unfortunately means no one else has a realistic chance of getting in to power at a general election and it makes things fundamentally unfair. In any given situation of the day, you are either with it or not, in it or out, for it or against. And you’re left wondering why an environmentalist group such as the Green party, only ever get a few percent of the voting, and we continue to watch the country run by the same bigoted politicians, obstinate in their ways because they know permanent their position is.

Yet for all its wrongs we accept the way of things because we are a democracy. So much so that the UK could wrench ‘democracy’ from the Greeks in much the same way we claim ‘curry sauce’ is ours. Historically no one can argue that our method of self governance isn’t the oldest in the world today and that many countries around the world copy it. The UK is said to be the mother of all parliaments.

But ultimately Parliament is not the centre of power it is but a part of our democracy. The core principle democracy is that power, incredible might, is shared among our institutions which in itself provides the checks and balances needed so that no single determination for the use of such power can be made without the full collective consent of the constitutional servants of the people.

What a great system it is that we the people hold the keys to the potential of all that power and we do it by carrying out a mandate from the majority of the people that voted of their free will. It generally turns out that the right decisions are made because it is in definition, the will of the people.

In the U.S. system they have the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial systems – the first make laws (Congress), the second carry them out (Presidency) and the latter interprets them (Supreme Court).

In the UK we have Parliament (Houses of Commons and Lords), the Crown (whom the Prime Minister and the Civil Service represents), and the Judiciary (Supreme Court of the UK). These pillars are the foundations of any successful democratic system around the world today. And it is absolutely not how the EU works, not by a long mile.

In his 2016 report ‘If the UK Votes to Leave’ former Legal Counsel of the European Council and Director General of the EU Council Legal Services, JeanClaude Piris, commented on the Brexit trade dilemma as follows:

As far as British businesses were concerned, asked before the referendum vote Leave supporters said that Brexit offered the opportunity to replace current EU legislation, which they described as outdated (having been created in the 1950s,) and ‘undemocratic’.

The CBI highlighted the burden on British businesses in its 2013 report ‘Our Global Future: The Business Vision for a Reformed EU’ in which the CBI stated:

The impact of poorly thought-out and costly EU legislation is a major issue for businesses: 52% of businesses believe that, were the UK to leave the EU, the overall burden of regulation on their business would fall.

The complicated nature of EU regulations was highlighted in a 2013 European Court of Auditors Report. The burden of EU regulation on Small to Medium sized Enterprises was also outlined by a European Commission 2015 estimate that complying with EU regulations can cost an SME ten times as much per employee as it costs a large company.

In summary, British business would operate more effectively and efficiently without EU Directives. Only 13.3% of the UK economy is dependent on exports to Europe. That means 87% of the UK economy is either dependent on exports to the rest of the world or only trades domestically.

Former British Chamber of Commerce Director John Longworth says:

What we have at the moment is the EU placing huge costs and burdens on 87% of the UK economy that makes us less productive and less competitive in the other world markets, just to service 13%.

However, other sources predict that in leaving the EU Britain would be over 3% smaller in GDP by 2020 compared with staying in the EU, equating to £2,200 loss per household.

 

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

we don’t say that for no reason, history repeats because humans are cyclical in nature. It seems astonishing that humans can get boots on the moon but are too impercipient to learn from history. Twice in the last century Germany rose to power and instigated world wars. No less than twenty years into the next century, Germany is rising and European nations are ceding their powers to it, because Germany as many should now, ARE EUROPE!

A eurosceptic Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, once told the Germans: “You Germans do not want to anchor Germany in Europe but Europe in Germany.”

A LITTLE ABOUT SIR JAMES GOLDSMITH

(Referendum Party 1994 – 1997)

Before the Brexit Party began this week in 2019 there was the UKIP party that formed in September 1993 and The Referendum Party which started out in 1994 and ended with the death of its founder Sir James Goldsmith in 1997.

All three parties have been the single voice of opposing the EU as a direct result of the signing of the unpopular Maastricht Treaty which ceded much of the UK’s sovereignty. Before that, the only notable event had been the referendum in 1975.

“The Europe of Masstricht could only have been created in the absence of democracy.”
– Claude Cheysson
former French Foreign Secretary and European Commissioner:

The signing of the Maastricht Treaty was a significant shift in the same way that the Lisbon Treaty would be eighteen years later. When the EU changed from a trading organisation into a political entity in 1991, Alan Sked formed UKIP within two years to fight against it.

UKIP candidates stood in the 1997 general election, but were overshadowed by James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party. Of the 165 seats contested by both parties, the Referendum Party beat UKIP in all but two. After the elections Alan Sked stepped down and left UKIP leader because he said the party contained racist members and was doomed to remain on the political fringes.

Sir James Goldsmith was a relation to the well known Goldman Sachs dynasty and had equal claims to fame with his daughter, a British film producer and magazine editor, Jemima, who was married to Imran Khan. And because there were insinuations by the press that he was the father of Lady Diana, due to a liaison with Diana’s mother.

He reportedly used £20 million of his own money to fund the Referendum Party over its brief existence and he was adamant from the start that it was purely to campaign for another European referendum. Having been a businessman of some stature, he turned to politics when he researched the way the union worked and the details implications of the Maastricht Treaty.

Sir James Goldsmith

Sir James Goldsmith - Full speech at Referendum Party summit Brighton 1996

Sir James Goldsmith - Full speech at Referendum Party summit Brighton 1996

Language »