|
BRITAIN AND EUROPE
The Culture of Deceit
by
Christopher Booker
*
Macmillan and 1961
[The Great Conspiracy]
The
moment when our political leaders first took their
fateful decision to conceal the real purpose of the
European project from the British people was not, in
fact, 1970 -but ten years earlier when, in 1960,
Harold Mcmillan's Government began discussing the
dramatic reversal of national policy which was to
lead to our first abortive application to join the
[So-called] Common Market.
This we can see from an illuminating book published
in 1995 by Lionel Bell,
The Throw That
failed, based on studying the Cabinet papers
which reflected those discussions in the months
leading up to our application in the summer of 1961.
What was striking about the documents Bell uncovered
was just how frank Macmillan and his colleagues had
been in private, even at that early state , over
where the Common Market was heading.
They were in little doubt it was intended to be just
a first step towards eventual political and economic
union
Yet this, they decided, should be kept hidden from
the British people, because otherwise it would not
be acceptable. The Common Market had to be presented
as no more than a trading arrangement.
Even before the TREATY OF ROME had been signed in
1957, the Foreign Office had been briefed to the
effect that its original signatories wanted:
" to achieve
tighter European integration through the creation of
European institutions with supranational powers,
beginning in the economic field...the underlying
motive of the Six is , however, essentially
political".
(PRO/FO
371/150360.Bell op.cit.p.1)
In
the summer of 1960, when British entry was first
being actively discussed behind closed doors, Sir
Roderick Barclay, head of the UK delegation to the
European Commission in Brussels, sent a despatch to
the Foreign Office stressing, in Mr Bell's words:
"That the aim of the Community was not merely
harmonisation but the unification of policies in
every field of the economic union., i.e. economic
policy, social policy, commercial policy, tariff
policy and fiscal policy. That this was not just pie
in the sky needed to be made clear to the
politicians.".
(based on PRO/FO 371/150363,Bell p22)
When Edward Heath [A
Nazi agent for over 60 years with his death on
the 25th June 2005 attended by representatives of
British intelligence and of the
German secret service in the guise of German
diplomats (BND officers), whom MI5 will have been
particularly interested in, given the likelihood of
their secret
Nazi intelligence provenance beneath their
diplomatic cover.
Also part of the same spy ring were the traitors
Geoffrey Rippon and Roy Jenkins since their
activities were discovered by the Master of Balliol
College Oxford in the 1940s and details passed to
British Intelligence]
Mr
Heath, Minister of State for Europe, visited
Professor Hallstein, the President of the European
Commission in November 1960, his report on the
meeting noted how Hallstein had emphasised that
joining the Community was not just a matter of
adopting a common tariff "which was essential
hallmark of any 'State' (and he regarded the EEC as
a potential 'State')". It would be necessary,
Hallstein insisted, for any new entrant to accept
the principle that the EEC was intended to evolve
into something much deeper,
"some form of Federal State"
[Remember this was 47 years ago that the TRUTH of
the intention of the EEC was known . Today in 2007
sections of the so-called FREE PRESS have indicated
that the intentions of the main negotiators were
unknown at the time-the above details show that it
was amongst the civil servants and many politicians
had known of the Treachery they attempted to hide
from the General Public.]
-which was what the Commission was working towards.
(PRO/FO371/150369)
Particularly revealing in this context was the reply
given in December 1960 by the Lord Chancellor , Lord
Kilmuir, to a request from Mr Heath for comments on
what would be the constitutional implications of
signing the Treaty for Britain's sovereignty.
Kilmuir responded that in several respects the loss
of sovereignty would be considerable: by Parliament;
by the Crown in terms of treaty-making powers; and
by the courts, which to an extent would become
"subordinate"
to the European Court of Justice
(PRO/FO 371/150369,Bell pp.36-9)
On
the making of laws, Lord Kilmuir said it was clear
that:
"the Council of Ministers would eventually (after
the system of qualified majority voting had come
into force )make regulations which would be binding
on us even against our wishes... it would in theory
be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset
legislation which would give automatic force of law
to any existing or future regulations made by the
appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament
to do this would go far beyond the most extensive
delegation of powers , even in wartime, that we have
ever experienced and I do not think there is any
likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of
Commons".
[Remember this matter was being discussed in
December 1960. As you possible already are aware
many of the details here are in a number of
bulletins amongst the over 1000 we have on our
bulletin board but we feel the information is of
such importance that it is not to be lost sight of
particularly as in 2007 we are so close to losing
the very sovereignty that was warned about those 47
years ago ]
*
As
to the subordination of Britain's courts to the
European Court of Justice, Lord Kilmuir wrote:
"I
must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of
sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think
that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not
be easy to persuade Parliament or the British
public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a
great mistake to underestimate the force of the
objections to them. But these objections should be
brought out into the open [they weren't of course]
now because, if we attempt to gloss over them [they
did as we know] at this stage, those who are opposed
to the whole idea of joining the Community [Tony
Benn ,Eric Heffer and a number of other courageous
and loyal citizens such as
Field Marshall Montgomery - and others in
Parliament and the country at large.] will
certainly seize on them with more damaging effect
later on".
These were pretty direct warnings. And when in the
summer of 1961 the Cabinet finally considered
whether to apply for entry, Macmillan opened the
discussion by pointing out that the first question
they needed to consider was that
"if
we were to sign the treaty of Rome we should accept
its political objectives, and although we should be
able to influence the political outcome we did not
know what this would be."
(Bell pp.59-62)
Macmillan conceded that a decision to go in would
"raise great presentational difficulties".
On
the one hand, it would be important to convince the
Six that
"we
genuinely supported the objectives of the Treaty",
On
the other:
"
we should have to satisfy public opinion in this
country that the implementation of the objectives of
the Treaty would not require unacceptable social and
other adjustments. The problems of public relations
would be considerable."
Nevertheless the Cabinet ruled in favour. Mr Heath
was sent to Brussels to negotiate the terms of
British entry. And when in October 10 he made his
opening speech to the other member governments, he
could not have been more fulsome in expressing
Britain's desire
"to become full wholehearted and active members of
the European Community in its wider sense, and to go
forward with you in building a new Europe."
(Bell p.73)
But when , two
weeks later , his fellow Cabinet Minister Duncan
Sandys followed him to Brussels and made a speech
emphasising that the British Government recognised
how the Treaty of Rome was NOT JUST AN ECONOMIC
AGREEMENT BUT ALSO HAD IMPORTANT "political content"
(FO 371/158302)
Heath became alarmed that he might be letting the
cat out of the bag. As Bell discovered:
"
He set officials urgently to work to check what
Ministers had been saying in public and a line
developed of arguing that the Treaty contained no
political obligations, only implications. The United
Kingdom would not regard itself as committed to any
particular development or extensions of obligations
simply by virtue of EEC membership". (based on
M.Camps, Britain and the European Community 1955-63,
cited in Bell p.74)
This was to remain the line until , in January 1963,
President de Gaulle vetoed Macmillan's attempt
to join. Although the Cabinet was well aware that
the Common Market was ultimately a political
project, involving considerable surrender of
sovereignty, and was likely to develop much further
in these respects in the future. This was NOT what
the British people WERE TO BE TOLD.
All
this was to be downplayed in favour of the pretence
that the Common Market was little more than its name
implied:
A
trading arrangement which would be good for
Britain's economy. It was a line which was still to
be official orthodoxy four decades later.
THE
CULTURE OF DECEIT HAD BEEN SOWN.
* * *
[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in
Brackets]
FEBRUARY/07
*
*
Let the people speak!
www.makeitanissue.org.uk
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ
*
67%
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want a REFERENDUM
*
PETITION
FOR
A
REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum
*
July 18-2007
VOTE
-2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO
SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND
CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE
AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO
RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE
PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS
ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
Home
Rule
for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
H.F.679 |
