NOT long after starting work in Downing street, I found  myself on a Eurostar train heading for Brussels. It was an eye-0opening trip. BUT its origin lay in a truly shocking discovery some weeks earlier.

Before the  2010 general election, Francis Maud and Oliver Letwin, two of the Conservative Party's key policymakers, and I had worked with each Tory  shadow minister on detailed plans for the implementation of our policies-including work to understand how the EU would affect what we wanted to do.

We thought we had a pretty good idea how to handle- or ideally, circum-navigate-the constraints imposed by European rules, regulations and bureaucracy. However, we were little prepared for the

SHEER SCALE OF IT AL.

After  just a few weeks in government, I was struck by how many things the Government was doing that the Prime Minister and his team didn't just not know about

BUT ACTIVELY DISAGREED WITH.

I investigated. It turned out that every few days, a pile of paperwork about a foot high was circulated in WHITEHALL. The paperwork gave the go-ahead for Government action and was supposedly based non written approval from the relevant ministers.

BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:

ministers were given 2 DAYS to respond to any proposal. If no response came, then this was taken as a 'YES'.

THERE IS NO WAY ANY MINISTER COULD POSSIBLY READ ALL THE PROPOSALS BY THE DEADLINE.

*

Even our man in Brussels didn't understand how the EU really works.

*

Furthermore, there was an unspoken rule that one department wouldn't interfere in proposals coming from another. In fact, as I recall, there was only one minister who regularly did so (much to the consternation of the others), and that was Michael Gove.

From my vantage point at No 10, though, I wanted to know where it all came from. What were these requests for policy clearance', as they are known? How many were really necessary for the delivery of our promises?

I ASKED FOR A DETAILED AUDIT

It turned out that some 30 per cent of government action was relevant to what we were supposed to be doing. The rest-you guessed it-was generated from with the

CIVIL SERVICE MACHINE

the majority coming from the

With us on the journey was Sir Kim Darroch, then Britain's Permanent Representative to the European Union-our top EU diplomat.

He briefed us on Brussels procedures, and how we might stop-or at least reduce-the flow of

UNWANTED BUREACRACY.

It was a fascinating and enlightened conversation. The only problem was: almost everything he told us

TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG.

We spent the following day meeting various players in the Brussels set-up, in the European Commission, Parliament and Council, who explained how things really got done. And it slowly dawned on us that the man tasked with representing Britain in the EU literally

DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKED.

Now, before anyone jumps  down my throat, saying 'there he goes again, attacking the civil service',

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR SIR KIM, WHO IS A MODEL PUBLIC SERVANT, AND NOW OUR AMBASSADOR IN WASHINGTON.

It's not his fault: it's the system that's to blame.

It's become so complicated, so secretive, so impenetrable that its's way beyond the ability of any British government to make it work to our advantage-even though I have no doubt that things have improved since tthe Coalition Government's early days.

In this debate on the EU referendum, it's easy to throw around terms like 'SOVEREIGNTY' and 'DEMOCRACY':: FREEDOM' and BUREAUCRACY. But in the end we're debating not the some abstract concept, but a very specific question about

HOW OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE RUN.

And my view, based on a pragmatic, non idealogical assessment of how the EU operates, is that as long as we are members, our country cannot be 'run'. Membership of the EU makes Britain literally.

 UN-GOVERNABLE

in a sense that

NO ADMINISTRATION ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE CAN GOVERN THE COUNTRY.

A democracy is based on the notion that the people-or their directly-elected representatives-are able to decide issues  for

THEMSELVES.

And yet membership of the EU brings with it constraints on

EVERYTHING

from

EMPLOYMENT LAW

to FAMILY POLICY

all determined through distant, centralised processes we hardly understand,

LET ALONE CONTROL.

You may say: Well, that's government for you-it always involves

COMPROMISE.

Indeed it does, but at least in a democracy, the compromises are clear and transparent and can be argued over and influenced by the people who are affected by them. Yet no such possibility exists in the grotesquely

UNACCOUNTABLE EU.

As I say to my American friends who don't really get

WHAT THE EU IS

'All you need to know is that it has three presidents, none of whom elected.'

The European Union was born out of lofty ideals. And for many years, it served a valuable purpose. As an expression of the liberal values of democracy and freedom, it was a beacon to the subjugated peoples of Europe-including in Communist Hungary , from where my parents fled.

[We need to interject here: We would not disagree with the points outlined above except to say that from the beginning the EU was the birth child of and the inspiration of Nazism during World War 2 and - that it was because of the very notions mentioned above that they knew they could over time by the technique of 'Gradualism' change the nature of the EU to fit their intended model of a COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNACCOUNTABLE-UNDEMOCRATIC-ELITIST EUROPEAN UNION which Mr Steve Hilton has so accurately and painstakingly uncovered.

What we find so difficult to understand is why after the uncovering in 2001 under the 30 year rule at the Records Office at Kew of foreign office documents since 1970 clearly showing the efforts to hide the truth of the real intention of the EU PROJECT that the public were not more pro-active as some notable authors such as Christopher Booker who exposed the TRUTH but were unable to get the British public to question where everything was leading. We ourselves since 2003 have shown many such documents on our website exposing the Conspiracy because that is what it is otherwise how can one explain how so little was done by the FREE PRESS to expose the TRUTH until only recent times? It has taken an important insider such as Steve  Hilton the close confident at No 10 of David Cameron to put some credence to the known facts which have been common knowledge for decades.  We thank Mr Hilton for his brave and timely exposure of the BEAST of BRUSSELS and for giving the PEOPLE the means to escape from the even closer encirclement planned for them which they can prevent by voting to

LEAVE THE EU

ON

JUNE 23-2016]

*

 ARTICLE CONTINUED

But , today, the EU has become the institutional manifestation of almost everything I argue against in my book,

More Human

There, I set out my view that the systems and the structures we have designed to run the modern world have become

TOO BIG

BUREAUCRATIC

and

DISTANT

from the

HUMAN SCALE.

And I make my case for what is in many ways a classical liberal reform agenda: I am a pro-market, pro-enterprise, pro-trade, pro-putting power in

PEOPLE'S HANDS.

THE EU DOES THE OPPOSITE

It is anti-market, stifling innovation and competition with its

STATISM

CORPORATISM

BUREAUCRACY

It is anti-enterprise, acting

IN THE INTERESTS OF BIG BUSINESSES

that have corruptly captured the

THE LEVERS OF POWER

IN

BRUSSELS

through their

SHAMELESS LOBBYING

and

INSIDER DEAL-MAKING,

enabling a gradual takeover of

OUR COUNTRY.

The European Union  is anti-trade

locking developing countries out of world markets with its evil

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

 that featherbeds, French farmers while keeping African farmers trapped in

POVERTY and DESPAIR

And I don't think the EU's most fervent supporters would ever claim that it

'PUTS POWER IN PEOPLE'S HANDS'

The whole point of the EU is to take power

OUT

of people's hands' in pursuit of a greater good.

THE TROUBLE IS, ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

*

They are so arrogant and dismissive of our modest demands

*

These are issues that a reformed EU might address. I could certainly live with an imperfect EU that nevertheless showed some willing-ness towards dispersing, rather than centralising power.

But it is perfectly obvious to everyone, including  Mr Cameron, that no such reorientation

WILL EVER BE COUNTENANCED.

 The arrogant and dismissive treatment of Britain's relatively modest demands in the 2015/2016 negotiations shows that the EU is just NOT INTERESTED in anything OTHER THAN SUPERFICIAL CHANGE.

You might as well hope for Vladimir Putin to embrace liberal democracy. Of course, the EU is perfectly entitled to such a disposition.

BUT IT IS WELL TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT>

And so one way of thinking about this

REFERENDUM

is that the choice is actually not between

STAYING and LEAVING- BUT between LEAVING and JOINING a NEW EU.

Because the EU after a BRITISH VOTE to STAY would be a different creature from the one we have today. It would be  the EU unleashed, freed from the constraints of having to placate the pesky BRITISH with its endless complaining and THREATS to LEAVE.

Once they know we will never leave, all our leverage

WILL BE GONE. Look how they treated a British Prime Minister armed with the threat of BREXIT. Can you imagine how they would treat a future PM

WITHOUT SUCH A POWERFUL CARD TO PLAY?

And remember that this is for the LONG TERM. Even if you think Cameron's deal will protect us from the worst excesses of the EU, the fact is that he will be in office for ONLY FOUR YEARS AT MOST.

[OR BE OUSTED IN  WEEKS OR MONTHS FOR THE DISSEMBLER AND OPPORTUNIST HE IS, AFTER THE RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM, ON JUNE 23-2016.

[This is one of the most important expose on the EU we have ever encountered since we entered the political arena in 1997 in order to divulge the criminal and treasonable behaviour of politicians and others who belied the truth of the purpose and intention of the EU. ]

MAY 25-2016