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 Macmillan'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
*
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU
TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
SAY VOTERS
by
Daniel
Martin
Political
Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June
18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should
drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its
rejection in last week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch
bid in the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF
THE TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING STREET-
WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street
website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
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]
|