Old Archive

11-11-2002: Prescott's Lebensraum

Dateline 11 November 2002

If the Guardian is right, The Queen’s speech showed exactly what Mr Prescott is and what he is for. In spite of his tenuous grip on the English language, he has a firm hold on the process of imposing a system of regional government on England. Reinforced by the experience of successful though scantily supported referenda on elected mayors, he can be reasonably confident of picking off the English regions one by one.

In 1971, before we were even in the “Common Market”, the Foreign Office had mapped out the path for Prescott to follow. “The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community economic and social policies will be essential” (*1) The policies would come from the “Community” but the local enforcement was to be “democratic”, at least in appearance. The whole process was seen as distracting electors from the brute fact of their powerlessness to influence “the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels”.

Is it merely coincidental that the young Prescott did his stint in Europe around this time? It is from the Council of Europe as much as from the EU institutions that the political impulse for regional parcelling out of the nation states has come. What started as an apparently innocent exercise in “town twinning” and the like has developed into a doctrine of “perforated sovereignty” (*2). This will divide existing nations, especially those not founded on a purely racial basis, into regions capable of bypassing their national governments both with the EU and with other regions in other member states. In a radio interview, the Scottish First Minister was asked if he experienced much interference from London. He replied that he spent more time in Brussels than London.

It is enlightening to get a well-documented view of this policy from Germany. Although regionalisation wears a “European” cloak, it is completely congruent with the aims of German foreign policy, which have been consistent since the foundation of the German state in 1871. A group of German journalists and commentators, centred in Cologne, publish their reports on the internet(*3) and they cast an entirely different light on the regional process. A regularly updated series of these is translated on this website under Germany Calling.

They report that the German government uses an incredible number of tax-funded “institutes” and “foundations” as instruments of policy. Many are concerned with “ethnic groups” and “minorities”, using language superficially similar to the British race relations industry. However, their aim is not so much human rights (Menschenrechten) as ethnic group rights (Volksgruppenrechten). One newspaper in this campaign carries the masthead motto “He who speaks not of Peoples (Volk) should be silent about Human Beings (Mensch)”. The Volk is what creates human beings and anyone estranged from his Volk and its “Historic Homeland” is seen as having lost a large part of his humanity.

The largest racially defined Volk in Europe are the Germans and “Deutschtum” and its “Volkstum” (literally Germandom and Folkdom) are seen as possessing not only the territory of the Federal Republic but of Austria, German-speaking Switzerland, parts of Italian-administered Tyrol and any other area with a German-speaking community. Erika Steinbach, President of “The League of German Expellees” told the Czech magazine “Respekt” that she wanted to restore the old first verse of the German national anthem. This is an unequivocal territorial demand for all the territory “from the Maas to the Memel River, from the Etsch (River Adige) to the Belt”, taking in large chunks of many other peoples’ countries. Ms Steinbach said she could see nothing in this but “Harmless love of Homeland”.

“Recht auf Heimat” (Right to homeland) is another plank in this campaign, referring particularly to the lands in Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia from which the German population was transferred as part of the 1945 peace settlement. In 1998 the German Parliament passed a solemn resolution declaring this “Illegal” and demanding the right for Germans to resettle their “Historic Homelands” (*4)

Whilst Turkish and other “guest workers” have found it very hard to become German citizens, any citizen of another country, being of German descent, can apply for German citizenship. In the Czech Republic alone 60,000 have done so successfully. “Blood purity certificates” from when Grandpa joined the SS or other documents up to 100 years old are acceptable evidence. Applications are made through German consulates and embassies in the country of residence.

Obtaining such passports is seen as the road to employment and promotion in the German firms which increasingly dominate the economies of central Europe. During the recent German general election, the Federal Election Leader (Bundeswahlleiter) issued instructions to such German citizens. They must seek assurances from the authorities of their state of residence (of which they are still subjects) that they would suffer no disadvantage from voting in the German election. Across eastern Europe, hundreds of thousands of such passports have been issued to “Auslandsdeutsche”

Having the sea for our frontier, the creation of “cross border regions” seems a little bizarre when Kent and Sussex are fancifully declared to be in the same regions as parts of Belgium and France. With a land frontier, it is somewhat different. A much stronger, wealthier state will soon become the dominant partner, where the neighbour state is smaller or less advanced economically. In the case of the German/Polish frontier, it is freely admitted that the objective of such projects is “to dissolve the Oder/Neisse frontier like a sugar lump in a cup of tea”. This frontier was officially recognised by the then West German government.

“Europa Regional” is the paper published by the “Institut fuer Laenderkunde” in Leipzig. Amongst “Questions of spatial Order” all over Europe, it discusses “Economic spatial structural change in the West Midlands Conurbation (Birmingham and the Black Country) in the times of “Thatcherism” and “post Thatcherism” ” , as well as “Geodeterministic factors” in British “Large Settlements”. The German commentary says “The aim is an X ray examination of those factors favourable and unfavourable to the parcelling out of central state administrations and their replacement by “Regions”. This is a well known key project of German high policy. In France it is particularly targeted against Lothringen (Lorraine)”.

“Spatial” is an odd term which turns up in the EU “Spatial Directive”. It is an inadequate translation of the German “Raum”, which means an area including all its geographical feature s, resources, industries and people. The German report continues, “In the notorious jargon of German “Geopolitics”, the arrogant monopolisation of the sovereign powers of foreign states,(the institute) said “Target setting and target achievement are a European Community task which concerns the fashioning of a Living Space (Lebensraum)”.

Lebensraum is the concept of a large area with all necessary resources for a self-sufficient, developed economy under single, political control – a not unfamiliar ambition of the German political class since the foundation of the German state(*5)

So regionalism is designed to balkanise the nation states. This will render them less powerful against the largest “Volksgruppe”, “Germandom” in a common Living Space. It is also designed to apply EU planning decisions (Raumordnung) and other controls directly at regional level in the increasingly husk-like member states. Prescott’s Regions will take away planning and other powers from District and County – then the EU will subject the Region’s powers to its own “Raumordnung”.

Yet Prescott and his well-funded claques in the Campaign for English Regions claim they want to “increase democracy” and “bring government closer to the people”. Plainly they are either dupes or deceivers. Local Councillors, who ought to know, are mostly blissfully ignorant of the scope and intent of the project. Even Conservatives play at “constructive engagement”.

Across Europe the political classes grow ever further and further away from the aspirations of their peoples and less and less able to represent them effectively. Official opinion in all EU countries is becoming less and less connected to reality. It is reassuring to know that there are other, respectable consituencies of opinion in EU countries though they are rarely , if ever, reported in Britain. As the German editorial office recently wrote,

“Indeed it is the motivation of our work to contribute modestly in warning of German hegemony under the camouflage of “Europe”. We seriously hope that our cooperation will continue in order to give true informations to everybody concerned that a peaceful Europe (and a peaceful world) must be founded on the principles of sovereignty”. So this is not about crusty, British europhobes after all. Welcome Obergauleiter Prescott.

(*1) Reference FCO 30/1048

(*2) Richard North “A Democracy Bypass – The Regionalisation of England”

(*3) www.german-foreign-policy.com

(*4) Rodney Atkinson “Fascist Europe Rising” see www.freenations.freeuk.com

(*5) Reichsminister and Director of Reichsbank Walther Funk (in translation)
“The Economic Face of the New Europe” (1942) see

21-01-2002: Bishop of Durham supports the North East in Europe

Bishop of Durham’s support for the North East in Europe

Dateline: 21st January 2002

Dear Bishop,

Thank you for your letter of 19th December 2001 is response to my criticism of your Chairmanship of the North East Constitutional Convention and your active involvement with North East in Europe. As it happens I was on Radio Newcastle with one of your fellow activists on Sunday but I decided not to publicly criticise the political involvement of the Church at this stage, in the hope and expectation that you (and the other 4 Bishops of the Church of England in other parts of the country) will withdraw from that involvement. You can read about the disgraceful, anti-democratic proceedings of the South West Constitutional Convention, chaired by the Bishop of Exeter, in Appendix 3 of my book Fascist Europe Rising.

Both the organisations you support are not just blatantly political but extremely controversial. Your statement that you believe “the welfare of the vast majority of the people in the North East will be served better by political devolution” is a controversial political statement in itself but you have chosen to support that one form of devolution (i.e. regional government) which will:
1. be tailor-made for government by the European Union (as the presence of European Commission officials at some of these conventions testifies) and not by our sovereign Parliament in Westminster.
2. undermine and ultimately be incompatible with our traditional county and district systems.

I note that in your letter to me you do not deny the “European” dimension, you merely seek to underplay it. I note that no guarantees on Point 2 are forthcoming. Indeed the Counties are already losing many of their planning powers.

You say that the “devolution process” in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is making for “a stronger nation”. But there is no regional government within Wales and within Scotland and the Northern Ireland devolution was part of the 1922 settlement and has in fact been completely removed. It is the European Union’s map of Britain which has excluded England and found that Scotland and Wales are “regions”, knowing full well they are in fact no such thing (each consisting of at least two or three logical regions).

If you would look at the history of imperial conquest in Europe you will see that the “regional principle” has always been the method used to undermine and destroy the (non-racial) nation states like Switzerland, Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom. The European Union’s intentions are the same and you are aiding, probably unwittingly, their plans.

You say that the North East has “benefited” from “massive grants and incoming business from members of the European Union”. In fact Britain receives no net financial contribution from the European Union and the vast majority of the inward investment in the Northeast came before we were even members of the EEC. The funds used to subsidise those foreign investments (in branch factories with relatively low skills) come 95% from regional British taxpayers and the British companies with whom these massively subsidised in-comers then unfairly compete.

You say you “object to the strong centralising tendencies of the present government” but the massive and anti-democratic centralisation over the last 30 years has been to the European Union, not Westminster – the latter having lost 80% of its democratic accountability to bureaucratic dictate from Brussels. The process at play in all the above and in your own involvement with these unelected corporate bodies is in fact corporatism. Instead of the democratic principles of individuals voting for their representatives on the basis of publicly discussed policies, who sit in assemblies to make our laws, we have returned to the system prevalent in the corporatist/fascist 1930s and 1940s. That is, Government seeks to involve “bodies” (which it chooses) to “represent” people in general and claims democratic legitimacy for their conclusions. No elections or democratic involvement are present in the process (most people in the regions have never heard of the “Regional Constitutional Conventions” and were not invited to them).

Needless to say most people are not even interested in never mind represented by trade unions (a minority of workers) the churches (a small minority of the population are active) “women’s groups” (no men allowed and few women interested) etc. etc. The only way in which all the people are involved is as individual voters in district, county and national elections. But so corporatist has our political class become that only 59% of the British people now vote for the “Mother of Parliaments”.

In your case for instance I, as a practising Anglican, look to you for the word of God, Christian values, the defence of the family, urging help for the needy and above all for general moral guidance based on the teachings of Christianity. Members of the Church of England do not elect you and I do not object to that, so long as you do not speak as a Bishop in my Church for Church members on political matters. Recently on Radio 4 a leading Muslim Cleric condemned other Muslims for using their positions within their faith to promote their political opinions – how most Anglicans and I agreed with him!
If I disagree with a politician I can 1. deselect him or 2. vote against him or 3. leave his party. I cannot do 1. or 2. with you and why should devout Christians and Anglicans leave their Church and their fundamental beliefs just because of your political activities?

Of course Anglicans like you and I cannot be expected to agree on political matters and of course on any political utterance you will find support from within the Church – as I would for my politics. But I do not wish to politicise the Church and you should not alienate so many Anglicans by turning your appointed role as Bishop of Christ into the platform of an aspiring political spokesman. But that is precisely what your letter to me does when you express controversial support for:
– the European Union
– State subsidies for industry
– Regional government

In fact it is precisely such policies which have destroyed the North east since 1934 when regional assistance was introduced as a “temporary measure”! The wealth and population of the Northeast derived from free enterprise, international trade and the opportunities industrial employment gave to poor rural labour. That wealth arose without politician’s subsidies, without any European union and without regional government.

But now I am getting political and if you wish to be a politician then I suggest you become one and stand for election, as I have done, speaking only for myself and drawing voluntary support from thousands of free individuals. In the meantime I will not distribute my leaflets in Durham Cathedral if you will cease purporting to speak for Anglicans in blatantly political forums like North East in Europe and the Regional Constitutional Conventions. If you do not then I can only see thousands of withdrawals from the Church.

Yours sincerely
Rodney E.B. Atkinson

21-10-2002: Fascist Europe destroys Ireland and democracy

FASCIST EUROPE DESTROYS IRELAND AND DEMOCRACY

Dateline 21st October 2002

Congratulations to the 70% of the Irish who refused to support the Nice Treaty.

Only 48% voted. Of that number 63% voted Yes. Therefore less than 30% of the Irish electorate voted for the Treaty while over 70% refused to support it.

In nearly all democratic countries of the world it is the constitutional requirement for all changes in the Constitution to be approved by two thirds of either the people or the Houses of Parliament.

Only in the increasingly fascist European Union can 15 countries be destroyed
by the vote of tiny majorities of those countries’ electorates.

Mimicking the 50 year tactics of European Fascism across all 15 member states of the European Union, the Irish political and corporatist classes trampled Democracy underfoot and removed more critical pillars of Irish Sovereignty while pretending that the Nice Treaty was really about something different – “Enlargement”.

Below is an edited statement issued by the Irish “National Platform” on the Nice Treaty vote:

THE RESULT

On a dark day for democracy in Ireland and in Europe, Irish voters succumbed to threats, pressure and bamboozlement by their political class.

THE LIES

Ireland’s Yes voters have unknowingly agreed to:

– reduce their democracy further,
– surrender more of their political independence,
– abolish their national veto in 35 policy areas,
– open the way to the division of the EU into two classes or two tiers and
– turn the EU Commission and Commission President into something like an EU Government and Prime Minister, under the effective political control of the Big Member States – all as provided for in the Treaty of Nice.

While they thought they were voting for EU Enlargement!

Last year’s No vote held solid in Ireland. For Ireland’s No-side campaigners to achieve 37% was quite an achievement in face of:

– a 20 to 1 imbalance in campaign expenditure in favour of the Yes side;
– a trick referendum question that permitted only one answer to two quite different joint
propositions;
– the gutting by the Irish Government of the statutory Referendum Commission in the second Nice referendum as compared with Nice One. This meant that the Nice Treaty Re-run was conducted under radically different campaign rules from last year.

The lessons and experience of Nice One and Nice Two put Ireland’s No-side campaigners in a strong position to defeat the Union State Constitution Treaty which is now being prepared for 2004. Ironically, on Thursday last, the Praesidium of the EU Convention, with Ireland’s John Bruton present, discussed whether this draft treaty should include a proposal that Member States refusing to ratify it should be required to leave the EU, something that is legally impossible at present, but which Ireland’s Yes-side voters have now permitted in principle to happen, by approving the “enhanced cooperation” provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

IRISH FASCIST ELITES (AN OBJECT LESSON IN CORPORATIST METHODS)

The Nice Re-run referendum saw the David of Irish democracy confronting the Goliath of the Irish and EU elites, second time around. David slew Goliath in Nice One, but did not expect to have to face a second bout. In Nice Two Goliath was forewarned against David, was better armed, and had several other Goliaths from among his relations to assist: Ireland’s business, trade union and farming elites, who threw themselves into the task of overthrowing the 2001 referendum result with minimal or no consulation with their own members; East European Prime Ministers, ambassadors, Vaclav Havel (whose family lost property after the second world war for collaborating with the Nazis -ed) and Lech Walensa, orchestrated by the Irish Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs into pleading for a Yes; the EU Commission and Commissioners intervening on the Yes side, in breach of EU and Irish constitutional law; a print media leaning heavily to the Yes side.

A FASCIST GOVERNMENT CHANGES THE RULES.
BILL RUSHED THROUGH PARLIAMENT WITHOUT PUBLICITY OR PROPER DISCUSSION.

The single most important factor in the success of the Government and its allies in overturning last year’s decision of the Irish people on the Nice Treaty, was the change in function of the formerly neutral, statutory Referendum Commission. In Nice One the Commission had the job of informing citizens in a fair and equal manner what the Yes-side and No-side arguments were. It was given substantial public money for that purpose.

To help push through the Nice Re-run, the Government took this function away from the Commission on 14 December last, in a Bill that it put through all four parliamentary readings in one day, with one day’s notice to the Opposition, on the eve of the Dail rising for the Christmas holidays, when media and public attention was elsewhere.


MANIPULATION OF THE REFERENDUM COMMISSION

In last year’s Nice referendum the Referendum Commission’s publicly funded advertisements, had to be evenly balanced between Yes and No. The Government’s removal of this Yes/No function from the Referendum Commission cleared a free field for private advertising in the Nice Re-run, as the politicians responsible intended that it would. This advertising was massively in favour of a Yes.

When the Referendum Commission’s was given E4m by the Government. – not surprisingly the Commission’s material lent heavily to the Yes side. One of the Yes-side campaigning groups had a publicity contract with the same agency as managed the Commission’s publicity.

The eurosceptic Irish “National Platform” COMPLAINED that:

Firstly, images convey messages. The Commission sent to every Irish household an image of the EU as an ample mother clutching little flag-waving children to her bosom, representing the existing Member States, and with other flag-waving children – the Applicant countries – gathered around her on the floor waiting to be similarly cuddled, is about as loaded an image of a benevolent EU as one could get. (THIS IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME IMAGE OF “MOTHER EUROPE” USED BY THE FASCISTS IN THE 1930s AND 1940s)

Secondly, The Commission’s statement, which lied about the need for the Treaty before expansion could take place. Legally, there is nothing that sets limits to the enlargement of the EU, apart from the requirement of being a European State.

Thirdly, the Commission’s radio/TV advertisements informing citizens what the referendum was about mirrored totally uncritically the Government’s trick question, which allowed only one answer to two different joined propositions. The Commission made no effort to indicate that the clause of the constitutional amendment requiring a referendum if there were to be an EU defence pact, was in any way less significant than the clauses ratifying the Nice Treaty, with which it was coupled.

Fourthly, the Commission failed in the Nice Re-run to publish the detailed factual descriptive booklets on the Treaty which they sent last year to schools and libraries and provided for enquirers from the general public. Despite its near doubled budget, the Referendum Commission produced much less factually informative material in Nice Two than Nice One, and what it did produce lent subtly towards the Yes.

“In the Nice Treaty Re-run referendum the Irish political class, with honourable exceptions, acted with shameful folly. It is only a matter of time before there is a political reaction amongst the people at the way in which they have been lied to and bullied to overthrow last year’s referendum result. New political forces, which surely have the future with them, have advanced further as a result of Nice One and Nice Two.”

Anthony Coughlan, The National Platform

.
THE WORST EUROFASCISTS IN THE IRISH POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT

PM Bertie Ahern who spent E10 million buying votes in a rigged referendum, prepared in advance by removing the powers of the referee (The Referendum Commission). Ahern is a fascist worthy of the great “European Union Project”

Former Taoiseach Dr Garret FitzGerald (dutiful Bilderberger) lied about the “enhanced cooperation” provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

Minister for Europe Dick Roche, pushing through the same Nice Treaty which, as a Dail backbencher, he said would be “an affront to democracy”;

Foreign Minister Brian CowenDr Brigid Laffan and Pat Cox, abusing his role as speaker of the European Parliament.

– Minister for Justice Michael McDowell:

– RTE (compare BBC): leaning over backwards as usual to please its political masters, while pretending to give balanced coverage to the Nice referendum.

– Irish Times editor Conor Brady, a key influence in encouraging the climate for removing from the Referendum Commission its function of setting out the pros and cons of referendum propositions

– The Irish Congress of Trade Unions deciding to back the overthrow of Nice One without any consultation with ordinary trade union members. The pleasure of learning that the Dublin Regional Council of its biggest affiliate, SIPTU, which did have a proper discussion with its members, coming out on the No-side; – The sense that half a dozen leading lights in IBEC, ICTU, the IFA etc., (many represented on the EU Economic and Social Committee in Brussels) have become ideological missionaries for euro-federalism and get ever more alienated from their own members and constituents in the process.

21-10-2002: Fascist Europe destroys Ireland and democracy

FASCIST EUROPE DESTROYS IRELAND AND DEMOCRACY

Dateline 21st October 2002

Congratulations to the 70% of the Irish who refused to support the Nice Treaty.

Only 48% voted. Of that number 63% voted Yes. Therefore less than 30% of the Irish electorate voted for the Treaty while over 70% refused to support it.

In nearly all democratic countries of the world it is the constitutional requirement for all changes in the Constitution to be approved by two thirds of either the people or the Houses of Parliament.

Only in the increasingly fascist European Union can 15 countries be destroyed
by the vote of tiny majorities of those countries’ electorates.

Mimicking the 50 year tactics of European Fascism across all 15 member states of the European Union, the Irish political and corporatist classes trampled Democracy underfoot and removed more critical pillars of Irish Sovereignty while pretending that the Nice Treaty was really about something different – “Enlargement”.

Below is an edited statement issued by the Irish “National Platform” on the Nice Treaty vote:

THE RESULT

On a dark day for democracy in Ireland and in Europe, Irish voters succumbed to threats, pressure and bamboozlement by their political class.

THE LIES

Ireland’s Yes voters have unknowingly agreed to:

– reduce their democracy further,
– surrender more of their political independence,
– abolish their national veto in 35 policy areas,
– open the way to the division of the EU into two classes or two tiers and
– turn the EU Commission and Commission President into something like an EU Government and Prime Minister, under the effective political control of the Big Member States – all as provided for in the Treaty of Nice.

While they thought they were voting for EU Enlargement!

Last year’s No vote held solid in Ireland. For Ireland’s No-side campaigners to achieve 37% was quite an achievement in face of:

– a 20 to 1 imbalance in campaign expenditure in favour of the Yes side;
– a trick referendum question that permitted only one answer to two quite different joint
propositions;
– the gutting by the Irish Government of the statutory Referendum Commission in the second Nice referendum as compared with Nice One. This meant that the Nice Treaty Re-run was conducted under radically different campaign rules from last year.

The lessons and experience of Nice One and Nice Two put Ireland’s No-side campaigners in a strong position to defeat the Union State Constitution Treaty which is now being prepared for 2004. Ironically, on Thursday last, the Praesidium of the EU Convention, with Ireland’s John Bruton present, discussed whether this draft treaty should include a proposal that Member States refusing to ratify it should be required to leave the EU, something that is legally impossible at present, but which Ireland’s Yes-side voters have now permitted in principle to happen, by approving the “enhanced cooperation” provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

IRISH FASCIST ELITES (AN OBJECT LESSON IN CORPORATIST METHODS)

The Nice Re-run referendum saw the David of Irish democracy confronting the Goliath of the Irish and EU elites, second time around. David slew Goliath in Nice One, but did not expect to have to face a second bout. In Nice Two Goliath was forewarned against David, was better armed, and had several other Goliaths from among his relations to assist: Ireland’s business, trade union and farming elites, who threw themselves into the task of overthrowing the 2001 referendum result with minimal or no consulation with their own members; East European Prime Ministers, ambassadors, Vaclav Havel (whose family lost property after the second world war for collaborating with the Nazis -ed) and Lech Walensa, orchestrated by the Irish Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs into pleading for a Yes; the EU Commission and Commissioners intervening on the Yes side, in breach of EU and Irish constitutional law; a print media leaning heavily to the Yes side.

A FASCIST GOVERNMENT CHANGES THE RULES.
BILL RUSHED THROUGH PARLIAMENT WITHOUT PUBLICITY OR PROPER DISCUSSION.

The single most important factor in the success of the Government and its allies in overturning last year’s decision of the Irish people on the Nice Treaty, was the change in function of the formerly neutral, statutory Referendum Commission. In Nice One the Commission had the job of informing citizens in a fair and equal manner what the Yes-side and No-side arguments were. It was given substantial public money for that purpose.

To help push through the Nice Re-run, the Government took this function away from the Commission on 14 December last, in a Bill that it put through all four parliamentary readings in one day, with one day’s notice to the Opposition, on the eve of the Dail rising for the Christmas holidays, when media and public attention was elsewhere.


MANIPULATION OF THE REFERENDUM COMMISSION

In last year’s Nice referendum the Referendum Commission’s publicly funded advertisements, had to be evenly balanced between Yes and No. The Government’s removal of this Yes/No function from the Referendum Commission cleared a free field for private advertising in the Nice Re-run, as the politicians responsible intended that it would. This advertising was massively in favour of a Yes.

When the Referendum Commission’s was given E4m by the Government. – not surprisingly the Commission’s material lent heavily to the Yes side. One of the Yes-side campaigning groups had a publicity contract with the same agency as managed the Commission’s publicity.

The eurosceptic Irish “National Platform” COMPLAINED that:

Firstly, images convey messages. The Commission sent to every Irish household an image of the EU as an ample mother clutching little flag-waving children to her bosom, representing the existing Member States, and with other flag-waving children – the Applicant countries – gathered around her on the floor waiting to be similarly cuddled, is about as loaded an image of a benevolent EU as one could get. (THIS IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME IMAGE OF “MOTHER EUROPE” USED BY THE FASCISTS IN THE 1930s AND 1940s)

Secondly, The Commission’s statement, which lied about the need for the Treaty before expansion could take place. Legally, there is nothing that sets limits to the enlargement of the EU, apart from the requirement of being a European State.

Thirdly, the Commission’s radio/TV advertisements informing citizens what the referendum was about mirrored totally uncritically the Government’s trick question, which allowed only one answer to two different joined propositions. The Commission made no effort to indicate that the clause of the constitutional amendment requiring a referendum if there were to be an EU defence pact, was in any way less significant than the clauses ratifying the Nice Treaty, with which it was coupled.

Fourthly, the Commission failed in the Nice Re-run to publish the detailed factual descriptive booklets on the Treaty which they sent last year to schools and libraries and provided for enquirers from the general public. Despite its near doubled budget, the Referendum Commission produced much less factually informative material in Nice Two than Nice One, and what it did produce lent subtly towards the Yes.

“In the Nice Treaty Re-run referendum the Irish political class, with honourable exceptions, acted with shameful folly. It is only a matter of time before there is a political reaction amongst the people at the way in which they have been lied to and bullied to overthrow last year’s referendum result. New political forces, which surely have the future with them, have advanced further as a result of Nice One and Nice Two.”

Anthony Coughlan, The National Platform

.
THE WORST EUROFASCISTS IN THE IRISH POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT

PM Bertie Ahern who spent E10 million buying votes in a rigged referendum, prepared in advance by removing the powers of the referee (The Referendum Commission). Ahern is a fascist worthy of the great “European Union Project”

Former Taoiseach Dr Garret FitzGerald (dutiful Bilderberger) lied about the “enhanced cooperation” provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

Minister for Europe Dick Roche, pushing through the same Nice Treaty which, as a Dail backbencher, he said would be “an affront to democracy”;

Foreign Minister Brian CowenDr Brigid Laffan and Pat Cox, abusing his role as speaker of the European Parliament.

– Minister for Justice Michael McDowell:

– RTE (compare BBC): leaning over backwards as usual to please its political masters, while pretending to give balanced coverage to the Nice referendum.

– Irish Times editor Conor Brady, a key influence in encouraging the climate for removing from the Referendum Commission its function of setting out the pros and cons of referendum propositions

– The Irish Congress of Trade Unions deciding to back the overthrow of Nice One without any consultation with ordinary trade union members. The pleasure of learning that the Dublin Regional Council of its biggest affiliate, SIPTU, which did have a proper discussion with its members, coming out on the No-side; – The sense that half a dozen leading lights in IBEC, ICTU, the IFA etc., (many represented on the EU Economic and Social Committee in Brussels) have become ideological missionaries for euro-federalism and get ever more alienated from their own members and constituents in the process.

08-07-2002: Another British family (and their business) destroyed by EU

Another solid British family (and their business) destroyed by Euro-fascism

Dateline: 8th July 2002

“It should not go unrecognised that the system of community economic endeavour naturally (!) requires ongoing state Directives in a larger quantity than those to which businessmen in many European states were previously accustomed”
Walther Funk, Reichs Economy Minister & President of the Reichsbank 1942

Having closed down my own production facility because it (1) needed new investment and (2) made a useful, safe product which the EU had twice come near to banning so (3) at 58 I was not prepared to take the risk that a stroke of a pen could make re-investment worthless, I was very sorry to hear of the closure of a long-standing customer of mine in Yorkshire.

I will not name them but I have dealt with three generations of the family. They ran a tight ship, a mill which was up to the standards of anywhere. But they only have one mill. They made both pet foods and farm animal foods. Because of the ban on meat & bone meal in farm animal feeds, they had to get rid of their pet food business because you cannot keep meat & bone meal in a mill which produces feeds for farm animals.

This mill made both cattle & sheep feed and pig & poultry rations. Then the EU then decided that Fish meal must not be used in rations for cattle and sheep, although it is very valuable in feeds for young stock and dairy rations. The reason was that it might be mixed with meat & bone meal although the supply chain in this country is completely separate. Fish meal is an even more valuable component of pig and poultry rations because of the quality of the protein. But unless you have a completely separate system, you cannot bring fish meal into a mill which makes cattle food, although nobody has ever suggested that fish meal is anything other than beneficial in cattle rations(especially those of high quality).

So they have had to close and sell up to a larger firm which has several mills. So, I guess, some thirty people have lost theier jobs and a technically excellent mill has been closed down – on a technicality of no worth to public health or anything else.

Isn’t life grand?

The people who ran this business were real people, great characters. The first managing director I knew was about my father’s age. “How are you keeping?” I asked him once. “Lad, none of us are any better for keeping ” was the reply. Although they changed it of recent years, they were unique in having old age pensioners as telephone operators. Being very Yorkshire, when you asked to be put through to someone, the reply was usually “Hold on a minute young man, I’ll put thee through”. The MD’s wife was known to be very poorly with cancer, so I asked one of these stalwarts how she was’ before proceeding to the inner sanctum. “She’s not so gradely, Lad. They buried her on Wednesday”, was the reply.

We shall not see their like again

05-01-2002: The Danger of Abandoning Principle When Defending the Pound

Dateline: 5th January 2002

The Times editorial 4th January 2002 claimed that the Single European Currency, the Euro, can only be defeated with a coalition between those who say on principle No and those who say, with no principle at all, not yet.

Since a majority of the voters already say no and a very considerable majority, when confronted with the constitutional truth about the Euro, will say no there is no pragmatic reason to trim and compromise the “No campaign” (or the “Yes to the Pound and democratic sovereignty campaign” as most would surely call it).

Even the best and most popular cause can be undermined by an uncertain call on the trumpet. Combining those who agree with stages one and two of the abolition of the Pound (i.e. the British commitment at Maastricht) with those who on democratic principle reject the entire monetary-imperialist scheme is a recipe for disaster.

It is a classic technique to persuade one’s opponent that he will have a better chance of winning the argument if he does not take “an extreme position” – by which of course is meant a principled position! Once a principled argument has been compromised, there remains no principle to argue and the cause is lost.

Yours etc

Rodney E.B. Atkinson

02-05-2002: How the European Union threatens the Channel Islands

HOW THE EUROPEAN UNION THREATENS THE CHANNEL ISLANDS

Dateline: 2nd May 2002

In the present conflict between Jersey and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer we can see not so much British socialist politics as European Union power politics.

For many years sundry agents of the European Union have traveled non-EU countries and threatened them that they would suffer if they did not join or kow-tow to the EU. A European Commissioner went to Eastern European countries and threatened that if they did not apply to join they would not be able to trade freely and even that they would not become members of NATO. Recently a Conservative Party MEP threatened Malta that they would be cast into “outer darkness” if they did not join!

What is so interesting about the EU demand that Jersey should open up its financial system to scrutiny (and thereby expose itself to unfair competition from other countries like Luxembourg) is how respectable in fact so-called “tax havens” are compared to the so called non tax havens. According to the US Government agencies looking into money laundering (the Financial Action Task Force, the CIA Money Laundering Centre and the State Department) “non tax havens” like the UK, Germany, Belgium, Ireland and others are twice as likely to promote money laundering than so called tax havens like Jersey.

Most of the money in tax havens is in fact institutional investment by institutions which are given considerable tax advantages by e.g. the British and German governments! The IMF recently announced it wants to help a certain country upgrade its anti-money laundering laws. The country concerned? The USA!

In a recent self-assessment survey the US Financial Action Task Force failed its own country, Canada, Japan and Mexico in an analysis of anti-money laundering measures. On the other hand the US Internal Revenue Service has granted the Channel Islands a clean status. The reason why Jersey is threatened by the European Union through Gordon Brown has nothing to do with decent financial standards but has everything to do with the worst kind of power politics.

29-04-2002: Mandelson, Jospin and the rejection of Corporatist Europe

MANDELSON, JOSPIN AND THE REJECTION OF CORPORATIST EUROPE

Dateline: 29th April 2002

The former Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson is notorious for three things. He was twice forced to resign as a Minister; he seeks the abolition of the Pound, the Bank of England, the Treasury and what remains of British self-governance in favour of the new Euro-State; and he recently said “the era of true representative democracy is drawing to a close”.

Mandelson of course prefers the corporatist form of government whereby State selected “bodies” are given more and more power and individual voters less. This is why fewer and fewer people in Britain (and throughout the corporatist European Union) vote at elections.

Now we see in the French elections how Mandelson’s politics are rejected. For one of his heroes – Lionel Jospin – has suffered one of the most ignominious defeats in the history of French politics, letting in the National Front’s Le Pen to the last round of the Presidential elections. Mandelson said of Jospin “he is a modern thinker of the Left. His record shows his ability to translate confident analysis into practical policy”

Well, now we know what electors think of Peter Mandelson’s grotesque ideas about democracy and the European Union. He is as alien to the voters of Britain as his friend Jospin is to the French. Jospin’s political career is finished – so is Mandelson’s and so is the anti-democratic corporatism of the Blairite Labour Party which Mandelson helped to create. They will be pushed aside either by a rejuvenated Conservative Party which jettisons its own corporatist eurofanatics or by an internal feud within the Labour Party which will replace Blair with Gordon Brown.

What we have witnessed in France, and may yet see in the UK is the breaking of that circle whereby one “mainstream” eurofanatic party is replaced by the other which for electoral purposes pretended to oppose the Euro-State but which, on achieving power returns to the blind and ignorant consensus

22-04-2002: Le Pen and Europe's Full Circle

LE PEN AND EUROPE’S FULL CIRCLE

Dateline: 22nd April 2002

The French newspaper Les Echos has compared the success of the National Front in the presidential elections with the France of the 1930s “with half fascinated by Stalin and the other half by Mussolini”.

It was Rodney Atkinson’s 1996 book Europe’s Full Circle that first showed how European countries had reproduced at the supranational level the anti-democratic corporatism of Germany’s Weimar Republic and that, as in the 1930s when the “centre parties” offered no alternatives, the electorate would flock to communism and nationalism. Le Pen in France is not a “fascist” but a nationalist, reacting against the corporatist/fascist model which “moderate” European politicians have recreated in the so-called European Union.

It is not Le Pen who is associated with the war time collaborationist Vichy regime but the former President Francois Mitterand (who received Vichy’s highest honour) and went on to promote the European Union at the expense of democratic nationhood in France. Lionel Jospin did not “work hard for his country” as one of his socialist apologists has just claimed, but he worked tirelessly for the European superstate at whose behest he and his predecessors introduced a monetary and fiscal regime which has maintained extremely high French unemployment for the last 12 years. Extremely high unemployment in Italy, France and, of all places given its history, Germany, has driven desperate workers to embrace extremist parties. Today communists march on the streets of France against a Le Pen victory. In Berlin in the 1920s and 1930s the masses joined first the Nazis and then the Communists, often demonstrating for one in the morning and the other in the afternoon.

Just as their equivalents in the 1930s no group of politicians could have done a better job of destroying jobs, parliaments, nationhood and the social solidarity which is the very foundation of democracy than the new “builders of Europe”. So called “left” and “right” parties in Germany, Italy, France and Britain have so uniformly kowtowed to the corporatism of the European superstate that the whole basis of a democratic vote – that we have real alternatives to vote for – has been taken from us.

Now, as in the 1930s, desperate people seek only to awaken a decadent political class, masquerading as the “centre parties”. If Le Pen and his equivalent in other European nations represent an extreme alternative then, in extremis millions of people will vote for that alternative – and pray that “moderate” politicians will understand the nature of the protest.

Why must we learn all over again the lessons of history? Democratic nationhood is the only true and moderate expression of that natural social cohesion and common allegiance which can sustain democracy. Those who believed they could build their empires (Napoleonic, Hitlerian) on the suppression of those national allegiances inevitably turned to tyranny, to which millions of dead in the 19th and 20th centuries testify.

20-04-2002: Labour Against the Euro

LABOUR AGAINST THE EURO

Dateline: 20th April 2002

Some 30 Labour MPs have formed Labour Against the Euro. They are:

Harold Best, Ronnie Campbell, Michael Clapham, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, Jon Cruddas, Ann Cryer, John Cryer, Ian Davidson (Chairman), Denzil Davies, Terry Davis, Hilton Dawson, David Drew, Bill Etherington, Ian Gibson, Tom Harris, Kelvin Hopkins, Alan Howarth, Terry Lewsis, Alice Mahon, John McDowell, Austin Mitchell, Alan Simpson, Dennis Skinner, Llew Smith, David Taylor, Mike Wood, Jimmy Wray.

They were joined by Lord (Denis) Healey and Lord Dixon.

Late will campaign against a Euro Referendum being held within the present Parliament. They are also, naturally, anxious that the stringent requirements of the Euro (and of previously signed Treaties like Maastricht) that restrict Government spending and borrowing just when the Labour Party is committed to vast State spending on the Health Service, Education and a decrepit transport infrastructure.

It has always been obvious to observers of Tony Blair since his 1997 election victory that he could not have his cake and eat it. Ideologically both on the “European” Union and on his low tax, privatising policies he is virulently opposed by a large section of his own party. In terms of pure pragmatics he is also in danger of alienating (on his policies of higher taxes and the Euro) those very Tories who were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in 1997 and 2001.

The Left of the Labour Party, opposing Blair on such important issues now also have the prospect of “puppet Blair” being dangled by President Bush on the question of attacking Iraq, where the opposition is even more widespread than on the question of the illegal attack on Yugoslavia.

Blair is heading for a serious conflict with his own backbenchers on Iraq, Europe and State spending. The rise of such a group of Labour backbenchers as LATE is just the first sign of his enemies coming to get him!

25-03-2002: A principle is absolute

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

15-03-2002: The Nationalism of the Greatest Eurofederalists

THE NATIONALISM OF THE GREATEST EUROFEDERALISTS

Dateline: 15th March 2002

The Times (14th March 2002) noted that Spain “has suspended its membership of the Shengen Agreement which ensures free passage across borders” The result was long tailbacks of traffic at the French border.

In the so-called Shengen Agreement the “European” Union reached its highest point of federalism when some participating members agreed to stop recognising their own borders. It did not take long before France effectively suspended Shengen regulations and now, in preparation for the Madrid summit and the prevention of terrorism, Spain asserts that the only border that matters, when matters of importance like terrorism are at stake, is its own national border.

Spain adds this “exception” to its illegal actions against Gibraltar and joins the French in their illegal restriction of beef imports and Germany in its sabotage of an EU corporate takeover code and its unilateral recognition of Croatia. In the case of Spain, where its attack on Gibraltar is supported by the European Union, we might ask why Spain still thinks it is a sovereign nation with any rights to territories inside the European Union – not least because its own colonies (one in France and two in North Africa) it shows no sign of surrendering to anyone!

At any one time there are hundreds of outstanding cases before the European Court against Spain, France and Germany, the leading builders of the Euro-State. How ironic that the greatest Eurofederalists are always the first to break their own regulations in the name of the “national interest”.

13-02-2002: Milosevic Accusers found guilty in Berlin Court

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

01-02-2002: The Vatican and the European Union

THE VATICAN AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Dateline: 1st September 1999

A recent article in the Peterborough Column of the Daily Telegraph threw some light on the Vatican’s political engagement with the EU – It has thrown much of its weight behind further European ‘integration’ – although few Catholics in the United Kingdom are aware of this. This is a particularly important theme since the British Government is minded to alter the Act of Settlement, which disbars the monarch from marrying or being a Roman Catholic. At first sight, this does not appear at all unreasonable in this modern age. We all know that our Roman Catholic fellow countrymen are as British as we are. The Act of Settlement appears at first glance to be a slight upon them.

But there is a problem at the very heart of the state. Whilst the present Pope is much respected and admired by many people of diverse persuasions, the Office of the Pope still lays claim to universal jurisdiction. That is, all Roman Catholics in all countries are subject to the powers claimed for the office of Supreme Roman Pontiff. Indeed members of the Roman Church world wide are described by the Vatican as its “citizens” (the Vatican is after all a separate country).

By definition, a Sovereign cannot be subject to another Sovereign. (In the bookTreason at Maastricht Atkinson and McWhirter describe the position of the Queen as having become that of “Suzerain” following the surrender of sovereign power to the European Union). But Sovereignty has been with the Crown of England – and since the Union with Scotland the United Kingdom – for hundreds of years. That is why the Articles of the Church of England state “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”.

This would be of largely antiquarian interest, if the Vatican were a purely religious organisation – but it is not. It is, as always, deep into politics too. In Europe it has been very active in promoting the European Union, as if the projected superstate is to be the secular arm of the Roman Church. This was paralleled historically when the Italian Nation was founded and for nearly 40 years the Vatican refused to recognised its nationhood – preferring of course its own hold over the Italian people through the Church.

The very symbol of the EU, the ring of twelve stars , is taken from a Roman representation of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s halo. At a recent “Synod for Europe”, Chiara Lubich, a lay auditor, said “The EU is a design not only of human beings but of God”. The same Synod heard that the process of canonisation had begun for the “founding fathers” of the EU. Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gaspery and Robert Schuman. The reason given was that they had founded the EU on Roman Catholic principles.(These included of course corporatism, centralism and the weakening of the nation states).

The Vatican also joined the Euro-zone and was reportedly given a unique symbol of supremacy by the EU. Euro coins, minted by the Vatican, will carry the Pope’s head. No other monarch or state has been granted such a distinction .

Because of the deceit of our old political parties, people are mostly unaware of the nature of the Euro-state into which we are slowly and deceptively being drawn. Many British Roman Catholics are appalled at the prospect of domination by continental authoritarianism and its church-based politics (Clericalism).

Institutions like the Social Chapter of the Maastricht treaty derive largely from Vatican social teaching over many decades . Bernard (“The Rotten heart of Europe”) Connolly,
himself a Roman Catholic, berated Conservative MEPs for thinking that they were like Christian Democrats. But the latter are corporatist, statist, protectionist, centralist, dirigiste and authoritarian in outlook. They have little concept of democratic nationhood. So whilst the core of the religion is neither pro nor anti EU, the derived teachings (where the Vatican claims to have a “Magisterium”) certainly tend towards the sort of structures which the EU is developing.

Historically, Emperor (the European Union’s Charlemagne Prize awarded to people like Roy Jenkins and Tony Blair and named after the first Holy Roman Emperor) and the Vatican ran the Holy Roman Empire and they seem to be running to form.

03-01-2002: Mandelson, corruption and the European Union

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

01-01-2002: Confusion about Euro notes and coins

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

20-11-2001: Objection to Euro propaganda from the Treasury

AN OBJECTION TO EURO-PROPAGANDA FROM THE TREASURY

Dateline: 20th November 2001

As the Chairman of the above company I am replying to your letter containing “information” about the Euro. I can only assume that, since the Euro is like any other foreign currency and there is absolutely no technical or financial problem for this or any other company in its introduction in a small number of European countries (less than one third of the countries of Europe) that your letter is for purely propaganda purposes.

I strongly object to this use of taxpayer’s money to spread political propaganda and as someone who does not support any of the political parties in this country we am sick and tired of pathetic little politicians trying to politicize my business and our lives. Since your promotion of the Euro is evidently intended to soften up the British people for the abolition of the Pound, the Bank of England, HM Treasury and therewith the First Lord of the Treasury (the office of the Prime Minister) I am also surprised that you should be so keen to abolish yourselves.

This company wishes to be removed from your mailing list. If you wish to pursue the strategy of the Euro-fascist State then we do not wish to receive their propaganda here.

Yours faithfully

Rodney Atkinson

cc Rt. Hon Gordon Brown

2001-Adolf Blair: Adolf Blair and Mugabe - Where's the difference?

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

2001-Bilderberg: Bilderberg and Globalism

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

2001-fascist Eichel: Fascist Eichel and Germany's Full Circle

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

21-01-2002: Bishop of Durham supports the North East in Europe

Bishop of Durham’s support for the North East in Europe

Dateline: 21st January 2002

Dear Bishop,

Thank you for your letter of 19th December 2001 is response to my criticism of your Chairmanship of the North East Constitutional Convention and your active involvement with North East in Europe. As it happens I was on Radio Newcastle with one of your fellow activists on Sunday but I decided not to publicly criticise the political involvement of the Church at this stage, in the hope and expectation that you (and the other 4 Bishops of the Church of England in other parts of the country) will withdraw from that involvement. You can read about the disgraceful, anti-democratic proceedings of the South West Constitutional Convention, chaired by the Bishop of Exeter, in Appendix 3 of my book Fascist Europe Rising.

Both the organisations you support are not just blatantly political but extremely controversial. Your statement that you believe “the welfare of the vast majority of the people in the North East will be served better by political devolution” is a controversial political statement in itself but you have chosen to support that one form of devolution (i.e. regional government) which will:
1. be tailor-made for government by the European Union (as the presence of European Commission officials at some of these conventions testifies) and not by our sovereign Parliament in Westminster.
2. undermine and ultimately be incompatible with our traditional county and district systems.

I note that in your letter to me you do not deny the “European” dimension, you merely seek to underplay it. I note that no guarantees on Point 2 are forthcoming. Indeed the Counties are already losing many of their planning powers.

You say that the “devolution process” in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is making for “a stronger nation”. But there is no regional government within Wales and within Scotland and the Northern Ireland devolution was part of the 1922 settlement and has in fact been completely removed. It is the European Union’s map of Britain which has excluded England and found that Scotland and Wales are “regions”, knowing full well they are in fact no such thing (each consisting of at least two or three logical regions).

If you would look at the history of imperial conquest in Europe you will see that the “regional principle” has always been the method used to undermine and destroy the (non-racial) nation states like Switzerland, Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom. The European Union’s intentions are the same and you are aiding, probably unwittingly, their plans.

You say that the North East has “benefited” from “massive grants and incoming business from members of the European Union”. In fact Britain receives no net financial contribution from the European Union and the vast majority of the inward investment in the Northeast came before we were even members of the EEC. The funds used to subsidise those foreign investments (in branch factories with relatively low skills) come 95% from regional British taxpayers and the British companies with whom these massively subsidised in-comers then unfairly compete.

You say you “object to the strong centralising tendencies of the present government” but the massive and anti-democratic centralisation over the last 30 years has been to the European Union, not Westminster – the latter having lost 80% of its democratic accountability to bureaucratic dictate from Brussels. The process at play in all the above and in your own involvement with these unelected corporate bodies is in fact corporatism. Instead of the democratic principles of individuals voting for their representatives on the basis of publicly discussed policies, who sit in assemblies to make our laws, we have returned to the system prevalent in the corporatist/fascist 1930s and 1940s. That is, Government seeks to involve “bodies” (which it chooses) to “represent” people in general and claims democratic legitimacy for their conclusions. No elections or democratic involvement are present in the process (most people in the regions have never heard of the “Regional Constitutional Conventions” and were not invited to them).

Needless to say most people are not even interested in never mind represented by trade unions (a minority of workers) the churches (a small minority of the population are active) “women’s groups” (no men allowed and few women interested) etc. etc. The only way in which all the people are involved is as individual voters in district, county and national elections. But so corporatist has our political class become that only 59% of the British people now vote for the “Mother of Parliaments”.

In your case for instance I, as a practising Anglican, look to you for the word of God, Christian values, the defence of the family, urging help for the needy and above all for general moral guidance based on the teachings of Christianity. Members of the Church of England do not elect you and I do not object to that, so long as you do not speak as a Bishop in my Church for Church members on political matters. Recently on Radio 4 a leading Muslim Cleric condemned other Muslims for using their positions within their faith to promote their political opinions – how most Anglicans and I agreed with him!
If I disagree with a politician I can 1. deselect him or 2. vote against him or 3. leave his party. I cannot do 1. or 2. with you and why should devout Christians and Anglicans leave their Church and their fundamental beliefs just because of your political activities?

Of course Anglicans like you and I cannot be expected to agree on political matters and of course on any political utterance you will find support from within the Church – as I would for my politics. But I do not wish to politicise the Church and you should not alienate so many Anglicans by turning your appointed role as Bishop of Christ into the platform of an aspiring political spokesman. But that is precisely what your letter to me does when you express controversial support for:
– the European Union
– State subsidies for industry
– Regional government

In fact it is precisely such policies which have destroyed the North east since 1934 when regional assistance was introduced as a “temporary measure”! The wealth and population of the Northeast derived from free enterprise, international trade and the opportunities industrial employment gave to poor rural labour. That wealth arose without politician’s subsidies, without any European union and without regional government.

But now I am getting political and if you wish to be a politician then I suggest you become one and stand for election, as I have done, speaking only for myself and drawing voluntary support from thousands of free individuals. In the meantime I will not distribute my leaflets in Durham Cathedral if you will cease purporting to speak for Anglicans in blatantly political forums like North East in Europe and the Regional Constitutional Conventions. If you do not then I can only see thousands of withdrawals from the Church.

Yours sincerely
Rodney E.B. Atkinson

January 2002: United Kingdom Regionalisation and the EU

UNITED KINGDOM REGIONALISATION AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Dateline: January 2002

Many in the North East of England may be asking what is all this talk of “regional government”, who is behind it and what does it really mean? One clue to its true meaning is the fact that the chief proponent of the idea is the organisation called One North East, 40% of whose Board also happen to be in the Eurofederalist group “North East in Europe”. Well, fancy that!

Now many of these individuals are probably as ignorant of what they are doing as the members of our parliament at Westminster. The obnoxious truth is however that the regionalisation of Britain is the prime aim of the European Union in its search for constitutional power. They – like the eurofanatic Labour Government – are bent on destroying local and county government in Britain and replacing it with a system more easily manipulated by the European Commission. Needless to say one of the advantages they see is the ability – as they increasingly have through their embryo “regional governments” – to bypass our parliament and government in London and to involve “business” “trade unions” and other corporate groups in our “democratic governance”.

There is nothing new in this attempt by an integrated European Superpower to destroy our traditional parliamentary system. It is precisely what fascists in Nazi German, Vichy France and Fascist Italy did in Europe during the 1940s.

As one of the world’s leading socialists – the Swede Jan Myrdal, a friend of Indira Gandhi and Mao Tse Tung! – said recently, such corporatist attempts to create regional government were a hallmark of fascism.

05-01-2002: The Danger of abandoning principle when defending the '£'

THE DANGER OF ABANDONING PRINCIPLE
WHEN DEFENDING THE POUND

Dateline: 5th January 2002

The Times editorial 4th January 2002 claimed that the Single European Currency, the Euro, can only be defeated with a coalition between those who say on principle No and those who say, with no principle at all, not yet.

Since a majority of the voters already say no and a very considerable majority, when confronted with the constitutional truth about the Euro, will say no there is no pragmatic reason to trim and compromise the “No campaign” (or the “Yes to the Pound and democratic sovereignty campaign” as most would surely call it).

Even the best and most popular cause can be undermined by an uncertain call on the trumpet. Combining those who agree with stages one and two of the abolition of the Pound (i.e. the British commitment at Maastricht) with those who on democratic principle reject the entire monetary-imperialist scheme is a recipe for disaster.

It is a classic technique to persuade one’s opponent that he will have a better chance of winning the argument if he does not take “an extreme position” – by which of course is meant a principled position! Once a principled argument has been compromised, there remains no principle to argue and the cause is lost.

Yours etc

Rodney E.B. Atkinson

03-10-2001: The megalomania of Prime Minister Blair

THE MEGALOMANIA OF PRIME MINISTER BLAIR

Dateline: 3rd October 2001

In recent speeches Prime Minister Blair has taken to emphasising the word ‘community’. When he talked of local communities he claimed to speak for such communities nationwide. And yet at the last election after 4 years of his care a very small percentage of the electorate even voted at all, and only about 25% of the voting population voted for him.

When he speaks grandiosely of the “superpower” European Community he forgets that within that community are less than one third of the nations of Europe.

When he blew the trumpet for the attack on Yugoslavia he claimed to speak for the International Community but the world’s three largest countries (Russia, China and India) vociferously condemned the attack.

Despite great difficulties in assembling a coalition to wage war on Blair’s highly selected “terrorists” he rants on about solving a myriad international problems that concern him in the name of the World Community.

This grotesque progression of “communities” smacks of megalomania.

13-06-2001: Dangerous Havel

THE DANGEROUS NONSENSE OF PRESIDENT HAVEL – THE EUROPEAN UNION PUPPET.

Dateline: 13th June 2001

In The Irish Times of 13th June the former Czech dissident and – until 2003 President of the Czech Republic, the paper’s Foreign Affairs Correspondent interviewed Vaclav Havel. Here Rodney Atkinson comments on the dangerous naivety of this disastrous Czech President.

Havel, with an international reputation in the resistance to the communist Soviet Union now kow-tows to the corporatism of the European Union. Havel, who succeeded in wresting democratic nationhood from the Soviet Superstate, now wishes to surrender it to the European Union. Having fought the Russians military and economic imperialism he now embraces German industrial take-over and German Europe’s hegemony. Havel, who was the first president of a free Czechoslovakia, presided over the destruction of his own nation (by the recreation of the Nazi Puppet State of Slovakia) and now presides over the remaining “Czech Republic”. No wonder he is unpopular among real Czech democrats.

Havel was of course a romantic figure – a poet and dramatist turned political activist and he has been predictably seduced by romantic notions of a “United Europe” as a “truly functioning transparent, understandable organisation that brings benefit to all nations”. Like all great tyrants and political dangermen he dreams of being part of a “region” “from Alaska in the West to Tallinn in the East” and “one of the components of a future multi-polar world order”.

Here we have the historically well proven language of fascism – from the lips of a romantic and megalomaniac. No one who has the slightest knowledge of the foundation of the European Union, the methods of deceit used to establish its power; its destruction of free nations and democratic parliaments or its present corrupt reality could utter such amazing drivel. But Havel does not live in the real world, he lives in the world of drama and poetry, just like the Nazis lived in the romantic greenery of the German countryside and in the heroic Wagnerian myths. Fundamentally weak figures always require big, powerful myths and big powerful States which can project their grand plans onto the wider world.

Havel dreams of himself as the centre of attention when he says, with romantic historical anachronism that Bismarck had said “Who ever controls Prague controls Europe”!

Well we know who controls Prague today. Through the Germanophile Havel, it is Berlin. Listen to how Dr Miroslav Polreich describes his attempts to negotiate a peace in Kosovo, (after the arming and training of Kosovo terrorists by the German secret Service!) Polreich was a former ambassador to the OSCE, who was on this first international peace mission to Pristina in Kosovo in 1992 under the leadership of David Peel the Canadian Ambassador.

“The Serbs were prepared to talk to anyone. If the other side wanted secrecy, OK, Rugova (Kosovo Albanian leader) had this condition. So I asked the authorities at the time and they told me ‘we consulted the Germans and they had no intention of having any kind of deal over Kosovo”. Later I approached the authorities in Prague again offering my mandate from Rugova to go and negotiate – that was in the mid 1990s. They refused and said it was up to Havel. So there were no negotiations. We were unable to help at the time when Kosovo was out of the media headlines and both sides were amenable to an agreement and the war could have been prevented…….. Somehow Germany is in power in Europe, economically, financially, in the media, the press ……. absolutely, number one, no comparison.”

On the one hand Havel tells the Irish Times that rejecting the Nice Treaty (which if he had read it has little to do with expansion and more with further concentrating undemocratic control over members states) would be like “Europe remaining divided – leaving a psychological remnant of the Iron Curtain”. On the other hand he pours scorn on those who hark back to “times when there used to be blocs opposing each other”! But of course Europe is not divided and therefore there is no need for The Czechs to give up their hard won sovereignty and democracy. And yet that is precisely what Havel urges them to do!

But why should there be any support for such a surrender of their democratic nationhood among Czechs, Hungarians and Poles? Because the Soviet controlled barrier to the west has been replaced by the European Union’s trade barriers to the west. The peoples of Eastern Europe do not wish to join the European Union, they want to trade freely with the countries of Western Europe and it is the European Union which forcefully prevents that, offering a removal of those barriers only when those eastern nations surrender their nationhood to the undemocratic institutions of the European Union.

Perhaps the most purblind of Havel’s ludicrous beliefs is that the new European superstate would never “draw anybody into enmity against any adversary – that is no longer the case in the world today”. This from a President of a country which has the closest affinity to the people of Yugoslavia, a country conspired against (by Germany) broken up, ethnically cleansed (largely by NATO), bombed (by NATO and the European Union, with 2,000 of its civilians killed. Following the break up, war and racial and religious bigotry (mainly from the Muslims and Croats whom NATO and German Europe supported) have led to further and continuing aggression in Croatia (which drove out 500,000 Serbs) Bosnia and Kosovo (the terrorist KLA driving out hundreds of thousands of Serbs) and now Macedonia (where the UN supported Kosovo Albanian militias have invaded).

THIS IS WHAT HAVEL CALLS PEACE. We should be in no doubt what we call Havel, the latest puppet of German Europe and their Blairite stooges.

10-03-2001: The Dehane Case

HOW EUROPEAN CORRUPTION WORKS -THE DEHAENE CASE

Dateline: 10th March 2001

JEAN-LUC DEHAENE, REJECTED AS PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (BY JOHN MAJOR!!!) IN FAVOUR OF JACQUE DELORS, NOW HEAD OF THE THINK TANK DIRECTING THE EU’S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

John Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Belgian Prime Minister, as head of the corrupt European Commission (the entire Commission under Jacques Santer subsequently had to resign).

Dehaene was a eurofederalist German puppet and deeply ingrained in the even more corrupt Belgian political class (bribery, corruption, paedophilia). Needless to say in any half respectable democracy Dehaene would never again have darkened the door of European politics. But the EU is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting so we see this time server now levered into one of the most critical roles in the EU. He is head of the think tank responsible for preparing the European Constitutional Convention of 2004. This (like Blair’s fascist equivalents in Britain designed to break up England, but not Scotland or Wales, into regions) is a classic corporatist/fascist ploy. Bodies appointed by the State/Commission on the basis that nearly all agree with what the State wants to do are put in a “Convention” and told the answer they are expected to come up with! Strangely they always do!

So Mr Dehaene has another critical, well paid, pensioned job in the service of the new Euro-Empire. Just like Chris Patten, rejected by the voters of Cheltenham, and Leon Brittan, forced to resign in disgrace from the British Government became European Commissioners.

These eurofascists know how to look after their own.

17-02-2001: Times columnist's dangerous naivety

Times columnist’s dangerous naivety

Dateline: 17th February 2001

In describing the European Commission’s President at his luncheon with the British press (The Times, 16th February) Matthew Parris found Signor Prodi (by far the most dangerous euro-federalist ever to run the European Commission) “damned reasonable”, “more a professor than a prince”, “genial…. thoughtful, palpably earnest”.

How this reminded me of a gentle old professor of English (like Prodi he “loved this country”) who on my first day as a lecturer at a German University took me to lunch. He was also genial and earnest. Like Prodi, he also admired Magna Carta and was very keen on a “united Europe”.

Unfortunately he turned out to have been one of the Nazi Party’s leading academic ideologues and, no doubt due to his “love for this country”, had been pencilled in as a Gauleiter to help run Britain after the glorious victory of that other great admirer of the British – Adolf Hitler.

Matthew Parris is always amusing, but let us not laugh ourselves into that very State against which we fought two world wars.

30-01-2001: A definition of Fascism

A DEFINITION OF FASCISM

Dateline: 30th January 2002

“Fascist” is a term which has been used as an adolescent political swear word but Fascism is also a specific political ideology, one which was our principle adversary in the Second World War. The term describes a political system which bypasses democracy, parliaments, the rule of law and indeed nations themselves in its quest for absolute power. To force through its agenda it uses corporatism (i.e. bodies like unions, companies, churches, “women’s groups” etc) which are chosen for their political support of the Government but which are not elected by the people in general. Blair’s Regional Constitutional Conventions are a recent example.

Fascism is also characterised by collectives of capital and labour and State authorised “groups” which decide on policy that is then presented as a fait accompli to parliaments. Fascism uses legal loopholes to bypass parliaments – like emergency powers, statutory instruments and Crown Prerogative (good examples being the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties). Douglas Hurd said, “Parliament cannot overturn the Maastricht Treaty”!

Fascism also does not engage in rational debate but makes personal attacks on political opponents instead of responding to specific points. Those who doubt that the destruction of democratic nations by the European Union has anything to do with fascism must come to terms with the following facts:

The Euro means the abolition of the Pound, the abolition of the Bank of England, the abolition of HM Treasury and the abolition of Gordon Brown’s job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Euro, like any other currency, automatically takes over all liabilities (like pensions) and assets (like North Sea oil and gas and fishing stocks) within its area. That is why we talk not of Scottish oil but British oil and not of Californian oil but American oil.

The founder of the Eurofederalist European Movement (Joseph Retinger) was expelled from allied countries during the first world war and hated nations so much he refused to carry his own national passport; that the co-founder of the Bilderberg group (according the CIA operative Richard Aldrich the principle power behind the creation of the European Union) was a German Princeling (Bernhard, Prinz zur Lippe Biesterfeld) who was an SS Intelligence Officer attached to the principle Nazi industrial conglomerate I G Farben.

Anti-Semitism and fascism are not necessarily linked (although they were in war time France and Germany) so doubters might like to hear the words of Professor Lutz Niethammer, historical adviser to Chancellor Schroeder in the year 2000: Many Jews survive today thanks to the circumstances that they were forced Labourers and not directly killed by the SS. Germans are tired of philosemitic over-compensation in the media and sterile grief rituals of politicians.

Needless to say these facts are just a very small percentage of the truths which authors like John Laughland in The Tainted Source and Rodney Atkinson in the books Europe’s Full Circle and Fascist Europe Rising have clearly demonstrated.

14-09-2000: Fuel Strikes - the democratically responsible fight back

FUEL STRIKES – THE DEMOCRATICALLY RESPONSIBLE FIGHT BACK

Dateline: 14th September 2000

Taxi drivers, lorry drivers, farmers and road haulage firms are receiving such support in their strike against Government taxes on petrol because they are among the few really responsible businesses which can take effective action. They speak for millions of motorists, the self-employed and small businesses who are captive of the Government’s taxes but (unlike politicians and big business) are open to the full force of the market place and thus squeezed between the two.

Unlike big business and big unions (both of whom financed Blair’s election) they cannot decide their own income, they cannot go on strike without bankrupting themselves, they have to provide for their own pensions and they find that they are heavily taxed. They are highly taxed not because they are making a lot of money but because Labour and Tory Governments have resorted to ever-higher indirect taxes like fuel taxes, VAT and excise duties pthat are unrelated to their incomep. They are forced to pay 80% tax rates before they even start work in the morning. This is not only nonsense in capitalist markets; it is also against the socialist principle of “from each according to his abilities”.

Government spending is out of control and modern politicians know they will lose votes if they raise income tax and they will lose donations from big business if they raise corporation tax. They therefore put the burden on the consumer and small business, particularly in the form of fuel and road taxes because they think we will notice them less than income taxes! As a result all those businesses and individuals for whom a car or van or lorry is the only means to their livelihood or those who live in the countryside or those who deliver goods by road become the arbitrary targets of unfair taxes. Whereas income and corporation taxes are even handed, applying equally to all who are making money, indirect taxes are arbitrary and hit even those who are losing money.

It is time politicians did what they urge the rest of us to do – accept the consequences of their own spending decisions – and pay the political price in higher taxes on income. Then we would really see what support there is for “generous” Government spending!

November 2000

The Times of 1st November claimed that if the government acts to reduce fuel duties then this would indicate that a “well organized mob had obliged the Government to recast its priorities”.

First, it was not a mob in a violent protest but a group of desperate businessmen (who, unlike trade unionists, MPs or large corporations are constrained by market forces and unable to compensate for a rise in costs with a rise in income) whom others in the same position (i.e. petrol tanker drivers) were happy to support by legally withdrawing their labour.

Second the fiscal principle at stake in this crisis seems to have been grasped by nobody. This is not surprising since both Labour and Tory parties are responsible for massive increases in indirect taxes which apply anything between 17.5% and 75% tax rates to those who are not only not making profits but are losing money (and even to the unemployed!). The crisis will continue until Governments have the guts to accept that their uncontrolled expenditure must be financed by overt higher income and corporation taxes rather than ever-higher covert indirect taxes on goods and services (and the massive distortions of the highly sensitive price mechanism which they entail).

12-06-2000: Francis Maud's Berlin speech

FRANCIS MAUDE’S SPEECH, BERLIN, 8TH JUNE 2000 – A CRITIQUE

Dateline: 12th June 2000

Maude is quoted in italics throughout:

“The European Union has much to be proud of”

No Conservative who by definition believes in the democratic nation state could possibly approve of the European Union’s
* destruction of 15 national democratic constitutions,
* abolition of 12 currencies and central banks,
* 16 million unemployed (due to preparation for the EURO),
* the break up of Czechoslovakia, the destruction of Yugoslavia,
* threats to Norway and Switzerland unless they join the European Union,
* the re-creation of former Nazi puppet states (Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia)
* threats against Poland, the Czech Republic and Britain, German expansion Eastwards
* a barrier to the democratic integration of former Soviet satellites into the free world

“The European union has helped to make war between member states unthinkable”

The words used in this connection used to be “war in Europe” but since we have had constant war in Europe since 1990, the break up of Czechoslovakia and the break up of Yugoslavia – both allies against German imperialism and European Fascism in the 1940s – this can of course no longer be said. Indeed war has been waged “between its members” since German and French manoeuvring has effectively destroyed the British constitution – something which they never achieved in a “true” war!

“The EU has worked behind the NATO shield”

How tragically true! But in the following disastrous way. The EU has dangled the prospect of NATO before the eyes of Eastern European Countries (who have only just reestablished their sovereignty and parliaments after 70 years of Soviet tyranny) in order to entice them into an EU which will destroy those democratic sovereignties and make their new won parliaments irrelevant.

“With the biggest Single Market in the world”

One of the reasons Maude is so unbelievable is that he himself signed the disgraceful Maastricht Treaty which betrayed the true political intent of the so-called “single market” into which Lady Thatcher was seduced by Howe and Hurd. By turning us into “citizens” of the EU and accepting the acquis communautaire Maude and Hurd gave a fatal blow to our nation – as serious as Heath’s original destruction of 1972. Maastricht turned the Single Market into the embryo single state – as the Single Market was indeed designed to do.

25-03-2000: Europhile Labour policies cause Foot and Mouth disease

EUROPHILE LABOUR POLICIES
AND THE CAUSES OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE

Dateline: 25th March 2000

What a nerve this Government has to blame farmers for foot and mouth. (Ministers hit out at farmers” Sunday Times 25th March)

It is the government that continued to allow swill to be given to pigs and allowed even the import and use of airline food (which in most civilised countries is incinerated). It is the Government that continued to allow the import of meat from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. It is the Government which embraces the ludicrous European Union and its corrupt and wasteful Common Agricultural Policy and thereby the system which encourages farmers to move sheep around the country to obtain E U quota payments.

It is the Government’s beloved European Union that prevents us burying dead animals. This results in burning animals, which probably increases the spread of the disease (by creating an updraft for the surrounding infective spores which can then spread further). It is the Government’s devotion to the European Union which has closed our local abattoirs so that cattle have to travel thousands of miles.

It is the Government which failed to act quickly enough and deliberately underplayed the seriousness of the outbreak so as not to upset its own cynical timetable for the 2001 general election. Blair had to get foot and mouth out of the way before we could get on with politicians foot in mouth disease.

28-02-2000: Portillo and the Euro

PORTILLO AND THE EURO

Dateline: 28th February 2000

You report that Michael Portillo, the Tory Shadow Chancellor, has “softened the Tory line on the EURO”. In more precise terms he has of course shown that he cannot accept as a matter of principle a sovereign British nation with its own currency (the very essence of Conservatism).

For a senior member of the Tory Cabinet which entered the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and signed without any qualms the Maastricht Treaty on Economic and Monetary Union, this abandonment of principle may not be surprising.

But for a leading Conservative whose party suffered its worst defeat for 160 years and must in order to reverse that defeat move in a radically eurosceptic direction this latest piece of Portillo policy making is an extraordinary blunder.

24-02-2000: Europhanatic Blair in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land

EUROFANATIC BLAIR IN CLOUD-CUCKOO-LAND

Dateline: 24th February 2000

Master Blair’s Ghent essay on Britain in Europe. The European Union is one of the “outstanding achievements of the 20th century” – 10% unemployment, the destruction of 11 central banks, 15 democratic constitutions, corporatist-bureaucratic rule from Brussels and war against Yugoslavia.

It provided “a framework for law and respects the rights of Europe’s democracies”. The law is made solely by bureaucrats and a “Court of Justice” which proclaims its political mission. The newly free nations of Eastern Europe face the end of their democratic nation states shortly after they wrested them from Soviet Communism.

“Europe’s prosperity and free trade”. Like the continuing illegal beef ban, road blocks preventing free movement of goods and the smell of burning British lamb on French motorways?

“Britain has always been at the centre of Europe”. A casual glance at the map will show us on the extreme North West periphery (whereas we are at the centre of the English speaking world, the Commonwealth and the world’s financial and trading community).

“Nearly 60% of our trade is with the EU”. In fact it is less than 40% and the accumulated deficit since 1972 is nearing £200,000 million. A unique achievement!

“3 million jobs depend on Europe”. Then why are non-EU countries Norway and Switzerland the richest countries in Europe, why is unemployment more than twice as high inside the Euro-zone and why are German and French companies fleeing to Britain and British europhile companies investing heavily in the USA and South East Asia? (Since the foundation of the Euro approximately 180,000 million $ of investment has been fled the Euro-zone.)

Britain outside the EU would be “poorer and weaker” so why, since our ejection from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, have we become richer and stronger, why has the Euro collapsed and why are our medium term interest rates for the first time lower than Germany’s?

Stupid boy – 0 out of ten.

22-02-2000: Lies, damned lies and the Britain in Europe Campaign

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND THE BRITAIN IN EUROPE CAMPAIGN

Dateline: 22nd February 2000

The “Britain in Europe” campaign (reports in The Times 2lst/22nd February) has all the characteristics of the 30 year seduction of our nation into the Eurostate – innocuous language, vague concepts, little rational argument and fallacious statistics.

Their grotesque slogan “Out of Europe, out of Work” scarcely describes the fact that the UK attracts more inward investment than France and Germany combined and that unemployment in the UK is less than half that of the Eurozone.

Their attempts to show how many jobs (may) be linked to our membership of the EU certainly includes those provided by French and German companies fleeing Euroland for more rational employment policies in the UK.

Even the title of this absurd organisation demonstrates the 30-year obfuscation and deceit of the Europhile lobby. Like the “heart of Europe” “a community of nations” and other such slogans, “Britain in Europe” is a euphemism and a disguise of their true intent – to kick away the last vestiges of democratic nationhood with the abolition of the Pound, the Bank of England and H M Treasury (and therewith the First Lord of the Treasury – the Prime Minister – and the Chancellor of the Exchequer!)

But, like successive British governments, “Britain in Europe~’ has no intention of putting a question to the British people on “Europe’ which might elicit the answer “No’

16-02-2000: British weights and measures in the European empire

BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES IN THE EUROPEAN EMPIRE

Dateline: l6th February 2000

Since 1st January 2000 the European Union, through the Labour Government, is trying to make it a criminal offence for the British people to use British weights and measures.

Why should the British people (none of whose political parties were ever elected on a manifesto to change our weights and measures) use kilos and centimetres to buy from other British people in British shops? This has nothing to do with the “Single European Market” – so why is it happening? When a people are conquered – as the British people have been conquered by the European Union – the conqueror makes them speak his language, every day, so they know their place!

Our British weights and measures are used internationally. Aircraft heights are in feet, computer printers all work in inches, the USA with the world’s largest economy uses feet and inches, pounds and ounces and even German plumbers use inches!

But the Euro-poodles in the Tory, Labour and Liberal Parties don’t give a damn. They would rather turn you, the voters, into criminals than disobey their real masters in Brussels.

POSTSCRIPT 2002:

A case against the Sunderland fruit and vegetable trader Steve Thorburn has just been adjudicated in the Appeal Court. The case was lost, as many of the more informed analysts of the European legislation concerned had predicted. However in the judgement of Lord Justice Laws there is much for which democrats and patriots should be thankful. Laws asserted that at any time the British Parliament could retrieve any of the powers it has ceded to the European Union. The judge also confirmed that constitutional Acts could not be repealed except by explicit repeal – precisely the case made by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter in their 1993 Treason cases.

For a detailed analysis of why this case has put the whole question of British membership of the European Union in doubt seewww.southmoltondeclaration.org

16-02-2000: Eurosceptic organisations sound an uncertain note

EUROSCEPTIC ORGANISATIONS SOUND AN UNCERTAIN NOTE

Dateline: l6th February 2000

One of the problems which afflicts the democratic anti-EU forces in the United Kingdom is organisations which seem to be “with us” but which in fact sound, at best, an uncertain tone and on occasion even contradict democratic nationhood.

One such organisation is Business for Sterling which does not even rule out as a matter of principle the abolition of the Pound and the Bank of England and are content to remain in Phase 2 of Maastricht’s Economic and Monetary Union which requires that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer runs our economy to the benefit of the European Union and who must report regularly to the European Commission!

Another organisation, The Democracy Movement has put to sitting MPs three questions of such an innocuous nature that even eurofanatics can (and do) give the “right” answers.

Their first question: “Will you oppose scrapping the Pound and replacing it with the new (sic) Euro as long as you are my MP?” MPs could oppose the Euro personally but still vote for it if their Whips ordered them to. However in any case as the Maastricht Treaty makes  clear, there is little the British Government can do to resist the EURO so long as we are within the EU’s constitutional straightjacket (in particular the Single European Market) and subject to the judgements of the European Court of Justice.

Their second question: “Will you fight the attempts by Brussels to increase any UK taxes towards EU levels?” shows the same naivety since we long ago lost this “fight”. Eurofanatics can all “fight” and (willingly) lose. The Democracy Movement does not ask if the MP will actually restore our constitutional right to say “NO”.

Their third question: “Do you believe Brussels should be able to overrule laws made by the British Parliament?” There is no shortage of MPs who voted for that very constitutional loss, who nevertheless NOW say “No”. But they show no sign of lifting a finger to repeal the Acts which gave Brussels that power.

There is only one commitment which really challenges those who claim to want to restore our sovereignty – the South Molton Declaration, a detailed document which commits MPs to putting a Bill before Parliament which will have real legislative and constitutional force – and agreeing to resign if they fail to do so.

15-02-2000: Hitler admirer for Trafalgar Square?

HITLER ADMIRER FOR TRAFALGAR SQUARE?

Dateline: l5th February 2000

In the corrupt world of “New Labour” it should be no surprise that Lloyd George, the “womaniser and seller of political honours” should be proposed as the subject of a Trafalgar Square statue.

It is also no surprise to see that Eurofederalists like Edward Heath and Roy Jenkins should propose a man who was a great admirer of the last great “integrator” of the nations of Europe – Adolf Hitler. It was Lloyd George who said that Hitler was “the greatest living German … a man of great understanding … a born leader of men … I only wish we had a man of his supreme quality at the head of our affairs in our country today.”

Lloyd George was as careless of his marriage vows as he was of the integrity of parliament and the freedom of his country in the face of continental fascism.

Like so much of the achievements of the “Centre Party” Establishments which have destroyed our country and our democracy, the appearance of Lloyd George in Trafalgar Square would be obnoxious – but it would be a suitable commentary on the times in which we live and the kind of politician who recommends such a step.

01-02-2000: Austria or the EU - who are the fascists?

AUSTRIA OR THE EUROPEAN UNION – WHO ARE THE FASCISTS?

Dateline: 1st February 2000

The attack by the European Union on the Austrian voters’ democratic choice of coalition parties is as unprecedented as it is hypocritical.

Jorg Haider of the Austrian Freedom Party is attacked as extremist by Tony Blair whose own bankrolling by big business, whose combination of corporatist capital and socialist politics in New Labour and whose “thousand days to prepare for a thousand years” are more than reminiscent of the German-Austrian Fascism of which he accuses Haider.

It is Haider who opposes expansion to the East which the European Union is pursuing as ruthlessly as 1930s Germany pursued their “Drang nach Osten”. The idea that the European Union is bringing democracy by imposing on the newly emancipated nations of Eastern Europe a system which undermines their constitutions, emasculates their parliaments, takes over their businesses and changes their citizenship is just laughable – or rather it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

The countries of Eastern and South Eastern Europe have seen in the break up of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia an exact reprise of the activities of Nazi Germany, carried out not by the Jorg Haiders of this world but by the European Union. If Haider has mimicked Goebbels then so has the European Union when they accused Serbs of ethnic cleansing, and like 1940s Fascism, also did the cleansing – of a million Serbs and thousands of gypsies.

11-02-2000: The Dangerous ignorance of the CBI

THE DANGEROUS IGNORANCE OF THE CBI

Dateline: 1st February 2000

Even the collapsing EURO has not led Digby Jones, CBI Director General, (DT 1st Feb) to give up his ambition to abolish the Pound, the Bank of England and what remains of our national self governance.

He seems equally enamoured of the Single European Market which like most businessmen he has swallowed as something to do with free markets, whereas the crucial word is SINGLE – as in single tax regime, single currency, single government, single State !

Jones objects to “French companies buying British electricity companies but not vice versa”, he objects to highly regulated labour markets in France and Germany and the nonsense of British companies spending 3 years taking legal action to enforce free trade only to see a favourable ruling overturned by our new masters in the European Court. And yet he remains a Eurofederalist, committed to the very “Single Market” whose regulations frustrate his members and willing to sign up for complete powerlessness in the EURO.

The CBI is as far from rationality today as it was in April 1939 when it was concluding trade Agreements in Dusseldorf with the grandees of Nazi industry.

17-01-2000: Churchill could have been sent to Nazi Germany

EXTRADITION TO GERMANY –
CHURCHILL COULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO NAZI GERMANY

Dateline: l7th January 2000

You report (l6th January) that a German (German Rudolf) has fled to Britain from Germany where he is wanted as a “Holocaust revisionist”. In other words he may have broken Germany’s law which forbids the expression of an opinion – that the Holocaust did not take place.

However understandable the rejection of those who deny the Nazis’ terror, such a law is itself totalitarian, illiberal and tends to stifle the discussion (and proof) of what is true as well as what is a lie. That is why we do not have such a law in the United Kingdom and therefore (if that were to be the law on the charge sheet) this particular German could not be extradited to Germany.

It is, however, easy for the German authorities to “adjust” their extradition application to name a law which is also the law in the UK and then once the individual is extradited, charge him/her under a different German law (there is at least one example of their having done this). In such circumstances there is really nothing to stop ANYONE in Britain being extradited to Germany without the usual protections of British law and with no more than identification evidence.

Winston Churchill was in Germany during the 1930s, when the Nazis were in power, doing research on his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough. If the present European extradition laws had been in place then, Hitler could have accused him of having committed a crime whilst in Germany and had him arrested in England and extradited.

There are only two protections now open to ANY British subject – illness (see Pinochet, temporary altzheimers – and Roisin McAliskey, predictably temporarily pregnant) or (as is potentially the case here with Herr Rudolf) that the “crime” is not a crime in the UK. But once extradited under the ludicrous European conventions who knows what might happen?

Incidentally although British politicians have agreed to extradite anyone to Germany, the German State rules out extraditing any Germans to Britain – a classic bit of reciprocity from our “European partners”.

12-01-2000: The Act of Settlement and The Vatican

THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND THE VATICAN

Dateline: 12th January 2000

A correspondent to a national newspaper (9th January) claimed that the Act of Settlement’s prohibition of the marriage of a British Monarch to a catholic is intolerance. If the Roman Catholic Church were merely another denomination of Christianity then this might be true.

Unfortunately the Vatican is not a Church, it is a State, and an imperial State at that. It is also the centre of an absolutist Church which describes others as heretics, itself as “the only true faith” and insists on the totalitarian principle that children of a mixed marriage must be brought up as Catholics. Its social and economic theories have always and everywhere invaded the body politic in particular in its absolute rejection of the democratic Italian Nation which arose in the 1860’s and whose existence the Vatican fought to extinguish for 40years. Today, thanks to the European Union, that ambition is near to fruition!

The Vatican’s centuries-old imperial-religious ambitions are still being realised. The latest example being the ethnic cleansing of Orthodox Christians from the Krajina in former Yugoslavia and the re-establishment of what was the most blood soaked clerical political state in Europe – Croatia, whose modern founder, Franjo Tudjman wrote in a 1989 book “Genocide is a natural phenomenon, it is commanded by the Almighty in defence of the only true faith (Roman Catholicism) “.

The vast majority of loyal British Catholics cannot diminish the unchanging political aspirations of the Vatican as the close association of the European Union with the bloodthirsty bigot and European Empire builder, Charlemagne testifies.

The Act of Settlement is not bigotry, it is to this day a necessary defence against bigotry and the dangerous fusion of political and religious ambitions in one institution.

06-01-2000: Corporatism, BMW and an attack on British Industry

CORPORATISM, BMW AND AN ATTACK ON BRITISH INDUSTRY

Dateline: 6th January 2000

One of the companies most enthusiastic for the Euro and the European Union – AND HENCE THE ABOLITION OF THE POUND, The Bank of England and British national self-governance is the car maker (and now owner of Rover and Rolls Royce) BMW which is effectively ruled by the Quandt family (one  of the biggest donors to Hitler’s personal election fund in the 1930’s!).

Since taking over Rover BMW has made massive losses and now seeks to screw down the prices charged by Rover’s British suppliers. BMW is trying to insist that they invoice Rover at the artificial exchange rate of Euro’s 1.31 to the Pound when the true rate is 1.59 to the Pound. This is in spite of the fact that BMW’s own car sales in the UK are booming and they are making an excellent profit changing Pounds into Euro’s at the real rate – 1.59 !

Such rank hypocrisy however is less significant than the attempt to force British companies to effectively adopt a blatantly political currency when the Euro has not been accepted by the British people and Parliament.

This is a classic case of corporatism – that is the intimate political links between big business, government and politicians (of all parties) in their traditional war against the democratic and commercial freedoms of individuals.

1999: Labour Government supports Fascist Europe

Labour Government supports Fascist Europe

Dateline: 30th March 1999

TO: ALL LABOUR MPS

Why is the Labour Government waging war in Europe?

Why is the Labour Government (allied to Croatia, the most ethnically pure nation in Europe) attacking Serbia, the most multi-ethnic nation in Europe?

Why is the Labour Government attacking Britain’s historical ally against continental fascism and Soviet and German Imperialism?

Why does the Labour Government have as it’s ally against Yugoslavia a man who has described genocide as a ‘natural phenomenon, it is not only permitted, it is commanded by the Almighty.’  (The President of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman)?

Please read the attached leaflet

Yugoslavia and it’s enemies – 1903 – 1998

Why does the Labour Government have as it’s ally an Islamic bigot who has stated that the Islamic power cannot live in peace with a non-Islamic power and that ‘The Islamic movement must take power and destroy the non-Islamic power’ (The President of Bosnia, Izetbegovic)?

Why does the Labour Government support Croatia’s Tudjman who, following recognition of CROATIA as a separate State by the European Union, introduced a racist constitution defining Serbs as ‘an alien minority’ (40,000 fled)?

Why did the Labour Government accept the NATO aided ethnic cleansing of 500,000 Serbs from the Krajina, where they represented a bigger majority for centuries longer than Albanians in Kosovo?

BECAUSE BRITAIN NOW DANCES TO THE TUNE OF GERMAN EUROPE AND WE ARE NOW CARRYING OUT IN THE BALKANS THE HISTORICAL AIMS OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM AND CONTINENTAL FASCISM.

LABOUR MPS SHOULD HANG THEIR HEADS IN SHAME –

THEN THEY SHOULD GET ANGRY –

THEN THEY SHOULD FIGHT BACK.

AGAINST THEIR INCREASINGLY FASCIST LEADERSHIP WHICH TARGETS AND KILLS JOURNALISTS AND BELIEVES KILLING CIVILIANS ‘IS A PRICE WORTH PAYING’.

1999: The 1989 Extradition Act - The McAliskey Case

EXTRADITION ACT – THE McALISKEY CASE

Dateline: 19th March 1998

¨      McALISKEY CASE – STRAW TAKES RIGHT DECISION FOR WRONG REASON BUT BREAKS THE LAW

¨    CASE ITSELF SHOWS HOW GERMANY EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM EUROPEAN AGREEMENTS (EXTRADITION ACT 1989)

¨     BRITONS’ HISTORICAL RIGHTS UNDER HABEAS CORPUS THROWN AWAY TO APPEASE EUROPE

“The (illegal) decision by the Home Secretary not to extradite Roisin McAliskey to Germany was the right decision for the wrongreason. Like any British citizen McAliskey should not be extradited to any foreign state without the same protection of Habeas Corpus that she would enjoy in the UK” says Rodney Atkinson whose letter to the Guardian (with Norris McWhirter) exposed the scandal that Germany will never extradite Germans to Britain.

Straw’s reason – that European Extradition agreements permit him to refuse extradition if it ‘would be unjust or oppressive to return him’ is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. The treaties (and therefore the 1989 Act) say that it would only be ‘unjust or oppressive’ if one or more of three conditions applied: (Section 11(3) 1989 Act)

a) by reason of the trivial nature of the offence

b) by reason of the passage of time

c) because the accusation is not made in good faith in the interest of justice

None of these apply in this case. The Home Secretary can not therefore refuse to extradite unless he refutes the Extradition Convention – which we believe he should do.

The statement by the Tory spokesman, Andrew MacKay MP, claiming that Germany was a safe place to be extradited shows that he is also abysmally ignorant of the terms of the extradition agreements and of the Ditfort case which exposed injustices in the German legal system.

In response to Atkinson’s and McWhirter’s Guardian letter the Home Office Minister Alun Michael has admitted that:

a)      No prima facie evidence need be presented in this country by the Germans in order to have Roisin McAliskey (or any other Briton) arrested and extradited.

b)      Germany will not extradite Germans (whom they define racially according to blood) to the United Kingdom.

Part III Section 9 Subsection 8 of the 1989 Extradition Act makes it quite clear that ‘evidence sufficient to warrant trial of the extradition crime had taken place’ in the UK, is not necessary where ‘an Order in Council gives effect to general extradition arrangements’ – which it does under the European Convention on Extradition!

“So how can Alun Michael sustain his belief that a critical principle of Habeas Corpus – the presentation of prima facie evidence to our courts to justify arrest – can still be upheld in Britain?” asked Rodney Atkinson.

Atkinson went on to describe European Conventions which have destroyed the British constitution and led to the scandalous case of a certain Brenda Price. “Price was arrested by British police and held on the orders of the Spanish and held for weeks (in the way not even terrorist suspects could have been held) not just without evidence but without even basic documentation from Spain. She was then released, but when holidaying in France was again arrested under the Spanish warrant. A French lawyer said she could not even apply for bail until the Spanish had presented the documents of accusation. This, of course, completely reverses the English legal principle of presumed innocence, not to mention Habeas Corpus”.

The Home Office Minister, Alun Michael, in his Guardian letter justified the German refusal to extradite Germans to the UK on the grounds of the German ‘basic law’ (or Constitution). But Rodney Atkinson asserts “We also have a constitution, a written one, valid for centuries. But that has not prevented EU law over-riding our law – so why should we accept German exceptions?”

Rodney Atkinson points out that German exceptions from European agreements which they sign is commonplace. In his book ‘Treason at Maastricht’ (co-authored with Norris McWhirter) he described how Germany has illegally assumed a spurious opt-out from the Single European Currency even though the Maastricht Treaty provided no such opt-out.

“The McAliskey case shows how the European Treaties which have largely destroyed the British Constitution, the rights of the Westminster Parliament and the jurisdiction of our courts also affect the individual rights and freedoms of every single British citizen. Alum Michael and the Labour Government may be happy with this state of affairs but no one interested in the democratic rights of the British people will be.” said Atkinson.

POST SCRIPT 2002

For details of other ways in which Germany exempts itself from the European legislation it forces on others seeFascist Europe Rising on ‘Publications’ on this site.

13-12-1999: The EU and Germany's new 'push to the East'

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND GERMANY’S NEW “PUSH TO THE EAST”

Dateline: l3th December 1999

Congratulations on publishing the letter from MPs of the Polish Parliament and Czech parliaments. They rightly emphasized the dangers of the European Union’s own defence forces undermining NATO. Those in Eastern Europe who in previous generations suffered from the expansion of “German Europe” see rather more clearly than we do the ominous parallels today.

Only last year a motion was passed in the German Parliament (“Refugees, evacuees and German minorities are a bridge between Germans and their Eastern neighbours”) which was rightly seen in both the Czech Republic and in Poland as a territorial and cultural threat. The motion made it clear that the German  political class sees the expansion of the European Union eastwards as a means of expanding German and “cultural” influence.

Germans also see the European Union, with its “citizenship” and “Free movement” and “single market” as a vehicle for the return of Germans to Poland and the Czech Republic from which they were understandably expelled following their collaboration with Nazi Germany in its East European conquests. Perhaps the most sinister aspect of the German Parliament’s motion was its assertion that “we are approaching the common goal of a just peace for the whole of Europe.”

Most people assumed we had achieved that in 1945 – or at 1989 with the fall of the Soviet empire. Apparently Germany does not – rather it sees the European Union as the tool for establishing the German version of “peace” in Eastern Europe.

09-12-1999: The farce of Regional Development Grants in the UK

THE FARCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS IN THE UK

Dateline: 9th December 1999

Even accepting wealth and employment variations within regions, the North-South divide is almost as clear today as it was in 1934 when the then Government started a “temporary programme” of subsidising poor regions. The “programme” has lasted 65 years and led to ever greater distortions of regional wealth and employment!

Like most State subsidy it has had the exact opposite result to that intended – and it was the policy of classic “third way” politicians of both major parties. The North has suffered unduly from the decline in manufacturing because for decades politicians in London have deliberately subsidised only manufacturing investment into the poorer regions – deliberately excluding more modern higher value added services. The subsidies have attracted peripheral investments to peripheral regions in a declining sector – with predictable results.

The vast majority of those subsidies were financed by taxing the very regions which were being “helped”. To this farce was added enormous mortgage subsidies from which the South East benefited most, pension fund subsidies from which London-based funds benefited from the flow of regional personal capital and joining the European Union for which only the South East of Britain is not on the periphery. It will take generations to undo such State-induced distortions.

The tragedy is that it is precisely such regional subsidy which will be applied by the new European Superstate when its farcical “single currency” produces great disparities of wealth. Like all authoritarian corporatism and State socialism, their practitioners, when exposed as failures on the smaller stage seek a bigger stage where they are less accountable and dismissable.

29-11-1999: Euro fascists penetrate the RAC

EURO-FASCISTS PENETRATE THE RAC

Dateline: 29th November 1999

It was the late Lord Denning (former Master of the Rolls and Lord of Appeal) who observed how European Union laws were “flowing up every estuary” of our national life. The influence of that malign and anti-democratic system is also invading our most venerable institutions.

A former Director of the European Movement is now head of the Royal Commonwealth Society, a former President of the European Movement is Chairman of the House of Commons Treasury committee and large areas of southern England now come under European ‘regions” which override national borders. Now the Royal Automobile Club has been recruited by eurofanaticism as its latest playground for “European integration”.

Following the infiltration of several well practiced europhiles the following rule changes have been made to the RAC’s constitution; that references to the United Kingdom be replaced by the words “European Union” and the word “abroad” be replaced by “outside the European Union”.

It is through just such “technicalities” that we are losing our nation and our democracy – with the supine indifference of our “democratic” representatives!

26-11-1999: Malta - again in the front line of resisting fascism

MALTA – AGAIN IN THE FRONT LINE OF RESISTING FASCISM

Dateline: 26th November 1999

From Rodney Atkinson to The Sunday Times of Malta:

As the author of the book “Europe’s Full Circle” quoted extensively by your correspondent Eddie Privitera (October l7th) might I warn the people of Malta of the malign and blatantly political interference of the “European Movement” in Britain over the last 30 years as our nation, democracy and 800-year-old constitution have been largely wiped out.

I note that, as in their political propaganda in British schools, the European Movement promotes its ideas in your newspaper under the cloak of “information”.

Big business and the European Commission, neither of which have of course been elected by anyone, finance the European Movement. Founded by Joseph Retinger, a stateless Pole who refused to carry a national passport and was expelled from Britain and France during the First World War (“as a result of political and social intrigues”) the European Movement has sought the abolition of national democratic self-government in Europe. They have now largely succeeded in this aim.

According to his biographer Retinger said to de Gasperi, the Italian Prime Minister “You and I were both subjects of old Emperor Franz Josef. Come let us join forces and conspire together”. CIA operatives funded the European Movement with at least $3m between 1949 and 1960. In the early 1950s the CIA operatives behind the European Movement said that the British members should be thrown out because they were not “federal minded enough”.

It was also CIA money that funded the European Youth Movement led by the American Cord Meyer Junior (the politicising of youth being a characteristic of all anti democratic movements). Meyer secretly financed the “Yes” campaign in the British 1975 referendum on European Economic Community membership. A friend of mine, British MP Sir Richard Body was approached by two CIA agents sympathetic to Britain and its sovereign democracy who were worried about the biased nature of the CIA’s support of European Movement propaganda against British independence. Meyer later became head of the CIA London
station and wrote a book “Peace or Anarchy” which said that all nations should be abolished.

This is what the European Movement (and all collectivists and fascists since the dawn of time) believe – that the solution to conflict is to abolish the conflicting parties! We democrats believe differently. It was only the nation state which spawned democracy while the supranational states (the Soviet Union, China and Hitler’s Europe) destroyed it.

Malta played a noble part in the defeat of the totalitarian superstate of the 1940s, not to mention that other authoritarian empire builder, Napoleon. I am sure you will resist the siren voices of the European Movement today and choose nationhood and freedom.

21-10-1999: Arbritary Law and Power in the EU

ARBITRARY LAW AND POWER IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Dateline: 2lst October 1999

The BSE problem turned into a trade war simply because France has broken the European law which they insist applies to everyone else. Germany has done the same in its demands that for instance Britain extradites its citizens to Germany while they prohibit the extradition of Germans here. Germany’s Constitutional Court broke the Maastricht Treaty by insisting that they (like Britain) had an opt out from the Single Currency. Germany refuses to extradite Germans but demands through European conventions the other European countries extradite their citizens to Germany. None of this surprises the democratic forces in Britain resisting the arbitrary law of the new European Superstate.

The concepts of democracy, rule of law, free trade, division of powers, habeas corpus, trial by jury and much else are of course regarded by most on the Continent of Europe as part of the hated “Anglo-Saxon world order”.

Their incomprehension of the British regard for the rule of law was well illustrated when a European Court of Justice official told an American journalist:

“Britain has an almost depersonalised concept of the law in that they blindly obey the law even when it does not suit them politically. Almost nobody else in the world does that and certainly no other member states do”.

15-10-1999: Blair's Europe - the surrender generation?

BLAIR’S EUROPE – THE SURRENDER GENERATION?

Dateline: l5th October 1999

Tony Blair, launching his “Britain in Europe” campaign (Europe not defined!) said: “Once in each generation the case for Britain in Europe needs to be remade”.

It has been – before 1914, before 1939, and now under Blair. Where that case succeeded, Britain failed and Europe collapsed. Where it was defeated, the free nations of Europe flourished. Which one is this generation going to choose.

And should Britain succumb to the continental embrace, will future generations ever be asked “for the case for an independent Britain”?

13-10-1999: The Euro-delusions of Chris Patten

THE EURO-DELUSIONS OF CHRIS PATTEN

13th October 1999

Chris Patten feels he must protest about a Tory European policy that “plainly raises questions about the national interest”. Why did he not question the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty in which the “national interest” was effectively abolished?

Patten is amazed at proposed Conservative “blocking tactics” in the European Union to change treaties when he was part of the Thatcher and Major governments that did just that.

Chris Patten was the party Chairman who led the Conservatives in the 1993 general election. Not only did the Patten policies (ERM and Maastricht) lead to the reduction of the Tory majority from 100 to 21 seats at that election, he could not even hold on to his own seat in a Tory heartland.

He claims that certain “standards of civility” were no longer to be found in Tory Party debates. I recall the 1992 conference when a Young Conservative meeting addressed by myself was invaded towards the end by jeering members of the “Tory Reform Group”. They remained in rigid fascist style ranks blocking the exit even after the meeting ended. Those events, the expulsion of eurosceptic Tories since 1990 and John Major calling eurosceptics “bastards” and even other EU politicians ‘”a bunch of shits” hardly testify to the “civility” of Patten’s europhile confederates.

11-10-1999: A Times Columnist gets it badly wrong on the EU

A TIMES COLUMNIST GETS IT BADLY WRONG ON THE EU

Dateline: 11th October 1999

As befits a commentator who praised John Major’s leadership just before the worst Conservative election defeat for 160 years, it is Matthew Parris, not the eurosceptics who are “adrift” on the question of the European Union (The Times 9th October 99)

Having grasped neither the essentials of British democratic self-governance (and how European Treaties have destroyed them) nor the historical aims and political structures of continental corporatism and fascism, Parris has the nerve to accuse of “extremism” those who resist (and not those who established) those policies in Britain.

Like many former Conservatives, I left the Tory party because it had become a corporatist party, doing the will of collectives of capital and labour and destroying the individuals, families and communities (and ultimately the nation itself) for whose freedom l.2million Britons died in two world wars. It is precisely such politics which characterised the corporatist structures of continental Europe under Nazi, Fascist and Vichy regimes and which now form the constitutional structures of the European Union – and with far more devastating effects for our democracy.

That is why (although it has been studiously ignored by the media) there has long been a cross party, anti fascist opposition to the European Union in Britain. It comprises libertarian Conservatives, democratic socialists and genuine Liberals (very few of whom are in Parliament). Its intellectual roots and 20-year analysis of the European Union will in the end prove more powerful than the rather simplistic instincts of the jingoists. Which is why Matthew Parris should do some basic reading before he lumps all opposition to the EU, even in the Tory party, under the same umbrella!

08-10-1999: Conservative Party policy on the EU

CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLICY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION

Dateline: 8th October 1999

Despite the welcome condemnation of the European Union by William Hague and Lady Thatcher at Blackpool, there has really been no change in Conservative Party policy.

It is no use William Hague crying “not ruled by Europe” if all he is committing to is “this far and no further” since the fundamental constitutional destruction of our parliament, country and democracy is based on the provisions of every European Treaty from 1972 onwards which his party signed and which he will not repeal.

In so doing he accepts European Union rule and the ‘acquis communautaire” which binds us indefinitely (“irrevocably and irreversibly” as the treaties stipulate). Indeed it is the Maastricht Treaty which he will not repeal which can force through the iniquitous corpus juris (by mere majority vote against our will) which has even managed to awaken the sleepy British judiciary to the horrendous dangers of European Union rule (see House of Lords Report on Corpus Juris).

Equally the Conservative Party cannot condemn the treatment of General Pinochet because he, like every British subject, can now be extradited to any European country without any prime facie evidence of guilt, because it was the Conservative government that signed the relevant European Conventions and enacted the 1989 Extradition Act.

There was also praise at the Conference for the Shadow Chancellor Francis Maude who actually signed the iniquitous Maastricht Treaty and has repeatedly refused to regret the fact.

With “anti” EU leaders like this can any British democrat really have much confidence in the future?

01-06-1999: British Farmers and the EU

British Farmers and the European Union

Dateline: 1st June 1999

British farmers cannot produce and trade fairly and profitably. They are faced with the massive power of the state in Whitehall and the superstate in Brussels.

Small and medium sized farmers are represented – whether they want it or not – by the lobbying power of the NFU which is as alien to most farmers as the CBI is alien to most businesses, as the European Commission is to most fishermen and the forestry commission is to most foresters.

This whole process is best described as ‘corporatism’ and is the chief characteristic of the modern British state and the European Union.

This corporatist world is run by large corporations, their lobbying organisations, their well paid functionaries and the very few MPs and ministers who need to be nobbled before legislation is passed or money distributed.

These corporatist functionaries are paid for more to administer agriculture, forestry, business and fishing than those who actually work the land, plant the trees, fish the seas and own the businesses.

The biggest state run corporate business is the European Agricultural Policy – the CAP – which has destroyed British farmers who are by and large very efficient, full time and commercial but has subsidised French and German farmers who are part time, inefficient and often corrupt.

Subsidies received from the EU every year:

British farmers  :     £3.5 billion

French farmers  :   £10.1 billion

German farmers:    £ 6.8 billion

IF WE REMAIN UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CAP:

The CAP already consumes about two thirds of the EU’s ‘disposable income’ (i.e. after admin). If Poland and other eastern countries are to join the EU, massive savings will have to be made. Very cheap food will flood in from Poland and inside the EU the British government could do nothing to protect British farmers.

The Euro has collapsed by OVER 20% the Dollar. With many costs in US Dollars British farmers would become even poorer paid in Euros.

Any decrease in CAP spending will benefit French and German farmers – or they will not happen! The CAP system is completely paralysed because reform requires the votes of those countries – France, Greece, Spain etc – which benefit from its corruption.

At present the British farmers suffer under the unfair terms of the CAP but the British Government gets the £2 billion per annum rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher!

The power of the NFU (and therefore the grain barons and big landowners) is greater if all they have to do is lobby Brussels (their smaller competitors cannot lobby). 80% of the CAP susbsidies in Britain go to the 20% of richest farmers, as one would expect from a system based on vast bureaucracy and Government administration. If they had to sacrifice their subsidies based on production and set aside they would compete less easily with smaller and medium sized farmers.

It is the massive over-production of larger farms which leads to the expensive storage of intervention stocks. A deficiency payment system would naturally flow to the smaller and poorer farmers.

IF WE RE-ESTABLISHED DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OVER FARMING:

Even the EU is considering ‘repatriation’ of farm support, so THAT RE-ESTABLISHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF THE British Parliament is in that spirit.

The British government would save £9,000 million every year. Much of this could go to smaller farmers rather than to intervention stocks and wealthy farmers.

Production quotas would go, so British farmers could start to produce what British consumers want to buy. This would produce a saving on our balance of payments.

Any unfair subsidies on imports to Britain (according to international trade rules) could be compensated by import duties. This would produce a level playing field for British farmers.

The same hygiene standards as pertain in Britain could be applied to imports (not possible under the EU).

Diseased stock could be refused admission at borders (and not as presently, when it is too late – at the farm).

British world recognised excellence (lamb, beef, wool etc.) could be freely exported without the need to obtain sanction from Brussels – see world-wide ban on British beef as ‘a market regulation’.

Land values would reflect the real value of production not be distorted by subsidy and by the trading of artificial quotas. This would make it easier for the young to start farming.

Relief from crippling EU inspection costs for smaller abattoirs (up to £700 per week for one day’s inspection), local access by farmers to smaller abattoirs and thereby shorter journey costs to local traders. At present the large abattoirs and the large supermarkets dominate and distort produce trade.

Even today, nearly 50 years after the foundation of the European Common Market, some 70% of the EU’s disposable income (after its  central administration costs) goes on wasteful agricultural subsidies, interventions and administration of quotas etc.

From initial support of the CAP British farmers have learned what a centrally administered system of price and production controls menas and most now reject the system and would willingly adopt a more national, international and market based farming.

25-03-1999: German Europe pursues it's historical aims in Yugoslavia

GERMAN EUROPE PURSUES IT’S HISTORICAL AIMS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Dateline: 25th March 1999

GROTESQUE MISINFORMATION ON KOSOVO BY BRITISH MEDIA

IT IS SERBS NOT ALBANIANS WHO FOR 70 YEARS HAVE BEEN ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FROM KOSOVO

The people of Britain could perhaps better understand the disgraceful attack by NATO on the historically persecuted Serbs (a million of whom were massacred by Germany’s fascist allies, Croatia, between 1941 and 1945) if they could imagine the following happening in Britain:

That over many decades migration from France had produced (by about 1918) a 20% French minority in Kent, which with Canterbury as it’s capital is of the greatest significance for our Christian nation. More French migration followed by ethnic cleansing by invading Nazis in 1941, drove out so many Britons that they became a minority in Kent.

Imagine then that a strong Scottish leader of the British was able to keep the United Kingdom together – but refused to let the expelled English return to Kent. Then the Germans ‘persuaded’ the European Union to recognise Scotland and then Wales as separate countries, and started to whip up resistance among the French in Kent. The Germans then helped to organise and arm the ‘Kent Liberation Army’. The English Government in London tried to fight the ‘KLA’ who boasted that every Frenchman in Kent would wage war against the British oppressors.

The resulting refugees would flee – perhaps to Holland and Belgium. Nato, led by Germany and America, would demand that England recognise French self-government in Kent and if we did not let in German and American troops to police this ‘police settlement’ they would bomb England.

This is exactly what has happened in Yugoslavia. For French read Albanian; for Kent read Kosovo; for Canterbury read Pristina; for Scottish leader read Croatian leader (Tito); for Germany read Germany.

What the British and American Governments have done in Yugoslavia (with Germany which caused the crisis acting as a ‘peacekeeper’) is nothing short of evil.

‘By accepting “German Europe’s” propaganda about Yugoslavia the US and British Governments have turned our historical enemies into friends and historical allies into enemies. We thereby:

Attack national democracies (Mr Milosovic has been elected more often than Mr Blair),

Enhance the power of the new Eurostate which everywhere uses NATO as it’s battering ram

Break non-racial nations (like Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom) into racial or clerical statelets – just as the Nazis did in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia during the war.

The arming of Albanian terrorists by Germany today is the exact parallel to their activities in Albania before the first world war and before and during the second world war (when the Skenderbeg Waffen SS division was set up exclusively for Albanians).’

Rodney Atkinson’s best selling book Europe’s Full Circle which describes the European Union’s return to the corporatism and fascism of the 1930s and 1940s has been highly praised right across the political spectrum and on both sides of the Atlantic. The book and leaflet are both available on ‘Publications’ on this site.

POST SCRIPT 2002

Detailed proofs of how the attack on Yugoslavia continue the century-old ambitions of German and Fascist Europe can be obtained in the book Fascist Europe Rising – see ‘Publications’ on this sitehe book and the leaflet ‘Yugoslavia and it’s Enemies 1903 to 1998’ are available under

1998: Chancellor Kohl gets Freedom of the City of London

HELMUT KOHL, DESTROYER OF BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACY, UNWORTHY OF FREEDOM OF THE CITY OF LONDON

Dateline: 1997

Few people have done more to destroy the democratic nationhood of the British people than Helmut Kohl and his CDU Party. Under Kohl continental European Fascism has already triumphed where Hitler failed.

Helmut Kohl has repeated in word and deed the logic of Nazi Germany:

“The world belongs to the man with guts. God helps him.” Adolf Hitler in Joachim Fest Hitler eine Biographie, Frankfurt 1973 p. 683

“Might is right in politics and war.” Helmut Kohl 1996

In his youth Hitler used to rub out Germany’s borders in his school atlas.

As a young man Kohl got into trouble with the authorities for pulling out markings on the French/German border.

‘The continent is, with Italy and Germany, bound by fate’. Nazi Professor Heinrich Hunke, 1941

‘There is no alternative to a policy which aims at combination unless we wish to challenge fate’. Helmut Kohl 1995

“Tomorrow the world belongs to us”. Nazi Song.

“The future will belong to the Germans when we build the house of Europe.” Helmut Kohl

“The longing for a 1000 year Reich cries for a new approach. For such a purpose we can use the mirage of a Pan Europe.” Dr. Duisberg, I G Farben, 1931

“The concept of European unity is and remains the only effective insurance.” Helmut Kohl, Dec 1996

In 1938 Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. In 1996 the Prague Post wrote: “The Status of the Czech Republic has gone from that of a Soviet satellite to that of a German Protectorate.”

Hitler compared Czechs with “people who wanted to go to Nowawes but boarded the train for Grunau. They asked when the train would arrive at Potsdam and demanded that it should stop at Nowawes. They could not be made to understand that this was quite impossible, because the train did not go there. In Czechoslovakia they were also on the wrong train. They did not want to go in this direction but they had to because the points were set that way.” Documents on German Foreign Policy 1919 – 1945. From the archives of the German Foreign Office (Washington DC 1949) Series D no 158, p.191 quoted by Gordon A. Craig Germany 1866-1945 p.708 The whole point of points on railway lines is that they can be set in the direction that you wish to travel! Ed

‘Missing the European Train.’ Helmut Kohl

“Germany is the locomotive of the European train.” Helmut Kohl

“We cannot go at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy.” Helmut Kohl The whole point of a convoy is that it travels at the pace of the slowest ship! Ed

“To the architect of the New World Order the protector of justice, our leader Adolf Hitler, as a token of our gratitude and loyalty from the Croatian People.” Dr Anton Pavelic, Zagreb 2nd April 1941

1966 build up of German intelligence activity in Yugoslavia. 1980s actively promoting the break up of Yugoslavia. “Danke Deutchland” Croatian Pop Song 1991

Even at the height of his powers in 1942 Hitler never did what the European Union leader Kohl can do today:

Hitler never controlled our fishing and agriculture

Never controlled exports of our produce

Never decided who can enter, reside in and vote in the UK

Never decided which third country citizens had to have visas

Never overturned laws passed by Westminster

Never imposed 10,000s of regulations and directives which Westminster is powerless to stop

Never decided our laws through the supreme authority of the political “EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE”

Never employed Britons as his ambassadors to attack CANADA and CANADIAN FISHERMEN (FELLOW SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN)

Could never arrest BRITISH PEOPLE without protection of HABEAS CORPUS and take them to e.g. GERMANY WITHOUT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM

BUT ALL THESE THINGS ARE POSSIBLE IN HELMUT KOHL’S “GERMAN EUROPE”.

POST SCRIPT 2002

Helmut Kohl was forced to resign in disgrace as leader of the German Christian Democrat Party when he was unable to account for large sums of money in secret bank accounts of the Party.

12 years after the reunification of Germany thanks to Kohl’s ludicrous exchange rate for the Ostmark with the Deutschmark (which at the time bought him many votes in East Germany) millions of Germans have fled from east to west and the unemployment rate in the former East Germany still stands at 20%. Throughout Germany the unemployment figure has now reached 5.7 million (including various work-fare schemes).

1998: The Bilderberg Group

Bilderberg

Dateline: May 1998

The Bilderberg Group, which, according to the former CIA agent and now academic commentator Richard Alrich, was far more successful than the European Movement in driving forward the abolition of the free nations of Europe and the construction of the European Union, met in Turnberry, Scotland on May 14th, 15th & 16th 1998.

‘The aims and anti democratic methods of’ this group can be gauged by its two disreputable founders. JOSEPH RETINGER, an ethnic German from Poland, expelled from allied countries during the first world war “as a result of political intrigues”, refused to carry a national passport, was close to the Vatican and its support for a “Charlemagne Europe”, and moved in exclusively elitist political circles. His approach to Europe (secret elites planning a European State) is summed up by his remark to the Prime Minister of Italy:

“You I were both subjects of the good old Emperor Franz Joseph. Come let us now join forces and conspire together”

PRINCE BERNHARD OF THE NETHERLANDS (a German Princeling), the co-founder of Bilderberg was a Nazi Party member from 1933 – 1937 when he resigned solely in order to marry into the Dutch Royal family. He had been an SS officer seconded to I G Farben, the Nazis’ principal industrial ally which held mock war games as early as 1934 and funded spying missions in the USA where it had a joint venture with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey. “American IG” provided vital war technology to the Nazis. (the Rockefeller’s have been the financial mainstay of Bilderberg in the USA since its foundation).

In 1976 Prince Bernhard would have been prosecuted by the Dutch Donner Commission had it not been for the threat of abdication by the Queen of the Netherlands He had accepted very substantial bribes from the Lockheed Corporation. An Englishman on his way, with evidence, to the Dutch government’s Donner Commission investigating Bernhard was run over by a car and his case stolen:

In 1976 The Times noted that Bilderberg meets secretly to plan events that later appear “just to happen.” And this in an organisation where no more than about 6% on average of the attendees are elected politicians.

When details of a Bilderberg meeting were leaked some years ago a leading Bilderberger wrote to one of the attending bankers:

“The Associated Press in an instance of unparalleled irresponsibility picked this up and the New York Times and Washington Post printed it”

So much for democratic accountability! But this was an exception – press silence has been the rule. Indeed recently David Rockefeller congratulated the world’s press for keeping “their project” secret for so long! Bankers, businessmen, politicians, journalists who will not report, trade unionists who don’t tell their members what they are doing – all meeting at secret locations with secret agenda and secret lists of attendees represent, at its worst, the phenomenon of CORPORATISM. This is also the chief characteristic of the European Union and of course of European Fascism in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Vichy France.

It is therefore no surprise that those behind the creation of the European Union have been even more successful at destroying the democratic nations of Europe than Hitler. Today no nation in the European Union: –

  • has a sovereign government
  • a national parliament which governs them
  • control of their own citizenship and borders –
  • control of their waters or fishing
  • control of agriculture, produce or produce export
  • control over who can vote in their country
  • control over the arrest and extradition of their own citizens

and much more.

ALL THIS IS THE PRIME RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRET CORPORATE ORGANISATIONS, THE MOST SECRET AND SUCCESSFUL OF WHICH HAS BEEN THE BILDERBERG GROUP WHICH MET IN TURNBERRY IN 1998. THIS GROUP SHOULD BE EXPOSED AND THE ‘PROJECT” THEY HAVE CREATED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DESTROYED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES OF’ EUROPE.

For more information on Bilderberg see  ‘Europe’s Full Circle’

1998: The EU finance promotion of 'serious health hazard' in the UK

EUROPEAN UNION FINANCES PROMOTION OF A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE

Dateline: 27th January 1998

The supermarket chain Sainsbury’s whose major shareholder David Sainsbury gave £400,000 to the European Movement has received finance from the European Commission to promote British beef (which the EU says is too dangerous to export) in full page, full colour advertisements.

Both the European Commission and the Advocate General of the so-called ‘European Court of Justice’ have condemned British beef as dangerous. They have banned British beef exports not only to Europe but to anywhere in the world in order:

‘To protect against serious health hazards’

The European Union’s Advocate General justified the ban because of the ‘urgency of the situation’ and because

‘Health is a priority objective which justifies restrictions on the free movement of goods’

Despite this the European Union affixed it’s flag to a Sainsbury’s British beef advert with the words ‘financed with the assistance of the European Community’.

The evidence we have assembled is:

  • The well-documented European Union ban on British beef exports of 28th March 1996.
  • An advert by Sainsbury’s in major British newspapers of 23rd February 1997
  • A letter from Sainsbury’s Customer Services Director dated 30th December that confirms that 90% of Sainsbury’s beef is British.

‘The European Union is saying either British beef is perfectly safe in which case why the ban? Or they are saying British beef is the most dangerous in the world but the British people should eat it – subsidised by our own contributions to the European Union. In other words for our so-called ‘European Partners’ British consumers are expendable!’ said Rodney Atkinson.

08-11-1998: Police spies target British Farmers

POLICE SPIES TARGET BRITISH FARMERS ‘INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES’ OF EUROPEAN UNION RULE IN BRITAIN

Dateline: 8th November 1998

Released today is a copy of a document issued by Gwent police calling on all their employees to act as spies on farmers. The appeal is for any information on farmers meetings or ‘congregations’, ‘demonstrations’, ‘any conversations overheard’, ‘suspected movement of a number of farm vehicles’ and any information ‘from unusual sources i.e. Internet. CB radio’.

The document significantly admits that ‘many staff will never have submitted intelligence reports before’. “This confirms that these spying activities are exceptional and totally unacceptable in a democratic society” said Rodney Atkinson “but thanks to the rule in Britain of the European Union through the Common Agriculture Policy, such state authoritarian activities are now becoming commonplace as the British principles of openness, democracy and the rule of law are trampled under foot.”

The Common Agricultural Policy – based like nearly all the structures and ideas of the European Union on German 1941 plans for Europe – dictates prices from the centre, controls British exports, distributes subsidies, feeds corruption, has lead to the suicide of corrupt EU officials and is destroying British farmers. All collectivist and state control of prices and production leads to conflict, revolt and then state suppression.” said Rodney Atkinson. “The European Union’s rule over British agriculture is just the start of growing conflict because British farmers, fishermen and businessmen cannot turn to their elected representatives in Westminster with their grievances since they have no power to implement remedies. Power has gone to Brussels.”

Recent examples of embryo police state activities in Britain – all related to the ‘European project’ are:

  • The arrest and imprisonment overnight of a freelance reporter, Campbell Thomas trying to report the secretive Bilderberg conference in Turnberry, Scotland. (The Bilderberg Group – founded by a former Nazi and an avowed enemy of national democracies – was the main force behind the establishment of the European Union).
  • The European Extradition Treaties which enforced the arrest in Britain of British subjects Roisin McAliskey (on a German warrant) and Brenda Price (on a Spanish warrant) without the need for any prima face evidence of a crime – in other words the end of Habeas Corpus.

16-03-1994: How Government policy attacked the British Car Industry

How Government policy attacked
and almost destroyed the British Car Industry

Dateline: 16th March 1994

It is quite clear, following the sale of Rover Group to BMW, that the main barrier to a British sale or flotation of the shares was the very large financing cost of Rover’s operations.

Few in politics grasp the difference between investment in and the financing of a business. Several City institutions were prepared to invest capital in Rover but banks were apparently unwilling to commit loan facilities to cover peak financing requirement of more than £2,000m.

But this huge financing need occurs (as most of the problems of the British car industry since the war) because of the action of government. While Rover’s monthly financing requirement averages no more than £200m – £300m there is a very large annual peak in the run up to August when the new licence prefix attracts the more adolescent of our fellow citizens into the car showrooms.

This ludicrous practice has always plagued British car manufacturers and suppliers and of course their banks who inevitably regard such massive financing peaks as far more risky than a standard pattern of company financing. They either require far more base capital from British manufacturers than they would in other countries or they refuse to finance at all until (as has now happened) a company based in a country, which has no state induced sales peak, takes over the British manufacturer.

Now that this long standing problem has been a major contributor to the loss of British ownership of our car industry is it too much to expect that even politicians might wake up and put an end to this disastrous August car binge?

POST SCRIPT – 2002

Eventually, years after the takeover of Rover by BMW and the loss of thousands of British car workers jobs, the above advice was heeded by the British Government. Rover is now once again an independent company, there is no longer an August rush to the salesrooms and there are further signs of progress among smaller British car manufacturers.

© 2016 Freenations. | Website by Hawp Media