In letters to the Champion, not only will exiting the EU leave younger generations saddled with debt, but we older citizen “Brexiters” need our memories jogging so as to remember what the economy and living standards looked like in the 1970s before we joined the EU.
So say Adrian Tayler and Realist as between them they castigate Mr Baybutt who complained about unelected wine swillers when apparently it’s elected MEPs who run Europe, and then we learn the UK gave leadership to the EU, enjoyed enormous economic and political benefits, and opted out when it wanted to (no Schengen or Euro). For the record the UK has a mere 70 or so seats, Germany has 95 and France 77. Remind me again, who runs the EU? And the wine swillers are unelected and paid civil servants!
And “John Redwood arch hard Brexiter apparently advised foreign investors to pull their money out of the UK”. Redwood didn’t mention Brexit in his advice article, but criticised the Bank of England for being “gripped by a fashionable British pessimism.” He said “The Bank of England is busily arguing with itself,” while other central banks and countries are finding ways to promote growth including the European Central Bank”. Hasn’t the UK invested in the European Central Bank?
Between them Mr Tayler and Realist disagree on the UK economy, one says it’s poor, one says we have enormous economic benefits, one says our pensions are protected by the generous triple lock. But democracy is based on mutual respect, not to mention legally binding elections, isn’t it?
Prior to us joining the federalist bound EU the UK was paying its war debts, something some major EU countries never did. So we were poor but honest. Politicians, on the other hand, were dishonest, as Heath told us “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”. And Judge Morgan said, of the 2001 Sunderland metrication case, “This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union … as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law”. The people didn’t, they didn’t know about this EU law, but the political liars did.
In 1969, the Council of Ministers had commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Pierre Werner, to draw up a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union. As luck would have it, his confidential report began circulating in Brussels in October 1970, just as Britain’s negotiations to enter the European Economic Community were getting under way.
In the British Foreign Office, as we can now see under the 30 year rule, the Werner Report rang fearful alarm bells. A secret briefing note to Mr. Heath from Con O’Neill, the senior civil servant responsible for Europe, explained that, if implemented, Werner’s proposals would have enormous political repercussions. They envisaged “a process of fundamental political importance, implying progressive development towards a political union”. The long-term objectives of economic and monetary union, it was made clear to Mr Heath, “are very far-reaching indeed”, going “well beyond the full establishment of a Common Market”. The Werner plan could lead to “the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)
The only real concern of Heath and his colleagues was that this plan should not be talked about too openly in public, because this might so inflame public opinion that it would be much harder to persuade Parliament and the British people that it was in their interests to join what they were being assured was no more than a ‘common market’, intended to boost trade.
So we saw the introduction of deliberate EU deceit into our politics which, in its depth and scale, has no historical parallel. To anyone who follows such matters in detail, nothing is more striking than the way, again and again, we see supporters of Britain’s participation in this project apparently having to resort to obfuscation and subterfuge, both to disguise what the project is really about and to hide what they themselves are up to. And the fundamental reason for this culture of concealment is that there have always been two quite different perceptions as to the nature of this European project.
UK leadership of the EU? In 1963, General Charles de Gaulle said “England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her interactions, her markets and her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions.’ Charles de Gaulle was explaining why France was rejecting our attempt to join the EEC in 1963. The General understood what the European project was, and why Britain was not a natural part of it”. More than 50 years on, is there much to add? Why should we still be in the clutches of Brussels?