The immigration into the UK gathers pace and as it does so does the "exposure" of Home Office  "incompetence".

The question on my mind  is, is it incompetance? I don't think it is, the Balkanization of this country is the hidden agenda of NuLabour and before a state of any description can be open to Balkanization the existing population has to be de-stabilized, now this is not a short process, indeed this plan to break up the UK appears to have its roots in the 1970's when plans were laid to enter the then EEC, it is then that the strategies were laid and set in place with the aim of making the country of Britain a Balkanized state of Europe.

To get back to my first question, is it incompetence" for me the answer is no because what Government is going to say to its population "we are going to allow millions of people into this country who do not subscribe to our way of life or our values and you the British public will just have to accept it." Clearly the answer is NO Government would do that, nor would they say that they are going to surrender all sovereignty of the UK to an unelected European Parliament.

Regarding the EU

What the Government does say is that "Britains role in the world will be enhanced" and signing this treaty will "enrich the lives of all in the UK".

The EU does not recognise nation states, this is one reason,in my opinion why it supports Islam so much because that cult does not recognise nation states--commom purpose folks.

Regarding Immigration

What the Government does say regarding immigration is "we are having controlled immigration to enhance the workforce of the country," or statements of a similar ilk and then does not control the immigration, they then turn around and say they cannot cope with the amount of people entering the UK and the only way to get through the backlog of immigration and asylum cases is to have an amnesty.

It has to be noted that the recent/latest expose of Home Office  "incompetence" concerns NON EU asylum seekers  166,500 MORE ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN STAY and this has drawn comments from Sir Andrew Green the Chairman of Migration watch who said "This amounts to an amnesty by stealth."

The net result of this Governmental subterfuge is the importation of a large group of people that have a de-stabilizing effect on the host population.

Add to the mix an alien culture such as Islam, backed by the EU, then promote and bankroll its activities using the tennets of multiculturalism, then spread the net to include all other minorities that have been imported, each minority having enshrined in law their right to persue and develop their particular culture within the host nation and what do you have, you have the recipe to balkanize a country.

This recipe has been ahered to by Nulabour over the past ten years, indeed they have championed this recipe as "the best for Britain", the process started many years ago has been accelerated by NuLabour who relentlessly persue the Balkanization of the UK.

Where will this lead, you need look no further than Serbia/Kosovo

The following complete document is a hefty read but well worth it, my thanks to  British Patriot  for this information.

The section entitled "What happened to the people’s Referendum?" is interesting to say the least, suffice it to say that the situation we are now in is a result of many years of Government planning.

LINK TO CONTENTS

The Great Conspiracy to deceive Parliament and the people

into supporting entry into the Common Market (EEC)

“Millions of people in this country will feel as I do, that legislation

passed in this way, with no consent, cannot command the assent of the

country and would lack moral and constitutional validity”.

Douglas Jay MP (for Battersea North)

Speaking during the second reading of the European Communities Bill 1972 in the

House of Commons 16th February 1972

What was it that impelled Douglas Jay to speak those impassioned words more than

30 years ago in the debating chamber that had been the protector of our freedoms and

at the heart of Britain’s democracy for over a century? This expose sets out to

investigate the background to Douglas Jay’s speech calling upon official Government

correspondence, minutes of meetings and other documentation of the time.

When this expose was composed, (29th Oct 2004), Prime Minister, Tony Blair,

together with his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were in Rome for the official signing

of the EU Constitution. They were willingly, even enthusiastically, conspiring with

other European Heads of State to hand-over the remaining vestiges of their nations’

sovereignty to Brussels. To his credit, the then Conservative Party leader, Michael

Howard, said that signing the treaty would put unprecedented powers in the hands of

unaccountable [and one should add unelected] judges to re-write Britain’s labour laws.

This objection is grossly understated by Mr Howard, a former member of the

Executive Committee of the European Movement. A reading of the Constitution

document (entitled: ‘A Constitution for Europe’), reveals that the powers to be

transferred transcend much more than just labour laws but affect our powers of selfgovernment

over nearly every aspect of life. It has been interpreted as giving the EU

the ability to strip nations of all power excepting that which the EU itself does not

wish to exercise.

Instructions to Readers

1. To go to any section, LEFT click mouse on any item in CONTENTS below these

instructions

2. To return from any text in this narrative to ‘CONTENTS’:

LEFT click mouse on any section heading e.g. ‘The Civil Service in Action’

3. To return to the narrative after accessing ‘source material’: RIGHT click

mouse and then left click ‘GO BACK’ OR click on white arrow in solid green

circle right hand side of TOOL BAR

CONTENTS

No loss of essential Sovereignty

Heath’s Campaign 1970 - 1972

The Players

The Public Campaign

The Civil Service in action

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

Broadcast Media Participation

FCO Conspires to Neutralise the Keep Britain Out Campaign

Tracking Enoch Powell

FCO – General Comments

Jean Monnet and his Comité d’Action pour les État-Unis d’Europe

The British Council of the European Movement (BCEM)

Participation by Brussels

Town Twinning

Convincing Conservative rank and file

What happened to the Referendum of the People?

The Parliamentary ‘Stitch-up’

Conservative Whip’s Report – free or whipped vote?

Whip’s Report - pressure on Conservative elected representatives

European Communities Bill (1972) Second Reading - Hansard

The motion was passed by 301 votes to 309 votes

The Questions then…

Appendices

Historical Background

Aftermath – The Unseen Takeover

European Communites Act 1972

The Anti-Common Market League leaflet

Books:

‘The Hidden Hand’ by Professor Richard Aldridge

‘Gold Warriors’ by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave

‘Britain’s Secret Propaganda War’ by Paul Lashmar and James

Oliver

List of Names in order of mention

No loss of essential Sovereignty

The Government White Paper on the EU Constitution, issued in September 2004,

stated that: “The legal primacy of European law was accepted by Parliament when we

joined the EEC”. Yet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Geoffrey Rippon,

moving the motion on the 15th February 1972, for the Bill which took us into the

EEC, said: “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty…”. This mantra, in

one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in

Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper attempting to bury the truth.

Nothing changes as we shall see.

It is typical of the contradiction between what Parliament and the public were told in

the period leading up to the Parliamentary votes on the European Communities Act

1972 (ECA72) and the reality of what joining meant for British sovereignty. The

effect on sovereignty was well known by the Government and its officials dealing

with the issue, as are shown in the correspondence and reports of the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office (FCO), accessible through this narrative.

For instance, the now public and infamous document, FCO 30/1048 from 1971, ‘gives

the lie’ to assurances given freely at the time. This document (including Dr Richard

North’s accompanying commentary) is important to an understanding of the deception

perpetrated on the British public; for example; we read in one paragraph:

“To control and supervise this process [i.e. officials and negotiators are to assume

political roles] it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic organisation of the

Community with consequent decline of the primacy and prestige of the national

parliaments”.

Elsewhere, Dr North writes; ‘and chillingly, these civil servants applaud the process.

They ‘know’ [knew] what they have [had] to do’:

“The task will not be to arrest this process, since to do so would be to put

considerations of formal sovereignty before effective influence and power, but to

adapt institutions and policies both in the UK and in Brussels to meet and reduce the

real and substantial public anxieties over national identity and alienation from

government, fear of change and loss of control over their fate which are aroused by

talk of the "loss of sovereignty”.

The reader is invited to access and study Dr North’s commentary on the FCO

document.

Other examples of the Government’s, and in particular, the FCO’s concealment of

important knowledge they had of the implications for sovereignty and the

Constitution of joining the EEC, is on record in the internal memos of the time. For

instance memo from W J Adams head of the European Communities Information Unit

(ECIU) to a Mr Morland of European Information Department (EID) demonstrated

the wish to keep the true situation from becoming widely known: “…be aware of the

Conservative Group for Europe’s wish to play down this issue as far as possible and

reassure those people in Parliament and in the country who get emotional about loss

of sovereignty”.

We shall see more of Mr Adams contempt for democracy and for the public that he

was supposed to serve later in this account.

It may be legal (even this aspect has been the subject of debate), but is it possible for

anyone to seriously argue that our membership of the EU has real legitimacy?

Heath’s Campaign 1970 - 1972

Edward Heath had always been an ardent integrationist and in the early 1960s was

chosen by Harold MacMillan to persue negotiations with the EEC with a view to

Britain joining the other six members. The attempt foundered in February1963 with

General de Gaulle’s veto. Heath subsequently became the leader of the Conservative

opposition in Parliament and was leader at the time of the 1970 general election. He

was adamant that Britain’s place was at the ‘heart of Europe’ and campaigned in the

election against a background of public hostility to entry. Polls of the time showed

70% of the people against with only 18% in favour. Then, as now, there was deep

distrust of the idea.

To address this, Heath needed to provide reassurance and comfort. In a speech to the

British Chamber of Commerce in Paris on 5th May 1970 and again during election

campaigning, he said that he would ‘not go in’ without “the full-hearted consent of

Parliament and the people”.

Heath won the 18th June election with a small majority; just 30 votes. He immediately

set about campaigning to persuade the public that they must join the EEC. Use of the

words lying and deceit should be reserved for the rarest of occasions, but it is up to

the reader to decide whether this description fits, after reading this expose.

The Players

The players in this blessed plot (to use Hugo Young’s title to his book about our

membership of the EU) to shoehorn Britain in at any cost were:

The BBC

Other visual media including ITV

The Press

Jean Monnet and his Action Committee for a United States of Europe

The European Movement (metamorphosing itself into ‘Britain in Europe’ during

specific campaigns)

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and particularly its Information

Research Department (IRD), led by the notorious Norman Reddaway

The FCO and its European Integration Department (EID)

The FCO and its European Communities Information Unit (ECIU), headed by

W J Adams – acting as a sort of information control.

Conservative Group for Europe

Some Conservative Ministers and MPs

Surreptitious involvement by Brussels through its London office.

And, for the opposition:

The ‘Keep Britain Out’ campaign, led by Christopher Frere-Smith

And individuals acting alone:

Enoch Powell, MP

Peter Shore, MP

Tony Benn, MP

And Douglas Jay MP, father of Peter Jay, presenter of the BBC Money Programme

until the 1990s.

The Public Campaign

There was little time to be wasted. Heath’s majority was small and the British

economy was in poor shape with high unemployment, rising inflation and trouble

from militant unions - the Heath Government could fall at any time. The Bill for

accession to the EEC was to have its first reading in October 1971, just 15 months

away, and there was much to be done.

Ministers decided in June 1971 that they had “to convince members of Parliament

that the tide of public opinion was moving in their favour”. Those were the days when

MPs were more sensitive to the views of constituents.

The methods used by Heath’s Government, perhaps more than any others,

precipitated the cynical attitude of people to politics and politicians that are current

today, for Heath and his cohorts proceeded to use every trick in the book to turn

public opinion to their way of thinking.

The Civil Service in action

The audio track, ‘A Letter to the Times’, highlights, perhaps better than ten thousand

words, the work of the FOC’s Information Research Department (IRD) led by

Norman Reddaway. Reddaway (deceased) had been an IRD, MI5/6 linkman in the

destabilisation of Sukarno, the Indonesian President, in the 1960s. The department

had its origins in the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in the Second World War.

So IRD had a good pedigree when it came to subversion and it was, sadly, only too

willing to use its skills on the home front to assist in the process of subsuming an

unwilling people into an unaccountable European bureaucracy.

Geoffrey Tucker (the one with the gravely voice), prominent on the track, was an

advertising guru and Heath’s coordinator of the public propaganda campaign. Tucker

was the man interfacing between the EEC negotiating team in Brussels, the European

Movement (part Government funded), IRD/FOC/MI5/MI6 (Norman Reddaway), the

press and the visual media. In other words, he was a ‘mover and shaker’.

It is perhaps remarkable that Heath, could, so soon after winning the 1970 election,

mobilise the civil service so quickly and find so many ‘willing hands’ to participate

in, to use Hugo Young’s phrase again, ‘this blessed plot’.

The programme of action (including orchestrating letters to the Times and other

newspapers, written by the FCO for willing MPs to sign) was agreed at regular private

breakfast meetings (paid from European Movement funds), and held in the Connaught

Hotel, London. These breakfasts took place weekly throughout most of the campaign.

The breakfasts were clearly central to coordinating the public campaign, allowing

Government ministers and officials to meet journalists and media people secretly,

away from prying eyes. Indeed, they had much to hide, and those taking part, still

alive today, would be most perturbed to learn that their participation was now public.

Roy Hattersly was so disgusted at the conniving, outside of normal governmental

practises, that he never attended again.

Those attending included, besides Geoffrey Tucker and Mr Garret his official

coordinator: the head and director of public relations at Conservative Central Office,

Ernest Wistridge (Director of the European Movement), Anthony Royle (ministerial

coordinator), Geoffrey Rippon, Heath’s political secretary (Douglas Hurd, MP, now

Lord Hurd of Westwell), The editor of the Economist, the Managing Director of ITN,

The Managing Director of BBC Radio Ian Trethowen, the Head of Current Affairs

BBC TV, the Secretary of State for Aims of Industry, the Secretary of the Industrial

Policy Group, a Director of ORC, the Liberal Chief Whip, the Secretary of the Labour

Committee for Europe, the Assistant General Secretary of the Labour Party and the

personal assistant to Roy Jenkins.

We further learn, from the book ‘Britain’s Secret Propaganda War’, page 148 (see

appendices) that people from the Brussels establishment also attended.

A veritable roll-call of the ‘great and the good’.

It is noticeable that Roy Hattersly’s name has been left off Anthony Royle’s list. He

wisely placed himself outside the conspiracy as previously mentioned.

Geoffrey Tucker claimed that he kept a notebook with three important headings:

1. Objectives:

"To convince MPs that the tide of public opinion is moving towards joining the EEC".

2. Method:

"We must rely greatly on the fast media":

TV - News at 10

24 Hours

Panarama

Radio

World at One

Today

Woman's Hour

Marshall Stewart, then editor of the Today programme, cooperated fully with the

Breakfast Club project, and may even have been one of the TV people present. In any

case, we are told, the collaborators succeeded in getting an extra five minutes added to

the Today Programme to broadcast pro-EEC propaganda.

3. Nobbling

“Nobbling is the name of the game”, says Tucker. “This involved direct day by day

communications between our people and media personnel; e.g. FCO and Marshall

Stewart of the Today Programme”.

A major problem for the Government was that some of the presenters were

unsympathetic to the ‘project’ and they decided that they had to be removed (i.e. no

serious opposition was to be brooked).

The audio track reveals that Jack de Manio, presenter of the Today Programme was

removed for his ‘anti-marketeer’ views. Ian Trethowen, a friend of Ted Heath, was

the MD of BBC radio and no doubt cooperated with this.

The net result of ‘nobbling’ and propaganda was that a sceptical public, who were

only 18% in favour of joining, with 70% against in December 1970, were for a short

critical period, in July 1971, evenly balanced (51:49) for entry. This, together with

other pressures (see later) on MPs, was enough to persuade them to vote for the

motion to join the EEC.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

Documentation reveals seven FCO departments involved in the campaign:

1. Information Research Department (IRD), were the lead department and have

already been mentioned. Norman Reddaway headed IRD. This department was

involved more than any other in the propaganda and disinformation effort and set out

to undermine those trying to resist the Government’s campaign. It is clear from the

documentation that Reddaway had no scruples about how he used the civil service to

misrepresent the case for joining and to neutralise opposition.

In a memo of 30th September 1970, just three months after the general election, he

wrote: “The discreet promotion of letters to the press through confidential brokers

should now sharply increase……” and in the same memo: “BCEM [European

Movement] liaison is likewise important”. There is much in the same vein accessible

to the reader.

Reddaway is not reticent in using ‘Goebbel’s style conditioning’ on his own

countrymen. In his memo entitled ‘THE MESSAGE’ of 10th September 1970, he

writes: “The message should be coherent and simple. Repetition is essential”.

‘THE MESSAGE’ (four pages) is an illuminating document and demonstrates that the

art of spin preceded Alistair Campbell by several decades. Reddaway had worked out

his own ideas about the benefits of membership. Whether or not he believed his own

propaganda we shall never know. One suspects that, being an arch subversive, he did

it for his own enjoyment and pleasure. The desire for truth and balance probably

never entered into his head. Look at pages 1, 2 and 3 for details.

IRD’s work output for the public campaign was quite phenomenal, they:

- Wrote over 50 articles for national and regional newspapers

- Wrote pamphlets for the Conservative Group for Europe

- Kept a steady stream of letters and articles to the press from September 1970 until

October 1971

- drafted replies to over 2000 letters from the general public

- prepared about 60 separate background briefs for speakers, journalists and

politicians, in addition to providing general reference material and speaking notes

2. European Information Department (EID) drafted speeches and letters. They even

drafted a speech for Mr Howell (MP) for the Labour party conference. The reader

may wonder what was a government department doing writing party speeches, but

this was a regular activity throughout the campaign.

3. European Communities Information Unit (ECIU) planned the ‘Information Effort

in the UK’ as well as the ‘Information Effort overseas’. They also seemed to have a

role in intelligence, in particular, seeking out those people ‘for and against’ so that

action could be taken to enlist their support for the campaign or neutralise those

thought likely to give trouble. For instance they carried out an operation on BBC

Scotland and determined that “All those involved in News and Current Affairs are

pro-Marketeers and we can depend upon them to press for as much time as possible”.

So much for civil service impartiality.

Also in the same letter ECIU writes: “I have written to the regional organiser of the

European Movement in Edinburgh……”. This was an important operation for the

FCO, because opinion was much more firmly set against entry in Scotland than the

rest of the country.

Another ECIU letter shows that the unit was up to its neck plotting, and in particular,

it organised speakers for recalcitrant MP’s constituencies and “A campaign of letter

writing to MPs by constituents must also be promoted” As the expression goes: ‘I

love my country but I fear my government’.

“There was, in addition, regular contact between ECIU and the producers of major

current affairs programmes” where their help was needed.

4.Guidance and Information Policy (GIP)

5. Information Administration Department (IAD) - information control in other

words. This unit had the function of controlling the information output to the

campaign, presumably to avoid inconsistency of message and to ensure maximum

public impact. No doubt it was this department that suppressed FCO 30/1048 - the

findings on the impact on sovereignty.

The visits section of the IAD “launched a major programme of 1000 visits [paid for

by the FCO – see elsewhere in this story] a year from Western Europe. These visits

were aimed at creating favourable climate of opinion……..”.

6. Cultural Relations Department (CRD)

7. East/West Contacts and Student Welfare (EWCSW). This department was

responsible for the British Council, which was itself active in the campaign. What

student welfare had to do with the campaign is a question best left to the imagination

but documentation makes references to campaigning in schools.

Broadcast Media Participation

“Mr William Whitelaw [President of the Council] said that he would have a word

with the BBC about a lack of co-operation on their part”. Is this the respectable

amiable Willi Whitelaw, one of Mrs Thatcher’s closest colleagues during her

administration?

The actions of the press have been described elsewhere in this narrative, here we are

interested in how the broadcast media (TV and radio) ‘rose’ to the challenge urged on

by Government.

At first TV, and radio, particularly the BBC, we are told, were cool to the campaign,

needing to maintain impartiality as required in their charter. However, things changed

rapidly under the onslaught from the FCO (in particular IRD). We are informed, in the

audio track (‘A letter to the Times’), the “flood of letters” in the press, written by

IRD’s officials and signed by MPs, induced a heightened interest. TV and Radio

executives were invited to the strategic weekly breakfasts, which met privately at the

Cannaught Hotel in London and where ministers, MPs, FCO officials and the

European Movement collaborated with TV and Radio bosses to get the Government’s

message across (it could be added: ‘at all costs’).

The audio track, itself, speaks volumes. But we also know from Anthony Royle’s

report - ‘Approach to Europe’, that the MDs of ITN and BBC Radio (Ian Trethowen)

and the Head of Current Affairs BBC TV attended. It was Ian Trethowen, a friend of

Heath, responding to pressure to remove ‘anti-Europeans’ who got rid Jack de Manio

the Radio 4 presenter, because he was against joining the EEC.

That there may have been other removals or changes is indicated by Geoffrey Tucker

of Conservative Central Office, who reported: “we are fortunate that communicators

were now basically in favour of our entry. This had not been true a few months ago”.

Royle tells us that Southern TV and Grenada accepted assistance and Scottish TV

accepted pressure to do more generally. He also reports that: “Both television and

radio, despite their rules of impartiality, were judged by the German Embassy, in a

careful assessment in early August [1971], to be contributing importantly and

favourably”.

Royle concludes: “The impact was immediate. Reports from all sources indicated a

substantial favourable movement of public opinion”, and “It produced the desired

tide of public opinion in favour, at the right time before MPs returned to their

constituencies, and in particular before they entered the conference season in

September”.

The power of TV is well known, that is why TV attracts massive fees from

advertisers. It is said that an advert for, say mars bars, will show an immediate

threefold increase in sales following an advertising broadcast.

That the, independent (by statute) broadcast media colluded in the Government’s plan

to deceive the public is a blot on that industry that remains to this day.

FCO Conspires to Neutralise the Keep Britain Out Campaign

Christopher Frere-Smith was the Chairman of the ‘Keep Britain Out Campaign’. The

FCO took a dim view of the organisation’s presence in the campaign and were not

interested in a level playing field, as internal memos and correspondence make clear.

Frere-Smith wrote to the FCO complaining of the lack of access to regulations and

other instruments passed by the EEC. A lowly official, Mr Simcock, drafted a

seemingly honest and satisfactory reply, listing the various locations where the

documents could be viewed. He added, incorrectly that: “the instruments will

naturally be amended where necessary to take account of British interests before

accession to the Community”. Incorrectly, because the Government accepted a ‘fait

accompli’, ‘a take the whole of it or leave it situation’. The Government desperate to

get in this time, had singularly failed to negotiate the Treaty as promised in the

Conservative Party election manifesto. This failure was the theme of speeches during

the Parliamentary debates.

However, W K Slatcher, Simcock’s superior in EID, rejected his idea of cooperating

with Frere-Smith and writing to his own boss suggests:

“In view of Mr Frere-Smith’s notorious anti-market activities [Having a view about

entry and campaigning for that view in a so called democratic society was now

beyond the pale], it does not seem incumbent upon us to tell him the full story of the

adaptation of secondary legislation to British requirements nor of the preparation of

authentic English texts of Community legislation”.

Is this playing fair with a campaigning organisation who, were at that time,

representing the majority of public opinion that was 70% against entry, with only 18%

in favour? And one may well ask: whose side were these officials on? Perhaps, if

President Clinton were to comment, he might well say: Well, it was the ‘foreign

office’, stupid, that Frere-Smith was dealing with.

Earlier, in that year Frere-Smith had requested a grant similar to that received by the

European Movement for campaigning but was flatly turned down by the Secretary of

State. In an internal memo of 6th April 1971, R A Fyjis-Walker of the Information

Administration Dept wrote, in response to Frere-Smith’s request for information on

grants to non-governmental organisations campaigning for entry: “I think we should if

possible avoid itemising the organisations who have received support [taxpayers

money] from the FCO, since Mr Frere-Smith is then likely to campaign against them

by name”.

So there it is; a civil service department paid for by taxpayers, who were required to

be open, but were blocking access to vital campaigning information, blocking access

to funding and denying information on funding to the ‘other side’, (which, as Anthony

Royle’s account makes clear, was massive).

Tracking Enoch Powell

Conservative MP, Enoch Powell, was one of the most articulate and knowledgeable

parliamentarians of the day and it annoyed the establishment that he worked tirelessly

in attacking the Government’s EEC policy. Powell, fluent in a number of languages,

carried out a programme of speaking engagements, both in Britain and EEC countries.

The establishment took a dim view, though, that an MP, and particularly one who was

a member of the ruling party, should be seen to be speaking against Government

policy abroad. Embassies in Europe were tasked with tracking Mr Powell during his

speaking tour. There is a letter from the Bonn Embassy to the Frankfurt Consul

General which demonstrates that campaigning against entry, even abroad, is to be

resisted: “If Mr Powell’s visit to Frankfurt generates publicity and you feel that there

is any counter-action which can be put in hand from here in Bonn, please let us

know”.

Shadowing of Powell continued with his visit to Turin, where we find the British

Embassy in Rome (P F Hancock) writing to the FCO informing them that they have

instructed the Turin Consul to attend Powell’s lecture - “as a silent observer and go

to any other functions….. ”. Hancock also informs the FCO in the same letter that he

had met an Italian deputy whom he had sent: “some general briefing, including ideas

for a couple of awkward questions”.

Back in Britain, Powell made a speech in East Ham which received prominent

headlines in the national press. Mr Adams the FCO official that we have already come

across, was incensed that he had not received advanced copy of the speech from the

Conservative Party Central Office (CCO), which he suspected they were in possession

of. Mr Adam’s anger echoes down the years in his memo. He writes to Mr Hugh

Jones whom he rebukes for not getting the speech from CCO…. “This is a bad state

of affairs and I think we must now insist that the CCO and the Labour Committee for

Europe let us have advanced press releases by anti-Europeans in their respective

parties as soon as they can get hold of them. Had we been given Mr Powell’s speech,

we could have inserted a rejoinder in Mr Rippon’s speech yesterday”.

This was an example of direct collusion between the FCO and the political machinery

of the Conservative and Labour parties. Mr Adams had clearly lost his temper over

the matter. Why else would he have put such damming material into the record? Also,

we see his prejudices out in the open, with his use of abusive language, calling his

opponents (70% of the population) ‘anti-Europeans’.

In another memo (to the Parliamentary Unit) Mr Adams provides a response to a

‘sensitive’ parliamentary question from Mr Powell about FCO expenditure on

informing the British public about the EEC: “The fact that one or two of these visitors

[exchange of key figures between the UK and the EEC] have incidentally appeared

on British radio and television is not something that we would want to be generally

known. Otherwise we shall face the charge that this money is, in this indirect way,

being used for propaganda purposes”.

Mr Adams clearly demonstrates a hatred for any opposition to his little bureaucratic

games and shows that he was prepared to go to any lengths to get the country into the

EEC, no matter what the country may have wished. We see in this expose that he was

not alone. What was it that motivated these people, causing them to raise their game

to near fever pitch?

FCO - General Comments

At no time was our civil service, or the Government in general, concerned with

providing the public with a balanced case of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ for entry. This

prejudiced attitude, unfortunately, has continued through successive governments

down to this day. There is never a balanced discussion. Why?

This has led to a deep mistrust of our rulers and a tendency to take what we are told

with a large dose of salt. Turn-out in elections has fallen year on year and the attempt

to raise voting levels by going over to postal voting has resulted in election fraud. It

should be clear that there is one act, that would reverse the situation.

Jean Monnet and his Comité d’Action pour les État-Unis d’Europe

Jean Monnet, a supranationalist (never mind democracy) was ‘behind-the-scenes’

masterminding every stage of the European ‘project’, from the early 1920s until the

1970s. Contrary to the image projected in FCO documentation of Monnet as an

avuncular figure, interested only in progressing Britain’s application for membership

of the EEC, he was no friend of Britain. He had worked to ensure that Britain was

kept out of the European Coal and Steel Community in the early 1950s, fearing that it

would interfere with his supranational plans (see appendix - ‘historical background’).

By the early 1970s, the Common Market of the six was well established, particularly

the French designed Common Agricultural Policy (financial arrangements under the

Luxemburg Treaty being completed just prior to agreement for Britain's accession).

It suited Monnet’s plans to have Britain join, albeit, on terms which can only

be described as derisory, Britain’s fisheries being sacrificed as one of the prices to be

paid and it is pretty clear from the records that the space programme was also sacrificed in

the deal.

During the first six months of 1972, when the ECA(72) seemed certain to go through,

we see Jean Monnet appearing on the British scene, (even though he had no official

role in the proceeding), to facilitate the process and direct the country towards the

next stage of integration. The tone of ministers’ and officials’ memos and

correspondence demonstrate they were in some kind of awe of the man and, although

they were not entirely happy with his involvement, obviously went out of their way

not to upset him. Perhaps they feared that he had the power to sabotage entry, even at

that late stage.

Those interested in the history of the period will find the documentation fascinating;

fascinating in as much as it shows Government, whilst telling the nation that they

were only to be participating in a trading arrangement, were, in fact, working on the

next stages of integration.

There is correspondence on common European action in the monetary field

(economic and monetary union), the EEC’s political prospects, social policy,

European monetary fund (anticipating the establishment of a European Investment

Bank (EIB)) and even correspondence on external (European) relations. Astounding,

as it may seem, Monnet even involved himself in the nomination of British European

Commissioners.

Heath is quoted, in one memo: that Monnet’s idea on the development of employment

policy, “merits further examination”.

The mindset of the Government was clearly at odds with its presentation to

Parliament and the public.

Alec Douglas Home, the Foreign Secretary, positively grovels to Monnet and in a

letter to him writes: “But I would like to say how much I agree with the method which

you recommend should be followed in promoting the process of European

integration”.

This letter by, perhaps, the second most important person in the Government, shows it

(the Government) had almost lost all self respect and was prepared to, on the one

hand, secretly discuss European integration with a foreigner, whilst on the other,

deceive the British public and Parliament over their true intensions. Surely historians

writing of this time will regard it as one of the blackest times in the long journey of

the British nation.

One must now ask: how can the results of this sad chapter in our history be reversed?

The British Council of the European Movement (BCEM)

(Usually know by its abbreviated name: European Movement (EM))

The United States Government, after the Second World War, covertly funded and

encouraged, through its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), an almost bankrupt

European Movement, whose aim was the establishment of an integrated European

nation.

Between 1949 and 1953 the CIA provided the Movement with known-of funds of

some £20 million in today’s money. In addition CIA money was poured into the

related European Youth Campaign until 1959 – see reference in the Appendices to the

book ‘Gold Warriors’, an investigative account of Japanese gold acquired in SE Asia

between 1895 and 1945, and the use made of it by the CIA (Professor Richard

Aldridge’s book - ‘The Hidden Hand’).

The campaign to establish the foundations of a European State through the European

Coal and Steel Community and subsequently the European Economic Community

(EEC) in 1957 was successful on the continent of Europe. But there was little public

interest in the UK for entry until Britain’s application to join in the early 1960s which

ended with the French President, General de Gaulle’s veto in February 1963.

It was not until 1970 that a serious attempt at entry was tried again. But public

opinion was strongly against, with polls in December 1970, just two years before we

entered the EEC showing 70% of the people against with only 18% in favour.

The Conservative Party, under Ted Heath, a EU-enthusiast, had been re-elected in the

spring of that year (1970) and used every means, licit and illicit (if not illegal) to

dragoon Britain into the Common Market. The subject of this section is the part

played by the European Movement,

The European Movement, led by Lord Harlech, was of immense value to Heath, in

that it appeared unconnected with government presenting an image of itself as

drawing support from ordinary members of the public, i.e. a sort of grass roots

organisation. This image was far removed from reality.

The records make clear that the EM was an integral part of a highly effective

governmental propaganda machine, collaborating (or colluding) to shoehorn the

British people into the EEC, whether they liked it or not. There was close

coordination between Government departments and the EM (as well as the British

Council and the Conservative Group for Europe).

European Movement funding from the CIA, seems to have dried up by this time, but

was now receiving regular funding from the Government by way of a FCO annual

grant. Of perhaps even greater importance, was the fact that the EM attended most

Government planning meetings held during the campaign.

The EM was proactive throughout the country and provided speakers for public and

party political meetings and the FCO’s Information Research Department (IRD) was

mobilised to provide ‘advice and help’ to them. The EM reported at one meeting

(at the height of the campaign) in the Lord President's Office (William Whitelaw)

that they were providing 600 speakers a month. At the same meeting the record also

shows Norman Reddaway, head of IRD, was worried that, although they had ample

capacity for producing letters for the campaign, it lacked the machinery to distribute

them. The EM stepped in and undertook this work, receiving funding from

the Government to do it – some grass roots organisation this.

The IRD wrote letters for the EM to place in the press and the European Information

Department were mobilised to “provide ideas for reply” the same morning to the EM,

to letters from ‘antis’ appearing in the press.

The Government were also fearful that they might be forced to concede a referendum

on joining the EEC. The EM, though, were geared up to “discredit it in advance” – so

much for democracy.

The EM also colluded with Brussels. The London based EEC Information Unit, as a

foreign organisation, could not get directly involved in the campaign, so the EM

stepped in again, providing an indirect means for their involvement by “distributing

their material” on a wide scale using “direct mail organisations to undertake the

distribution”.

That the EM worked closely with the Government, as if a part of the Government’s

machinery, is seen again in the post Campaign report of the 15th February 1972 made

by Anthony Royle MP and FCO minister. He reported: “The IRD/ECIU co-operation

produced the basic material on which most of the subsequent productions were based

– booklets, talking points, speeches, notes etc. Thus throughout the winter of 1970-71

all the infrastructure was laid down, the preparatory work initiated and the ground

prepared for the European Movement in consultation with the FCO departments….

This preparatory work ensured that the Government’s open campaign [he means

public campaign] was launched and carried out so effectively between July and

October 1971”.

The report highlights the extra funding (tax money) gifted by the FCO during the

campaign: “The FCO’s annual grant of £7,500 to the European Movement for its own

visits programme was topped up several times, and smaller donations were made to

other organisations”.

The report notes: The EEC’s London Information Office worked closely with the

European Movement in promoting visits from this country to Brussels. These

Brussels’ junkets for ‘soft’ targets, continue to this day.

The EM, presumably using Government money appointed a firm of advertising

consultants “to organise an advertising campaign, and survey of public attitudes was

commissioned. Corporate members [leaders of industry] of the Movement were asked

to assist by including an EEC element in their own advertising”. The Times and

British Leyland duly complied. The Movement’s advertising campaign reached a

climax in the period July-October 1970.

The report continues: “Between September 1970 [3 months after Heath’s election

victory] and October 1971, IRD kept up a steady stream of letters and articles to the

press, working closely with the European Movement, …”.

Today it is clear that the European Movement was an indispensable and integral part

of the Government’s machinery. Since the Government was never able to persuade

more than 51% (and only for a short few critical months at that) of the public the

merits of joining the EEC, even though it was presented as just a trading block, it

could never have achieved the narrow (favourable) vote in Parliament (majority of

just 8) without the EM’s participation.

Anthony Royle concludes: “BCEM [EM] advertising in the national and local press,

including articles and list of prominent supporters, was generally agreed to have been

very effective……anti-referenda and other activities all made their contribution,

particularly at grass roots level. The campaign for letters to MPs was limited. The

other arrangements for letter to the press on the other hand [in which IRD helped]

worked splendidly”.

The lavish financing of the Campaign, Royle reports, cost the Government about

£711,400 of which about £250,000 went to the EM; huge sums for the time. These

sums, of course, ignore the costs of civil servants and the effect of their diversion

from normal activities.

So there we have it, the EM effectively a quasi-government department posing as a

grass roots organisation (nothing has changed to day). They were (and still are)

working to undermine the hard won freedom, justice and democracy of the country.

This is nothing short of scandalous, and moves should be made to have the EM

publicly exposed for what it is and an audit should be carried out of payments made to

all those members who have taken (and are taking) part in these appalling sorts of

activities.

Participation by Brussels

That the EEC had the status of a foreign power and therefore, by convention, should

not interfere in the affairs of another country, did not seem to bother them, or for that

matter, the Heath Government.

We have seen earlier the interfering from Jean Monnet (and his Comité d’Action pour

les Ètats-Unis d’Europe) and the willing collaboration of the Government through the

FCO’s European Integration Department, but we also see the Brussels machinery

involved, clandestinely, in the British public campaign.

Anthony Royle reports in his ‘Approach to Europe’, that: “The EEC’s London

Information Office worked closely with the European Movement in promoting visits

from this country to Brussels”. These all expenses paid trips, were gifted to those who

were seen as susceptible to that sort of thing and who might help promote a pro-EU

line – beware of ‘Greeks bearing gifts’.

The European Communities Office in London was also not shy about providing

pamphlets for the public information campaign, or the Heath Government concerned

about it to happening.

The EEC Information Unit’s activities in the UK also figures in the record of the

meeting of 31st March 1971 held in the Lord President’s office. The aforementioned

Mr Adams, pointed out that, “the EEC Information Unit produced extremely good

material but felt as a foreign organisation that it could not distribute it too widely”.

The Government’s willing and ‘illustrious’ BCEM, usually, present at top

Government meetings, stepped in: “It was agreed that the BCEM should distribute

the Unit’s material on a wide scale under its own auspices”.

Town Twinning

When the Heath Government was conspiring to smooth the way for Britain to join the

Common Market in the early 1970s, there existed some bona fide twinnings between

British and continental towns. The Government, however, saw in them a good

opportunity to use them as a sort of ‘Trojan horse’ for propagandising a sceptical

public into backing EEC entry.

Anthony Royle, the FCO minister who boasted of the magnificent effort of the

European Movement in the Government’s campaign to join the EEC, set about

visiting French Mayors from the 27th October 1972. Although the Campaign had

already been won and the European Communities Bill 1972 passed, the Government

was concerned with keeping the public on side and preparing the ground for further

integration (although the public were told nothing of this).

In the memo on town twinning from the FCO’s European Integration Department

(EID) to Norman Reddaway and others, the writer (J M Crosby) discloses the

Government budget for this activity: “……and the note therefore concentrates on this

element of the £6 million programme”. A huge amount in 1972.

The Town Twinning Association (TWA) thus lost its innocence and was drawn into

the plot with a view to softening up the public for further steps in integration. To this

day, there is an exchange of ‘officers’ between the European Movement and TWAs

and it is not unusual for EM officials to be seen chairing TWA AGMs.

It would be unfair to postulate though, that those participating in town twinning

exchanges are motivated by a desire for European integration because for the most

part the motives are simply to enjoy the interchange with different peoples and

cultures. After all, it is the differences between us, which make it worthwhile to

associate in the first place. But there often seems to be an undercurrent of EU

promotional activity and it does not go unnoticed that the French Twinning

Association is a part of the Mouvement Européen which sometimes puts on EU

promotional themes in their Hotêls des Villes (town halls) for visitors.

The European Union ingratiated itself into the Town Twinning movements in 1989 by

providing financial support for twinning visits, provided there were no ‘folkloristic’

events involved in the visit. Towns wishing to twin with continental towns are now

required to have their mayor swear an oath of allegiance to the EU.

The ‘Town Twinning’ web site throws further light on intentions: “To meet the

objectives of bringing citizens closer together the European Commission, has since

1989, been running an annual programme to support town twinning schemes which it

regards as a valuable way of involving ordinary people and their elected

representatives in European integration and of strengthening their sense of belonging

to the European Union”.

Another page reads: “A programme for the meeting [CAT programme] which is not

merely touristic: folkloristic events and commercial exchanges are not co-financed.

From 1999 onwards, support will only be granted if a special theme (i.e. European

citizenship, European Union and its impact on local authorities, topical European

policy issues such as, for example, the Amsterdam Treaty, the single currency,

European elections, enlargement, and other ongoing policy areas, e.g. employment, a

social Europe, culture, Common Agricultural Policy, etc) is included in the meeting

programme”.

The oath reads: “We take a solemn oath:

To maintain permanent ties between our municipalities……

To join forces so as to further, to the best of our ability, the success of this vital

enterprise of peace and prosperity: THE EUROPEAN UNION”.

Convincing Conservative rank and file

As previously mentioned, the Conservative Party leadership moved swiftly following

its June 1970 election victory to gain the support of the party’s rank and file and

Geoffrey Rippon went into some detail in his autumn conference speech to trumpet

the merits of Britain joining the Common Market.

One has to ask what happened after his assurances that, “We shall not sign a Treaty of

Accession which would commit us to the common fisheries policy, or to any [writer’s

emphasis] agreement which did not satisfactorily protect our legitimate interests”.

Sweet words of reassurance to be sure.

Later in his speech, Rippon provides reassurances on sovereignty: “So it is nonsense

to say that Britain will no longer be ruled by the rule of the people’s representatives –

or to put it in constitutional terms – by the Queen in Parliament”. Compare this with

the notorious FCO 30/1048 report drawn up in the following months which provided

a grim view of the prospects for Britain’s sovereignty, a view which has clearly been

confirmed by present day events and the present headlong rush to an EU Constitution.

It is not surprising that the deceitful game played by politicians and officials, at the

time, required that FCO30/1048 be protected by official secrecy until the year 2000.

No doubt, the conspirators concluded that by the year 2000, the events of 1970-72,

would be of no public interest.

If they thought that then they were of course wrong. The European venture, lacking

sound moral and constitutional legitimacy, would never be able to command

respectability or credibility. It is, in fact, just a ‘house of cards’ awaiting its time.

What happened to the people’s Referendum?

The one thing Ted Heath and his accomplices feared, in their headlong dash to join

the EEC was a referendum. They must have quaked at the thought, so that Geoffrey

Rippon dismissed a plea from Tony Benn for a referendum at the 3rd reading of the

Bill, with evasion, claiming that the Government was authorised to present the

legislation to the House. Rippon rudely puts Benn down, with: “I say in relation to

the Right hon. Gentleman’s third intervention that he is more characteristic of a

cockerel who believes that the sun gets up in the morning simply to hear him crow” –

so much for the rights of the people to have their say in a referendum. It was true that

referendums were an innovation in the UK at the time. Heath, himself, though, had

proposed one for Northern Ireland, but this (joining the EEC) was an issue involving

fundamental changes to the Constitution and the way the country was to be governed.

Indeed Douglas Jay MP had pointed out that the other three applicant (to join the

EEC) countries were holding referendums.

Tony Benn was a leading advocate of a referendum and campaigned for one. The

establishment, though, hated those proposing one and in Anthony Royle’s report of

events described those seeking it as ‘anti-Parliamentary’: “The anti-Parliamentary

tendency found expression in a movement fanned by Mr Wedgewood Benn for a

national referendum on the issue……it demanded attention through much of the

campaign and in Parliament”.

That there was no serious demand for a referendum on joining is probably due to the

ignorance of the public (and some Parliamentarians) of the huge constitutional

implications involved. And because the ‘waters’ were muddied by repeating the

mantra, that there was no essential loss of sovereignty involved, and the fact that

referenda were untried and described by the Government (at least), as ‘un-British’,

helps to explain why it didn’t happen.

The impact of the European Movement’s efforts in ‘talking down’ a referendum can

only be guessed at, but the fact they did so, shows their determination to exclude the

public from having any influence in the outcome. This was a matter of vital

importance to everyone, since the issue was: who would be governing them in the

future?

In retrospect, the fact that Edward Heath’s pledge of not joining without the “full-hearted

consent of Parliament and the people”, was broken and a referendum refused was

profoundly anti-democratic. The legitimacy of membership, as a result, is challenged

to this day, and that is not surprising.

The later cynical attempt by Harold Wilson’s Government to retrospectively

legitimise membership through the 1975 referendum could not repair the damage.

Legislation passed by illicit means cannot be legitimised later by holding a

referendum. It is no better than John Prescott’s October 2004 referendum to try to

legitimise the appointed and illegitimate, North East England Regional Assembly

(NEERA). NEERA was set up in 1999 as part of 8 English regions and part of the

EU’s Europe-wide regionalisation process to ‘divide (England) and rule (it)’. The

public are more aware now, and saw through the scheme and decisively rejected it by

more than three to one in the vote. The public of 1975, however, were taken in by the

promises (and fears) of the time, but were they to know then, what is now widely

known, then…..?

The Parliamentary ‘Stitch-up’

It is remarkable that polls showed public opinion consistently running at more than 3 to 1

against joining the EEC in the first months of 1971, yet by July, polls recorded, albeit

temporarily, support and opposition evenly balanced. This demonstrated the success

of the Government’s high-powered, but illicit, campaign. The objective had been: “to

convince MPs that the tide of public opinion was moving in favour of joining the

EEC”, so that they would vote positively and overwhelmingly for, the

then, forthcoming European Communities Bill. Although the Bill was narrowly

passed at the second reading, the objective of demonstrating overwhelming support

was not. There was no ‘whole-hearted consent’ promised by Edward Heath at the

1970 General election, not that this seemed to matter to him.

The following account provides readers with insight into the Parliamentary ‘stitch-up’

that helped to set the country on course for the division and recrimination that

continues unabated to this day.

Conservative Whip’s Report – free or whipped vote?

It is not of course unusual for governments to use whips to make their MPs follow the

party line and to get legislation through Parliament. The report by whip, Norman St

John Stevas, (now Lord St John of Fawsley) examines the merits of a ‘whipped vote’

against a non-whipped vote. Stevas ponders: “Clearly the question whether to have a

whipped vote or a free vote on our side is a vital and complicated one”. The decision,

in the end, to have a free vote, was not made on grounds of the constitutional

importance of the issue, or of it being a matter for MP’s consciences. No, the decision

was purely pragmatic.

Stevas reasoned, that allowing a free vote would not change the voting intentions of

Conservative MPs very much but a free vote “seems reasonably certain” to result in a

higher Labour vote for the Common Market.

In the event the Government seems to have employed other means to make its

recalcitrant MPs vote the ‘required way’.

Whip’s Report - pressure on Conservative elected representatives

At this distance in time it is more difficult to determine what occurred behind the

scenes to persuade Conservative MPs to vote to join. However, there are enough

Conservative MPs from the time, still alive, and there is sufficient evidence in

documentation to be certain that pressure was applied.

Jeremy Paxman in his book ‘The Political Animal’ describes some of the methods

used by whips to ensure compliance. In describing the activities of the ‘keeper of dark

secrets' (the whips), he tells of one MP who had much to conceal, being asked to the

whips office. The whip opened his safe, took out some compromising photographs

and showed them to the MP. Paxman says he never gave trouble again.

Other ‘tools of the trade’ include, powers to dispense favours, such as sending MPs on

all expenses paid ‘fact-finding’ missions overseas and honours to be dolled out.

There is no direct evidence of serious arm-twisting tactics having been used but the

recalcitrant Teddy Taylor MP (now Sir Teddy Taylor MP) and then a Government

minister, has recounted how Edward Heath approached him, and asked him why he

would want to jeopardise his career in this way (by not backing the party). Although

Teddy Taylor voted against the motion in the first and third readings of the Bill he

voted with Government in the critical second reading. Five more Conservative MPs

voting against would have meant that the Bill failed.

Neil Martin, MP for Banbury, spoke of pressures. In the House of Commons in his

speech during the second reading he said:

“We anti-market Conservatives have had plenty of pressure put upon us, not by

arguments on the merits of the case for joining but by other means. I believe that by

behaving like that, the Conservative Party has harmed the very case that it was trying

to make to us”.

In addition to the methods used by whips described by Paxman, pressure could and

was put on MPs through their constituency organisation. Even Stevas alludes to this in

his report: “Neil marten for example, is under very strong pressure from his

constituents……”.

Officials were also involved in intimidating elected representatives. The European

Communities Information Unit (EUIC) memo of 6th August 1970 points to

Government sponsored activity (using civil servants) to pressure MPs in their

constituencies; “The programme for such speakers should concentrate on

constituencies represented by MPs who were doubtful about entry”. How disgraceful.

Stevas provides more anecdotal evidence of this in his report. He writes:

“Edward Brown could be persuaded on grounds of loyalty to party; Eric Bullus and

John Farr will be influenced by opinions in his constituency; J H Gray does not wish

to bring the Government down; Toby Jessel could be persuaded by a leading figure in

the party; Geraint Morgan worried about his personal position; Jasper More and

J H Sutcliffe could be won over if there is a shift in public opinion; Robin Turton

concerned about the continuation of the Conservative Government”.

In addition to selective pressures on MPs, the strategic decision of Edward Heath, at

the eleventh hour, to make the vote a confidence motion, with all that implied for

MPs’ careers, would have been a most compelling reason for many to support the

motion, regardless of their true sentiments.

An indicator of the degree of the pressure applied, are the cases of the 19

Conservative MPs, classified by the whips as ‘not wanting to go in’, but persuadable.

It must be an indictment of the party system, that all of them, excepting one, lacked

the courage to honour their convictions, and resist the pressure, that they voted for

entry at the 2nd reading.

Even amongst the 21 Conservative MPs classified as being ‘hard-core

unpersuadables’, the whips were able to get two to of them to change their minds and

vote for entry, and another 4 to abstain.

It was most surprising then, after all this, that the most crucial 2nd reading was only

passed by 8 votes.

And Harold Wilson, the leader of the opposition, speaking after the vote, rightly

rebuked Edward Heath:

“…in breach of his election promise, the Prime Minister has not got the full-hearted

consent of the British people. Secondly he has not got the full-hearted consent of

Parliament. Thirdly, when he said that he must get this through on Tory votes in a

majority, he has not done so”.

European Communities Bill (1972) Second Reading - Hansard

The Bill received its first reading on 28th October 1971 even though ‘negotiations’

with the EEC were still in progress. In addition the EEC’s Treaty of Luxembourg had

not yet been enacted (it would soon be) yet it would provide major changes to the way

the Community operated.

The first reading was to approve the principle of joining (the EEC) and was regarded

by MPs as authority for negotiations to be continued by the Government. There was

no in-depth debate at this time. This was for the second reading, which took place on

the 15th, 16th and 17th February the following year.

The second reading debate was long and bitter and resulted in the close result already

described.

Many of the pages (of Hansard) for the 2nd reading can be accessed here. The

following are some of the more dramatic and poignant speeches of the debate. They

stand-alone and do not need amplification or commentary:

Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, moving the motion, assures

the House that “…no Parliament can preclude its successors from changing the law”.

Enoch Powell asks why there is any doubt that requires the words: “except as may be

provided by any act passed after this act [ECA72]” to be added, in referring to

Rippon’s statement that Community law takes precedence. There was never an

answer given.

Peter Shore for the opposition complains that the House had only had access to the

Treaties, which the Communities had entered into, one week before.

Peter Shore stated that: “The vote of 28th October [1971, 1st reading] was taken long

before negotiations were over and long before the 43 volumes [of the Bill]… and long

before we saw the Treaties of Accession”.

Peter Shore stated: “we are to have imposed upon us a written constitution, a

constitution that we did not write or did not even help to write”.

Peter Shore stated: “When the people feel they are being made subject to laws in

which they feel they have played no part and taxes to which they have never

consented, respect for both law and government is undermined. Our tradition for

order and peaceful change is based not only on the character of our own people but

on an enduring, if tacit, bargain between Government and governed that the former

will play fair and will be scrupulous in how they deal with the people’s rights. But if

Governments do not play fair, if they behave in a way people consider to be in itself

unconstitutional, there is evidence enough in British history to show we are not a

docile people but a very determined and fierce one indeed”.

Bert Oram stated: “I think he will find as this three day debate proceeds that many of

us will wish to see it conducted not in the way he suggested, but in a much wider

context, particularly in the context of the Government’s whole approach to the Treaty

of Accession and its consequences and the way in which the Government has

disregarded what we consider to be the proper rights of Parliament to examine the

whole question of British entry”.

Peter Hordern stated: “That is why I take very seriously my right hon, Friend the

Prime Minister’s assurance that no country’s vital interests would be overruled by

other members. I rely on this safeguard and in the practice in the Council of Ministers

on the unanimity rule”.

Geoffrey Rippon stated: “I said that there would be no essential surrender of

sovereignty, and successive speakers from both sides of the House have agreed that

there is no essential surrender of sovereignty”. Compare this with FCO 30/1048

Sovereignty and the European Communities written in 1971 with commentary by

Dr Richard North.

Nigel Spearing stated: “...the idea of Parliamentary government and of democracy is

based, as I understand it, on confidence, consent and credibility. People will only do

things under the law if they have confidence in the way the law is made”.

Douglas Jay stated: “The speeches which we have so far heard from the Government

Front Bench have seemed to me to be designed not so much to defend as to conceal

what the Government are doing to Parliament in this Bill”.

Douglas Jay stated: “The three other applicant countries are to hold referenda on the

question of joining the Community and apparently, rightly in my opinion, the Prime

Minister proposes one for Northern Ireland. Nobody pretends that the Government

have any mandate for this Bill from the people or anything approaching full-hearted

consent”.

Douglas Jay stated: “Millions of people in this country will feel as I do, that

legislation passed in this way, with no consent, cannot command the assent of the

country and would lack moral and constitutional validity”.

Denzil Davies stated: “...the Bill provides that a 100 or more treaties – 10 volumes I

am told – will also be incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom. No attempt is

made even to list them, let alone list them in this Bill”.

“The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tells us there are 1500 regulations, 40

volumes of them. There is no mention of the regulations in the Bill, no listing of them.

None is annexed to the Bill. The reason is obvious. It is to debar us as far as possible

from putting down Amendments so that these treaties, regulations and directives can

be properly debated and so that the people who will have to obey them in future can

know the law that they are obeying”.

Neil Marten stated: “Then there is the vital matter of the pledge given by the Right

hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister during the last election on June 2nd, 1970 and in

Paris before then, about not joining the Common Market without the full-hearted

consent of Parliament and the people”.

Neil Marten stated: “…But if we proceed on a small majority, the important election

pledge given by the Prime Minister on behalf of our Party will have been broken”.

Neil Marten stated: “…. the public will regard politicians rightly with utmost

contempt and I am not prepared to condone that”.

Neil Marten stated: “We anti-market Conservatives have had plenty of pressure put

upon us, not by arguments on the merits of the case for joining but by other means. I

believe that by behaving like that, the Conservative Party has harmed the very case

that it was trying to make to us”

James Prior stated: “I believe the agriculture industry of this country is not only

broadly in favour of joining but recognises very well that it has a great opportunity by

doing so”.

Harold Wilson stated: “We may have these doubts about our ability to pay these bills

because of the crippling burden imposed on our balance of payments by the terms

negotiated”. Note that the economy went into serious decline following entry,

resulting in Heath’s 3-day week (due to miner’s strike and resulting power shortages).

Heath then called a general election on ‘who runs Britain?’ (meaning the unions or the

Government). Ironically, he might well have asked: ‘who runs Britain? – the British

Government or Brussels’.

Harold Wilson stated: “…. There has been virtually no consideration [talking of pro-

Market newspapers] in these papers of the rights of Parliament, of the vast

constitutional implications…”

Harold Wilson stated: “In our judicial system, evolved over centuries, the judge does

not get involved in a case himself so much as listen to council for and against and

then decided independently. That system is to be assimilated much more closely to the

French system of law, where the judges are advocates for both sides, are examining

juries, and at the end of the day pronounce judgement”.

Enoch Powell stated: “Let us wrap it up, so that what we are talking about is the

full-hearted consent of the House of Commons. There was a debate in October - a

debate which did not deal with a precise proposition such as this – when the House

decided affirmatively by a vote of seven twelfths in favour. In no country with a

written constitution, in none of the other countries which are participating in this

operation with the United Kingdom, would such a proportion justify the major step

which is involved in joining the Community. All of them have safeguards which

require a much more generous margin even than that on which the House voted on

28th October”.

Alfred Morris stated: “…It is suggested that the Prime Minister may say tonight that

he will resign if he is unable to carry this Bill. His reason for saying this would be

that his European commitments are crucial to his policies as a whole. If he had said

that at the General Election, he would have been the vanquished, not the victor. He

would not have been the Prime Minister today”.

Edward Heath, The Prime Minister stated: “Therefore if this House will not agree to a

second reading of the Bill tonight……my colleagues and I are unanimous that in these

circumstances this Parliament cannot sensibly continue”.

The motion was passed by 309 votes to 301 votes

Harold Wilson, Leader of the Opposition stated after the result of the vote was

announced: “…in breach of his election promise, the Prime Minister has not got the

full hearted consent of the British people. Secondly he has not got the full-hearted

consent of Parliament. Thirdly, when he said that he must get this through on Tory

votes in a majority, he has not done so”.

The Questions then…

The pages of this document reveal detailed information of the Heath Government’s

campaign of the early 1970s, which took us into the, then, Common Market. The

information revealed gives the full story of Britain’s entry to the Common Market, for

the first time.

Readers should be asking themselves whether Parliament gave birth to a bastard in

1972. Was it really in the best interests of Britons to have a foreign order imposed on

us? Was our entry, in the context of moral legitimacy and Britain’s Constitution of the

time, illegitimate? Were Parliament and its elected representatives, subjected to undue

pressures, (in some instances intense pressures) and to a subversive campaign,

performing the role of reluctant midwife?

Did Parliament in 1972, and subsequently, by its action of handing over Parliamentary

powers (the Conservative MEP Nirj Deva has estimated, in 2004, that 65% of our

laws are made in Brussels, some put the figure higher) to the unelected and

unaccountable Brussels’ bureaucracy, put its own legitimacy in doubt?

Hugh Fraser MP, speaking in the third reading of the EC Bill on 13th July 1972,

foresaw the alienation from the electoral process that we see today and the

desperation of Government who can do nothing about it (notwithstanding postal

voting), without repatriating powers from Brussels, when he said:

“The history of Parliament over a thousand years has been the way in which the

people of this country have been able to participate in the exercise of power. This has

taken a thousand years to bring about”.

“But I believe that it is certain that by going into Europe we shall see not something

which is alien but a true alienation of the British people from the Government and the

control of their own interests. That worries me greatly”.

Finally, we return to the opening quotation by the MP, Douglas Jay, that our

membership of the EU (or EEC as it then was): “….lack[s] moral and

constitutional validity”.

These pages have provided the evidence for the reader to consider his answers to

these vital questions, vital because it affects our present-day attitudes to our

membership of the European Union. Each must come to their conclusion and decided

whether there is something to be done about it.

This account, has been of necessity, a short resume of the historical documentation

from which it is drawn. Those readers seeking a deeper insight into the dreadful

shenanigans of the Heath Government of the early 1970s can gain full access to the

documentation by clicking here.

And this account leaves the reader with one final thought: Is it conceivable that the

people of this country and our elected representatives would have had any truck with

entry to the EEC if they had been aware of the double dealings that were routinely

occurring in the period leading up to Britain’s entry in 1973?

Appendices

Historical Background

It has been considered worthwhile providing, with this expose, reference to, what is

undoubtedly the most comprehensive history of the European integration process,

from the earliest times (just after the First World War) right up to the present. It helps

with the understanding of the ‘greater picture’ leading up to the events in the early

1970s which took Britain into the EEC. Chris Booker and Richard North have

published the book: ‘The Great Deception’ – ‘The Secret History of the European

Union’.

The book was first published by Continuum on 19th November 2003 and will appear

in paperback in the spring of 2005.

Aftermath – The Unseen Takeover

Click above to view Dr Peter Gardner’s assessment.

European Communities Act 1972

From Memorandum to: Opinion Formers, October 2004 by Lord Pearson of Rannoch:

‘I have space to expose only one proof of this terrible deception, by quoting a filleted

extract of Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the Act

which took us into what was then the European Common Market. It goes as follows:

“All such rights, powers, liabilities obligations and restrictions from time to time

created or arising by or under the Treaties ... are without further enactment to be given

legal effect ... and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly”.

”Subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, at any time after its passing Her Majesty may by

Order in Council, and any designated Minister or department may by regulations,

make provision ... for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the

United Kingdom”.

Section 3 reads as follows:

“For the purposes of all legal proceedings, any question as to the meaning or effect of

any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community

instrument, shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European

Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by

and any relevant decision of the European Court)”.

Articles 226-229 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (TEC) give

the Luxembourg ‘Court’ the right to impose unlimited fines if we don’t obey

everything agreed in Brussels.

Yet Edward Heath had the nerve to promise that “no loss of essential sovereignty”

was involved in the passing of the 1972 Act. Harold Wilson said the same thing

during the 1975 Referendum campaign. Both Prime Ministers pretended we had

merely joined a Common Market. I fear Margaret Thatcher was deceived as to the

way the Single European Act of 1986 would be used, which created the system of

Qualified Majority Voting. She bitterly regrets it today, as I expect you know. John

Major then misled us about the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and Tony Blair misled us

over the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 and the Nice Treaty of 2002. It has always been

essential to keep the true nature of the Project from the British people. They have to

be slowly sucked into the embrace of the corrupt octopus, until it is too late to escape.

That is the very essence of the Project, and I hope you will agree it is working pretty

well.

Anti-Common Market League leaflet

Click to view their campaigning leaflet.

Books:

‘Gold Warriors’ by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave

The covert history of Yamashita’s gold. The book describes: “how Washington [CIA]

secretly recovered it to set up giant cold war slush funds and manipulate foreign

governments”.

Available at Amazon.com - Bowstring.net and Barnes&Noble.com

'The Hidden Hand' by Professor Richard Aldridge

First published in 2001 by John Murray.

Some extracts:

‘The most remarkable US covert operation was vast secret funding of the European

Movement’.

'In 1948, its [European Movement] main handicap was scarcity of funds; indeed it was

bankrupt and close to collapse. The discreet injection of $4 million by the CIA between

1949 and 1960 was central to efforts ................'

‘This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s

budget and, after 1952 it was probably two thirds’.

‘The conduit for American assistance was the American Committee on United Europe

(ACUE)

‘The CIA funding operation through ACUE tells us a lot about the nature of American

intervention in Western Europe’.

‘…….Strikingly, the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the

Western intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important

‘insider’ groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg

group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe’.

‘The origins of CIA covert funding for European federalists may be traced back to the

little-known figure of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’.

There is a wealth of information in this book to interest those curious about how we

‘got to here from there’.

‘Britain’s Secret Propaganda War’ by Paul Lashmar and James Oliver

Published by Sutton Publishing.

Read particularly:

Chapter. 2 of this book ‘Lies and Treachery: the origins of IRD’.

Chapter. 9: ‘Agencies of Change: the News Agency Network’.

Chapter. 16: ‘Indian Summer: IRD and the EEC’

Quote: ‘Starting in November 1970, the meetings of the European Movement’s

campaign group were held in its offices in Chandos House, Victoria, and were also

attended by a representative of the Foreign Office. The presence of this civil servant

was deemed sensitive enough to have it omitted from the minutes and deleted by

means of an erratum slip when it was once included by mistake’.

List of Names in order of mention

RETURN TO BEGINNING

CLICK HERE FOR FULL ACCESS TO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS