D.

Andrews is a writer and researcher who lives in England,

loves his country and is deeply concerned about the decline of
freedom in his own land and the rest of the world.

This essay should be put against the calls of patriotism by certain

politicians, who speak the language of communitarianism, not left or
right politics, but centralist communitarianism. It is a shame that our
politicians feel the need to lie, cheat, and hoodwink the British public
in this way, surely they must know it will all come back to haunt them.

FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY:

THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISM

BY D. ANDREWS

NOTE: The extensive end notes are not merely to reference

sources but also contain much supplemental and elaborative
material. Please stop and read the end notes as they are
referenced in the main text.

Sections:
Freedom brings Happiness
History is the Story of the Rise and Fall of Freedom
There are Two Forces at Work in the World
What is Sovereignty?
Nationalism versus Supranationalism
A Brief History of Civil and Common Law
Common Law versus Corpus Juris
History of the EU
The Powers Behind the Scenes
The Grand Design of the EU
A Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire?
A Brief Review of Treaties and Legislation
Structure of the European Union
Separation of Powers
The EU, Common Law and Natural Rights (Above the Law, Power of
Arrest, The Right to Own and Control Property, The Right to Free
Speech (and to criticise the EU), The Right to be Left Alone, The Right
of Self-Defence, The Right of Free Association, The Right to Trial by
Jury)
Economic Independence
A Pillar of National Sovereignty
Economic benefits of the EU
Fact or Fantasy?
The Shadow of Communism
Military Independence
A Pillar of National Sovereignty
Common Law, Constitutions and Governments:
Is the EU Legal in Britain?
The EU Constitution
Treason at Westminster
Conclusion and a Plea

End Notes
Suggestions for Further Study
About the Author
Essay Version
Feedback Form.

“Show me a patriot and I will show you a true lover of

humanity. Show me a man who says he loves all equally and I
will show you a man who lacks discernment and loves none but
himself.” ~ Fletcher of Saltoun, Scot Patriot, 1653-1716.
Freedom brings Happiness

All people desire freedom. We can only grow and learn to the degree
that we are free. We can only know true fulfilment to the degree that
we are free. It is only through being free that mankind can reach his
potential. In short, we can only be happy to the degree that we are
free, for those things which bring us true joy can only be obtained
through the use of those faculties which freedom vouchsafes to us;
and through experience we know that being forced or coerced is
anathema to both the human spirit and human enterprise – loss of
liberty brings only misery.

History is the Story of the Rise and Fall of Freedom

And yet freedom is something we can easily take for granted – and
just as easily lose. History’s repeated cycles are evidence enough of
this. Countless civilisations have come and gone, many of them
destroyed because they surrendered their freedom little by little until it
was too late. For a nation to lose its freedom there need be no military
attack. It can be lost because the citizens of that nation have allowed
themselves to be deceived through apathy, distractions, fear,
ignorance and ebbing morals. Britain is not immune.

There are Two Forces At Work in the World

Throughout history there have been two competing philosophies of

government. One holds to the idea that sovereignty lies in the
people and that people have inherent and inalienable natural
rights[1] that precede the formation of, or exist prior to, the
establishment of government.[2] This philosophy is called Common
Law. The other philosophy teaches that sovereignty lies in an absolute
ruler or body of rulers and that rights exist only inasmuch as such
rulers grant them. In effect there are no rights, only privileges. This
philosophy has a number of names but most popularly is called Civil
Law.

Common Law and Civil Law are two opposites. They cannot be
reconciled.

J. Reuben Clark, one of the foremost U.S. Constitutional lawyers and

statesmen of the Twentieth Century, Under Secretary of State during
President Calvin Coolidge’s presidency, and author of the
masterful Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, had this to say about
these opposing philosophies of government:

“During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly
rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law, and its fundamental
concepts, being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius
and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms; the Common
Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men
of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have
established and preserved liberty and free institutions.”[3]

What is Sovereignty?

In order to fully grasp the gulf between these two ideologies we will
need to understand the meaning and importance of sovereignty.
In terms of a nation, sovereignty is the exclusive right to make and
enforce its own laws, and to judge disputes of the law. Under Common
Law the government can only act because the people (the creator of
government) have authorised it. Hence the people are sovereign.[4]

The government derives its just powers from the governed. Such a
government, based on Common Law, cannot justly possess powers
that do not first exist in the individual. In other words, the people
cannot authorise government to do something that they in the first
place have no right to do, and neither can government take to itself
those powers the people have not specifically delegated to it.
Sovereignty can be thought of as existing on many levels but in reality
this is only representative as it ultimately resides in (and is never
taken from) the people as individuals. It is the people who are the
masters, government the servant.

The three cornerstones of national sovereignty are political, military

and economic independence.

Nationalism versus Supranationalism

Though nationalism was once very similar in definition to patriotism
and independence, it is now often used to refer to a negative rather
than a positive concept. Supranationalism, given much more popular
publicity than the latter, is the concept that the nation state no longer
matters, that interdependence is better than independence, and that it
is necessary to form regions of countries into centrally-controlled blocs
with the probability of merging those blocs later on to form a world
government. Thus supranationalism is merely the process of political
globalism. Let us now define nationalism. Perhaps one of the finest
explanations came from Herbert Hoover who said:

“We must realise the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call
nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand
nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy
is attached to the word ‘nationalist’. But that force cannot be obscured
by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness – as it sometimes is. The
spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It
rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to
govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history,
of sacrifice and pride in national achievement.”[5]

Nationalism, then, is an awareness of, and a willingness to defend and

promote, the character and sovereignty of our country (patriotism); it
is based upon the same feeling we have to grow as individuals, to be
self-reliant and to otherwise enrich our character and defend our right
to self-determination.
Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower,
conveyed the attitude a nation should consider regarding its own
national sovereignty:
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of…foreign policy. It is a
narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national
independence.”[6]
Today the foreign departments of the major governments of the world
seem to be much at odds with Benson’s belief – Indeed, the very
opposite. In a time when, history’s lessons forgotten, there is again a
centralist movement towards the few governing the many, we must
ask ourselves if this is wise. What does history teach us? How does it
measure up to tried and true principles? Does it make sense in light of
self-evident truths and plain old common sense?
One of the reasons why some support the spirit of “supranationalism”
(whether it be globalisation or regionalisation) is because of a Utopian
or (what they suppose to be) a religious ideal. Ezra Taft Benson put
straight those with such ideas in no uncertain language:
“We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating those
soothing words but entirely false statements about world unity and
brotherhood, and look at the world as it is, not as we would like it to
become…We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of
our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick
and turbulent world.”[7]
To those who think that changes in the world somehow change the
rules of human nature and the principles of government, Benson
further adds:
“The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself
locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers – even a small
house – he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into
alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon
them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself.
Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for
some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong
language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy
is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions.”[8]
In conclusion to this section here are, I submit, the problems with
supranationalism:

 Centralising power from the hands of many into the hands of a

few goes against the most basic tenets of wisdom and all the
lessons of history; for it only makes it easier for evil men to gain
control of more people; and such centralism itself provides only
a stronger attraction for ambitious and greedy individuals
 Political agreements do not change the nature of people (and
thus nations). Nations become more united (and less given to
war) only through free, mutual and natural relationships. In
other words, political agreements play no part except as a
danger to stirring up contention by employing coercion rather
than influence
 Our first love and responsibility should be toward our own
nation, as with our family above other families. To not love our
own country first will not engender a genuine love for all other
countries. To think otherwise is to be under the delusion of a
false Utopian hope based on neither principle or an
understanding of human nature
 Centralising power will diminish individual liberty; the powers of
a just and free government should reside with the people
mainly, with a few powers delegated to local governments,
and even fewer to the central government
 The Prime Minister (or anyone else) is not authorised under law
to act within a foreign political organisation or to yield
sovereignty (this is treason). He is the Prime Minister of his
country, elected to that responsibility and paid by the taxpayers
of his country.

A Brief History of Civil and Common Law

As far as modern times are concerned, Civil Law originated chiefly

from the Roman Empire.[9] For this reason it is sometimes called
Roman Law. This philosophy spread over continental Europe[10] and,
in the Eighteenth Century, the Civil Law ravaged France in what
became known as the Reign of Terror. Today, born of its past and
present geographical sway, Civil Law is also known as European Law.

Common Law has its roots in antiquity. Some believe it to have

originated from the divine law of statutes and judgements given to the
Israelites by Moses. Whatever its origins, it was brought across Europe
and to Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. It was a law common to all those
peoples and hence became known as Anglo-Saxon Common Law.[11]

In Europe, Civil Law was the legacy of the later Roman Empire, but
England remained free of this influence and thus the Anglo-Saxon
Common Law eventually came to be called English Common Law.
English Common Law was seriously compromised during the Norman
Conquest which brought over the European Civil Law and imposed that
system on Britain under the name of Feudalism. However, after long
and bloody centuries, rights and freedoms were gradually won back
and restored. Perhaps the primary and most notable date of this
period is AD 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed – a document
that is still held to be binding today as an important part of the British
Constitution.[12]

The Framers of the Constitution of the United States drew heavily

upon Common Law when drawing up that remarkable freedom
document. William E. Gladstone (1809-98), the British Prime Minister,
was so impressed with the US Constitution that he said it was “the
most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and
purpose of man”. American freedom drew many of its constituent parts
from English Common Law.[13] Ireland, Malta, Australia, Canada and
New Zealand also adopted (to some degree) the English Common Law
in the founding of their own governments. The same cannot be said for
Europe.
Common Law versus Corpus Juris

Common Law is a body of concepts and laws in harmony with natural

rights and justice.Corpus Juris (Latin for “body of laws”) is a system of
judicial laws or tenets rooted in Civil Law and thus based on privilege
and the whims of rulers. The following table contrasts the practises (in
theory) of the two systems. I have added explanatory notes in the first
column in an attempt to highlight the importance of each point and its
relationship to and/or effect upon natural rights.

Table 1.0 Common Law versus Corpus Juris

COMMON LAW (UK/US CORPUS JURIS (European

system)* system)
No arrest without evidence –
thus the citizen is free from
harassment by the police and Can be arrested without
other government officials evidence

No holding of suspects for

more than a fixed and very
limited time unless charges
presented in open court – this
prevents governments from
violating the liberty of citizens by
unduly detaining them or holding
them for reasons other than
criminal.

Habeas Corpus (Latin for “having

the body”) is the right (formally
recognised in the Magna Carta)
to have the prime evidence
against any suspect considered
publicly by a court of law within a
very short period of arrest
(usually 24 hours).
Can be held indefinitely
Right to face your accuser
and see evidence – anonymity
of accusers would mean the
government could fabricate
testimonies; accusers (or
witnesses) should be known so
that they can be held
accountable; the accused has no
come back where this is not so.
Evidence must be known to the
accused or else government
again could fabricate the same Accuser may be anonymous;
and give the accused no way to no right for accused to see
prove it false evidence

Lay Magistrates
Right to trial by jury of one’s
peers
‘Adversarial’ model

– under Common Law the really

important matters are reserved
to the people. It is the people of
the country (represented by a
jury) who act to provide a final
legal check on the government
by refusing to find a person
guilty if they feel the law itself is
either unjust or unjustly
applied[14], and by limiting
sentencing of criminals so that
excessive punishments cannot be
imposed. The people (peers) are
sovereign and must make the
final decision. To deprive a
country of trial by jury is to
deprive its people the last legal
means of countering the
government, leaving only the Tried by professional judges
right of revolution as an option No right to trial by jury
‘Inquisitorial’ model
Right to an open court – a
defendant must have the right to
public witnesses in a trial or else
government can act illegally in
secret as well as bribe those who
it knows will attend. Public and
free access to a trial thus helps
defend the defendant against
miscarriages of justice Closed court

Presumption of innocence
(innocent until proven
guilty) – Common Law always
gives the benefit of doubt in
favour of freedom. Unlike Corpus
Juris it does not treat everyone
like a potential criminal. This is
perhaps the most important
tenet, for with such an attitude of
non-judgement many Corpus
Juris laws would not have come Held to be guilty until proven
into existence in the first place innocent

Protection against double

jeopardy (cannot be tried
more than once for the same
criminal offence) – Clearly this
right protects the defendant from
being repeatedly tried until he is
found guilty and thus affirms his Can be subjected to repeated
right to the presumption of trials on the same charges
innocence until found guilty

Burden of proof on prosecutor

(it is up to the prosecutor to
prove you are guilty) – This is
an integral part of the right to
presumption of innocence (see
above). A part of the right to free
speech is to remain silent. Under
Common Law there is no Burden of proof on
requirement or force used on the defendant (you are presumed
defendant to testify against guilty and must prove your
himself. In a very real sense it is innocence)
the charges themselves that are
primarily on trial and the
integrity of those who have
brought them. If the burden was
on the defendant to prove
himself innocent many
accusations made by enemies
(knowing the burden would not
be on them) could be brought to
bear, and the defendant would
be continually oppressed with the
task of defending himself with
eventually no recourse to the
resources necessary to clear his
name

* Sadly even these have diminished (both in the US and UK) as

governments have departed from the tradition of Common Law. It is
hoped from the explanations above, and self-evident truth, that the
reader will see that Common Law is founded in the liberty of the
individual and Corpus Juris on the destruction of the same.

History of the EU

The idea for a single European state did not end with the dissolution of
the Holy Roman Empire around the turn of the Nineteenth Century.
Many individuals set out plans or notions for a united Europe including
Leon Trotsky who wrote in 1917:
“The Federated Republic of Europe – the United States of Europe –
that is what must be. National autonomy no longer suffices. Economic
evolution demands the abolition of national frontiers…Only a Federated
Republic of Europe can give peace to the world.”[15]

Many European, especially Italian, socialists and communists were

taken with the idea of European federalism. This was spear-headed by
communist writer and political activist, Altiero Spinelli, who was the
chief writer behind the Manifesto for a Free and United Europe written
not long after the start of the Second World War – and after the War
that paper became the basic document of the European Federalist
Movement. Spinelli was a powerful shaper of what today has become
the EU, being the major force most recently (until his death in 1984)
of the move to make the EU a state in and of itself to which Mrs.
Thatcher, then Prime Minister of Britain, said “No! No! No!”.

Spinelli was able to push forward his centralist ideas by promoting

“subsidiarity” which turned out to be a meaningless concept and
deception.[16]

Jean Monnet, a Frenchman and a senior figure in the League of

Nations, was a proponent of the supranational state. He was
disappointed, for instance, that the member nations of the League of
Nations could exercise a national veto. In 1931 he published “The
United States of Europe”, a collections of papers which addressed the
idea of building a Federal Europe within the framework of the League
of Nations. Monnet was supported by another senior member of the
League of Nations, Arthur Salter. He was British and every bit as much
a supranationalist as Monnet.[17]

Paul-Henri Spaak was one of the “founding fathers” of the EU. He

openly described himself as a national socialist (Nazi) and considered
Hitler’s achievements “magnificent”. Hermann Goering in 1940 made
the first reference to a “European Economic Community” and Kaiser
Wilhelm in this same year spoke of a “United States of Europe”.[18]
In fact the blueprint for the EU’s Treaty of Rome is believed by some
to have been developed by Hitler’s European “architect”, Reinhard
Heydrich, who called it “The Reich Plan for the Domination of Europe”
(this was widely published in 1942 but copies mysteriously
disappeared later so that few now exist).[19]

The following list (tabulated below) can be found in the work cited in
the table title. It shows that the EU architects and the Nazis did share
concepts and terminology.
Indeed the authors of this work, Rodney Atkinson and Norris
McWhirter, went as far as to write:
“To say that the European Union was based on the Nazi version of
Europe or that there are parallels would be an understatement. The
entire ‘European’ enterprise since the founding of the European Coal
and Steel Community in 1951 (and given an enormous boost by the
Maastricht Treaty on European Union) is an exact replica of the Nazi’s
ideas for Europe…”[20]

However, it should be noted that the idea of a single Europe pre-

dates Hitler’s Nazism,[21] though this is not to say that the same
hidden interests[22] were not supportive of both Nazism and the
European movement, perhaps supporting the former to facilitate the
latter. But it was Monnet, at least visibly, who was to found and
develop the structural beginnings of the EU and to be accredited as
“the Father of Europe”.

Table 2.0 Comparison of Nazi ideas for Europe with modern policies of
the EU. Taken from pages 124-125 of “Treason at Maastricht” (see
“Suggestions for Further Study” at the end of this article).

HITLER’S EUROPE TODAY’S EUROPE

“Europäische Wirtschaftgemeinschaft” European Economic
(European Economic Community) Community

Lebensraum (living space) European Space

Common energy, fishing

Collective “access” to basic commodities and agricultural policies

European Exchange Rate

European Currency System Mechanism

European Central Bank

Europabank (Berlin) (Frankfurt)

Committee of the
European Regional Principle Regions
Common Labour Policy Social Chapter

Economic and Trading Agreements Single Market

Common Industrial
European Industrial Economy Policy

“The transformation of the laws of supply

and demand.” Resistance to GATT

“Replacing capital with organised labour” European Works Councils

The Powers Behind the Scenes

There are two contending schools of thought on history. The first, and
by far the most popular, is “The Accidental View of History” which
holds that history is largely a series of unrelated events or events
which are related only by accident or simple cause and effect; the
second school of thought is “The Conspiratorial View of History” which
holds that superintending forces have directed many of the important
events of history.[23] Is there evidence to suggest that there are
“powers behind the scenes” which have supported and financed the
organizations and individuals that have promoted the move toward
modern European union? This question can undoubtedly be answered
in the affirmative.

In September 2000, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, EU reporter for The

Telegraph, wrote a story reporting on recently declassified US
government documents showing “that the US intelligence community
ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a
united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist
movement.”

Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote:

“Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the
American Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The
chairman was [William] Donovan [head of the American wartime
"Office of Strategic Services", which was later to become the CIA],
ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen
Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell
Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and
officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that
ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist
organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided
53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement,

was wholly funded and controlled by Washington…”[24]

Donovan, Smith, and Dulles were all members of the Council on

Foreign Relations (CFR), a group that along with its British sister-
organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the
Bilderbergers, has strongly but secretively supported and financed
globalist movements – including National Socialism (Nazism), and
International Socialism/Communism – with a view to establishing a
“New World Order”.[25]

Joseph Retinger, another of the founding fathers of the EU, was a

polish socialist who, though having no visible means of support,
travelled between the US, Mexico and Europe during the 1920s and
30s. It was he who recruited the ex-SS Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands to establish the secretive Bilderberg Group. In his diary
Retinger wrote:
“In November 1946, I had a very long talk with Mr. Averell Harriman,
American Ambassador in London…. Averell Harriman was my sponsor
and arranged my visit [to the U.S.]…. At the time (the end of 1946) I
found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among
financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner
in J.P. Morgan’s, Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan, Chairman
of the Dodge Motor Company … George Franklin, and especially my old
friend, Adolf Berle Jr., were all in favor, and Berle agreed to lead the
American Section. John Foster Dulles also agreed to help us…. Later
on, whenever we needed any assistance for the European Movement,
Dulles was among those in America who helped us most.”[26]
All of those men mentioned in this entry were members of the CFR.

The Grand Design of the EU

Paul-Henri Spaak encourage his fellow EU founders that “the most

effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was
to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with
economic cooperation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common
market’” (emphasis added) and Jean Monnet supported this dishonest
approach.[27] In the closing words of his memoirs, Monnet wrote:
“The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of
the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their
own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way
to the organised world of tomorrow.” (emphasis added).
And in a communiqué of 22 August 1962 this same man spelled out
the grand design of Europe when he wrote:
“It is impossible to solve problems between European States who
preserve full sovereignty. We are convinced that our times must see
the creation of vast units like the United States and the USSR, and to
establish a [world-wide] organisation to ensure co-operation between
all those vast units. It is this organization which will create the
new world order.” (emphasis added).

It seems beyond doubt now that regionalisation, despite initial

promises to the contrary, was and is about the elimination of national
sovereignty – and is itself a pre-planned stage toward globalisation
(the joining together of regionalised blocs into a world government).
The true story behind Europe can be ignored no longer.[28]

A Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire?

Rome (the Pope) has sought to supplant English Protestantism with

Roman Catholicism for many centuries. The power of Rome, founded
upon the philosophy of the old Roman Empire, espouses Civil Law and
Corpus Juris (Civil Law is also called Roman Canon Law). The Vatican
therefore is most supportive of the EU, seeing it as a means of
establishing the largest Holy Roman Empire the world has ever
seen.[29] Our forebears, being quite aware of this through direct
experience, wrote into the British Constitution the “Coronation Oath”,
part of which states that the British monarch should “maintain the
Protestant Reformed religion established by law.” Some have also
expressed concern at the “spiritual” meaning of the symbols used by
the EU.[30]

A Brief Review of Treaties and Legislation

Treaty of Rome, 1957 – This treaty’s purpose was…

“to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe…the constant improvement of the living and working conditions
of the people, the reduction of differences in wealth between regions…”
That is to say, it espoused both socialism and the concept of an ever-
increasing union among the nations of Europe. In fact this document
was actually a constitution disguised as a treaty because, unlike a
treaty, it did not leave the several parties’ national sovereignties
intact. Common Market, 1973 – Section 2 of the European
Communities Act (the enabling legislation to enter into the Common
Market) set down the principle that British Law would always from
then on be subordinate to European Law; that, when the two
conflicted, it would be the European and not the British Law that
would prevail. Thus the supremacy of Parliament was
overthrown.

Single European Act, 1986 – this provided the means by which

Britain entered the Single Market of 1992. It eroded Britain’s already-
diminished decision-making powers by extending QMV (Qualified
Majority Voting) to more areas.[31]

Maastricht Treaty, 1992 – This was the treaty that established the
idea of European citizenship and the Euro currency. It
also surrendered the Queen’s power in Parliament to an unelected
body in Europe.[32]
Amsterdam Treaty, 1998 – the European Union gained a “legal
personality” giving it such powers as the ability to sign treaties that
bind all its member states; it also gave greater scope to the European
Court of Justice, and the Council of Ministers was given powers to
punish any member state that persistently breached the treaty.

The Schengen Agreement, 1990 – signatories gave up their right to

police their own borders. Borders are an integral part of liberty, both
nationally and locally.[33]

Treaty of Nice, 2000 – Further centralised Europe. Britain here gave

up its veto in thirty more areas of policy setting.

Structure of the European Union

Presidency – this is largely symbolic in nature

European Commission – Unelected body that meets in secret.

Consists of 1-2 commissioners from each nation. This is an extremely
powerful body that makes EU law. The Treaty of Rome forbids
commissioners to represent the interests of their own nation; they
must put the Union first.

European Council – Extremely powerful. Meets in total secrecy. Its

deliberations are seldom published and when they are it is only after
they have been implemented. Comprises the leaders of the member
states and their foreign secretaries.

Council of Ministers – This has the role of developing the EU. It

consists of ministers from the member states, which minister attends
depends upon the subject being discussed. Due to Qualified Majority
Voting it is very difficult for Britain to stop anything it disagrees with.
It is not answerable to any elected institution and meets
behind closed doors.[34]
European Parliament – this is a part of the EU Government which
serves the purpose of creating an appearance of democracy. In
reality the EP has very little influence. It does not pass laws, only
resolutions and the manner in which it does so is far from just. Its
members are called MEPs (Ministers of the European Parliament).

It acts more like a discussion group though the Commission has no

obligation to follow its recommendations. Although it ratifies the
Commission’s laws, in reality it is quite powerless to ultimately prevent
such laws being passed: MEPs are often confused and misled, laws
can be grouped and voted on by block, and such votes go through
before they have time to be discussed (in fact each MEP gets just 90
seconds (at best) per week to speak – their microphone is cut off
after their allotted minute and a half), and all MEPs not in
attendance are considered to be voting for the law by
default![35]

European Court of Justice – Not an independent judiciary or check

on the legislative or executive, but a political court to enforce the
several treaties/EU Constitution (i.e. to enforce the Union and its
aims).

European Central Bank – The ECB is not accountable to any elected

institution and meets in secret. Those states within the single
currency effectively lose all control over the amount of money and
credit in circulation and the ability to fix interest rates. All these and
other powers are centralised into the powerful ECB.[36]

Separation of Powers

One of the most important principles of a free and just government is

what is known as “separation of powers” and the concomitant “checks
and balances” – this structures governmental powers in such a way as
to make it as difficult as possible for any individual or faction to gain
overall control of the three powers of government (i.e. having the
power to make law, enforce law and adjudicate disputes of the
law).[37]. However, with the EU we find that the executive is not
elected and holds all the power, and the legislature is elected but has
no power![38] The judiciary is under the control of the executive and
thus cannot do anything but enforce the whims of the executive. It has
been said that the concentration of powers is the very definition of
tyranny.[39]

The EU, Common Law and Natural Rights

The EU is based on Civil Law and a Corpus Juris judicial system.[40] It

is in every instance listed in table 1.0 above an exact opposite of the
traditional US and British system of Common Law. The European
system is simply not acceptable to anyone who loves freedom under
law.

Listed below are some of those areas in EU law and policy where
natural rights, upon which Common Law is based, are infringed…

Above the Law

Agents of the EU government cannot be prosecuted. All those who

work for the EU have a life time’s immunity from prosecution. The
buildings, records and files of the EU cannot be searched. They are
above the law.[41]

Power of Arrest

A portion of the principle of the separation of powers can be seen in

the concept of a warrant for arrest. When the police (a part of the
executive branch of government) want to arrest someone they must
go to a judge (a part of the judicial branch of government) and receive
a warrant to do so. This means they need to convince the judge that
they have a reasonable cause to make an arrest. The judge, hopefully
independent of the executive as a member of the independent judicial
branch of government, will have to agree before the arrest warrant is
issued.
The EU has effectively dismantled this important check on government
tyranny and at a European level to boot. New extradition procedures
empower the EU with the “European Arrest Warrant”[42] which strips
the British Government of doing anything to stop European officers
from coming into the country and taking whomsoever they want away
for incarceration. They do not even need to possess the
warrant. There does not even need to be a warrant!

The British Government will be powerless to stop them (as eventually

with all EU laws).

The Right to Own and Control Property

In his classic and (in the opinion of this writer) inspired book, The Law,
Frédéric Bastiat, the French economist (1801-1850), states:
“Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty,
property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political
leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and
are superior to it…”

Under Common Law depriving people of their property can only be

justified as a punishment for a criminal offence wherein the offender
has been found guilty of seeking to illegally deprive, or actually
depriving, another of his property, life (person) or liberty.
Indeed, governments are set up to protect property rights in the first
place and it is the right to own and control property that facilitates
every other freedom (see end note [2]). The right to own and control
property precedes and is superior to government. Governments that
unjustly violate property rights are ignoring one of the prime purposes
for their existence in the first place.

So what is the EU’s take on the right to own and control property?
From the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union we
read that:
“no one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the
public interest…”[43]
And the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 52) allows the EU to
limit rights “where necessary” in the “general interest” of the EU. It is
the European Court that will decide what is both “necessary” and what
exactly constitutes the “general interest”.

There is no such person as a “public interest”; what this means is that

the EU Government will deprive people of possessions when they so
choose – for they will decide what the public interest is.

The Right to Free Speech (and to criticise the EU)

The European Court of Justice has ruled that it may lawfully suppress
political criticism of its institutions and leading figures; that dissent can
be restricted to “protect the rights of others” and punish those who
“damaged the institution’s image and reputation”.[44]

The Advocate-General of the ECJ gave a legal opinion (ref. case C-

274/99) that criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy. Punishing
someone for allegedly criticising the EU, whether such allegations were
proven or not, were (said he) not an infringement of free speech.[45]
Another example of the EU’s attitude toward freedom of speech is their
Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001
which will make it a criminal offence to even so much
as mention imperial measurements at work or in any official
capacity.[46]

The EU is also creating “new crimes” whereby it can make illegal

expressions it deems to be “xenophobic” or “racist”. Terms it will
define of course.

The Right to be Left Alone

The right to be left alone, emanating from if not synonymous with the
right to liberty, is one of the most crucial freedoms in a free society.
Again, the EU has little respect for this right and the privacy of its
citizens.
Europol, the new European Police force, is not accountable to an
elected body. It answers to a committee formed by the Council of
Ministers. It has a much wider function than fighting crime, being
possessed of the ability to store information on a central
database (provisions for which were made under the Maastricht
Treaty) on anyone (criminal or not), including a record of an
individual’s political and religious affiliations.

Historical precedence has shown that ID cards and other ways of

recording personal information have always been abused – if not by
the government that established it, then by a successor. Anonymity is
an important part of the right to be left alone. Contrary to popular
belief information-storing and ID cards do not decrease crime, they
serve only to control and impede law-abiding people in their rights and
liberty.[47]

Worrying powers have already been exercised when in 2002 the

Council of Ministers instructed police to place on their database
suspected political “troublemakers” with a view to preventing them
from leaving their home countries and attending protests directed at
EU summits.[48]

Common Law presupposes that everything is permitted that is not

expressly forbidden by law whereas the Civil Law of Europe takes the
view that everything is illegal unless expressly permitted by law.

Under Common Law all men are presumed innocent and given the
benefit of the doubt, under Civil Law all people are seen as potential
criminals, presumed guilty and given no benefit of doubt. Hence the
right to be left alone, the right to anonymity, is in total harmony with
Common Law but in diametric opposition to Civil Law.

The Right of Self-Defence

Like Hitler, Mussolini and other tyrants, the EU wants all its citizens
disarmed. The final right of people to remove their government by
force of arms is hardly possible when they have had their right to keep
and bear arms removed from them. On this subject Henry St. George
Tucker wrote:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The
right of self defense is the first law of nature. . . . Wherever . . . the
right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or
pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on
the brink of destruction.”[49]

The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the English Bill of
Rights (1689) which, in part, reads: “The subjects…may have arms for
their defence suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.” This is
a declaration of a lawful right and is not subject to infringement by
governments of the day; its inclusion was and is for the very purpose
of protecting from such infringement.[50]

The Right of Free Association

The EU is also looking to fund political parties with taxpayers’ money,

a proposal that is so clearly wrong it is a wonder anyone could
support it. Although the EU claims this will bring more democracy and
transparency (which it will not) the real effect of state funding will be
that the EU will control which parties are legal and which are not.
One Polish MP, currently an observer Member of the European
Parliament, gave this warning when he found out about the proposed
EU statute on European political parties: “This is exactly what the
Communists did in Poland…They didn’t ban elections: we had elections
all the time…All they did was to ban the opposition parties from
contesting the elections. And do you know what their official excuse
was? Exactly the same as this. They said it was to stop fascist parties.
Only pretty soon that came to apply to everyone except the
Communists and their Agrarian allies.” (emphasis added) [51]

This voice of experience should be a wake-up call to us all regarding

the true nature of the EU.
The Right to Trial by Jury

This is not the only reference in this essay to trial by jury, and
deliberately so. It’s a crucial freedom. In addition to what has already
been written, let’s read what Churchill said on the matter:
“…the great principle of Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury…are the
supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary
individuals against the state. The power of the executive to cast a man
into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and
particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period,
is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all
totalitarian governments.” (emphasis added)[52]

Provisions exist in the Amsterdam Treaty[53] for the Corpus Juris legal
system. This can be introduced by Qualified Majority Voting even if
the British Parliament is totally against it. The British Government
has already been trying to abolish trial by jury for certain offences, no
doubt as a preparatory stage to accepting Corpus Juris.

The European Public Prosecutor (set up by Corpus Juris) will initially

have powers over cases involving fraud against the budget of the EU
but which will later extend to all criminality (or what the EU deems
criminal).[54]

The House of Lords, not to mention many lawyers and liberty groups,
are opposed to the abolition of these rights protected in the Magna
Carta, which might explain at least one of the reasons why the
Government is so keen to rid itself of that House and introduce judicial
“reform”.

Economic Independence – A Pillar of National Sovereignty

Joining the EURO means Britain’s gold reserves go to Germany and

into the vaults of the EU’s Central Bank. All other tangible assets such
as silver will almost certainly be relinquished. This means that Britain
will find itself incapable of regaining its own independence!
Political agreements can be torn up, but should we ask for our gold
back one day would it be given? The answer is no – the terms state
the transfer is irreversible.[55] The EU has not had its own accounts
signed off by auditors in eight years; the EU is rife with fraud and
corruption.[56] Should we trust the EU to make economic decisions
for us?

Economic Benefits of the EU – Fact or Fantasy?

This is another area where what is stated by pro-Europeans, or what is

commonly accepted, simply contradicts the facts… Most of our trade
is not with Europe. The value of exports and services to the EU is
just 16% of UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[57]

We do not have the majority of our investments in Europe. The EU

costs us a lot more money by being in than out; costs on food
alone have been reported as £940 more per family per year than they
would be if we were outside the EU. Britain pays far more into the EU
than it gets back. Britain’s involvement in the European Exchange Rate
Mechanism (ERM) was economically disastrous (and unemployment
increased by 1.2 million) and it will be worse under full-blown
Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) with the Euro as our
currency.[58] Let’s not forget that the burdensome VAT is also a tax of
European origin.

The majority of British businesses do not support a single currency.

Both the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses
(by far the largestbusiness organisation in the UK with 185,000
members) oppose the Euro.[59] In fact the FSB recently held an
Annual Conference where the votes were 104,568 in favour of not
signing the EU Constitution (5,292 voted were in favour).[60]
According to one survey the cost to firms would reach £51 billion to
convert to the Euro.[61] The bottom line on why the Euro and
economy cannot work is because what is being done is chiefly
political and not economic.[62]
One more myth to address here is that of unemployment. Leaving
the EU will not cause mass unemployment. Distorted reports and
false claims that big companies would leave Britain if we came out of
the EU have been spread by certain groups and interests who seem to
care very little for the truth. One such pro-EU group, called Britain in
Europe, leaked a report from the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research and claimed it showed eight million jobs in Britain
would be lost if Britain left the EU. The director of the Institute, Martin
Weale, condemned Britain in Europe‘s distortion of the research as…
“pure Goebbels.

In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a willful

distortion of the facts…Britain in Europe‘s claims are absurd. Nobody
could plausibly believe the figures. As the experience of the 1960s
indicates, there is no reason why being outside the EU should
necessarily involve mass unemployment.” (emphasis added)[63]

The Shadow of Communism

Some, and with considerable justification, have compared the EU to

the Soviet Union.[64] Perhaps the most well-known statement came
from Mikhail Gorbachev (see quotation below). Christopher Story of
the London-based Soviet Analyst described Romano Prodi’s manifesto
of 2000, setting out the Commission’s agenda for the subsequent five
years, as:
“purely a Communist program, which is why Mikhail Gorbachev, when
he visited London shortly thereafter, in March of that year, was correct
in describing the EU as ‘the new European Soviet’. One does not need
an advanced degree in Leninist studies to see this.”[65]

Dr. Uno Silberg, PhD and Chairman of the Estonian Movement NO to

the European Union, has tabulated comparisons between the European
Union and the Soviet Union, and reports that “in the eyes of many
Estonians the present EU is nothing less than a disguised Soviet
Union.”[66] And they should know.
Staying in Estonia, we find Christopher Bollyn of the American Free
Press reporting:
Former Estonian Prime Minister Edgar Savisaar, and others, have
compared the EU with the Soviet Union. “The forced propaganda of the
European Union is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s methods and
brainwashing,” Rolf Parve, wrote in Kesknädal, the weekly paper of the
Center Party. “Moscow and Brussels differ only in one point,” professor
Igor Gräzin, one of the leading anti-EU voices in Estonia says: “The
Soviet Union theoretically allowed nations to leave the union. Brussels
is creating organs, however, which would kill that idea in the bud.”[67]

Beyond direct comparisons there is also the evidence of communist

influence in the EU itself (both now and in its founding). One only has
to look to EU leaders and officials to see ties to the KGB and a whole
other assortment of dubious connections and damning evidence.[68]

Military Independence – A Pillar of National Sovereignty

Commitments to unified military action were made under Article 5 of

the Amsterdam Treaty. The EU Constitution, as it presently stands,
under Article 15, would require total obedience to the EU:
“the Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security
policy shall cover all areas and all questions relating to the Union’s
security. Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the
Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and
mutual solidarity and shall comply in this area.” (emphasis added)

Common Law, Constitutions and Governments: Is The EU Legal

in Britain?

The rights affirmed in the Magna Carta will be null and void if Britain
forms a political union with the EU. The Magna Carta ensures that
these rights (including presumption of innocence and the right to trial
by jury) should be possessed “fully and completely, for themselves
and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all
places for ever.” To enter the EU is to act in opposition to the British
Constitution.

This document, the Magna Carta, is the foundation of our Constitution

and it cannot be broken[69] by Parliament. It is a covenant between
the Constitutional Head (the Sovereign monarch) and the subjects.

Common Law and this covenant pre-date Parliament and are

therefore not subject to abolition by that body. The purpose of
Parliament is to give expression to Common Law, to strengthen that
expression but never to weaken or suppress it).

Let’s put this principle another way because it is vital we understand it

if we are to avoid confusion and deceit by unscrupulous political rulers,
bodies and movements…

The Common Law represents the natural rights and sovereignty of

citizens, these pre-date and are superior to both constitutions and
governments.

Just constitutions are based on Common Law whereby they affirm by

declaration the natural rights and freedoms of man. Constitutions also
establish a structure for government and a framework in which
government may fulfil its responsibility and purpose (namely to protect
the Common-Law rights of the governed). Governments are
therefore inferior to constitutions and Common Law, being born of
and bound by them.

Though the people of Britain by revolution may change the

Constitution, the Government may not. Parliament exists only to
give expression to those rights affirmed in a constitution. Its duty is
thus to deal with procedural and not substantive law (i.e. it cannot
abolish or create rights; it cannot yield sovereignty).
Under the British Constitution it is understood that…
“Parliament…has…the right to make or unmake any law whatever;
and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of
England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of
Parliament.”[70]

The principle that no Parliament may bind its successors is clearly

violated by signing agreements which claim to trump the supremacy
of Parliament and bind future generations to laws they cannot revisit.

In this connection it should be noted that the EU itself acts under a

doctrine called acquis communautaire (the text of which has been
reported as at least 80-100 thousand pages, some sources giving a
figure of 320,000 type-written pages as far back as 1998!) which holds
that once a power, or area of legislative authority, is gained it never
again gives it back. The EU cannot become less centralist, only
more centralist. It is in diametric conflict with the British
Constitution and the authority and very nature of Parliament.

Some have also argued that Parliament has shared sovereignty, or

that it has been pooled. This is a contradiction in terms; sovereignty
is an exclusive attribute. You either have it or you do not.[71]

Furthermore, sovereignty resides in the individual and, as such,

Parliament represents that sovereignty. It cannot yield it or give it
away. It is not in their power to surrender it because it does not
belong to them. To use an analogy, it would be rather like an
employee of a company going to a meeting with another company and
selling off or merging his employer’s company without any authority or
instruction to do so.

Many other points could be raised here too, such as the fact that the
Maastricht Treaty was only valid in Europe if ratified by all countries
involved. It was not.[72]
Another point, in addition to those already discussed, is our own Act of
Union which again has been violated by the Maastricht Treaty and
invalidated both the union of Scotland and the rest of the UK as well as
Parliament’s own authority.[73]

It is evident from the material above that those seeking to bring

Britain into political union with Europe, unwittingly or not, may well be
committing acts which are both illegal and treasonable[74] in
addition to being unlawful.

The EU Constitution

“The European constitution…shall have primacy over the law of the

Member States.” (Article 10.1, proposed EU Constitution)
Romano Prodi, President of the EU Commission, in an address to
members of the European Parliament said:
“Europe must assume responsibility for peace and development in the
world…With a single voice we can wield real influence. Only united can
we put our own humanist stamp on globalisation and infuse it
with Europe’s social values…I am convinced that we need a
constitution to mark the birth of Europe as a political entity…[The
Union] is not an alliance between States or a federation. It is an
advanced supranational democracy that needs to be strengthened.”
(emphasis added) [75]

Ashley Mote – MEP, author, broadcaster and constitutional historian –

says of the proposed Constitution for Europe: “Essentially, it is not a
constitution at all. It is little more than an elaborate attempt to
legitimise the seizure of power by a ruling elite,” (emphasis
added) and he goes on to list six of the fundamental defects in the
document:

“It is vague, grandiose, imprecise, deliberately complex, confusing and

extremely long.
It is proscriptive rather than enabling. It makes law, instead of
creating a framework for law-making.

It offers no effective checks and balances to control future law-

makers.

It consolidates power for a system of government by a self-

perpetuating bureaucracy.

It puts that elite group above the law to be imposed on everyone else.
It turns the member states from theoretical masters of the house of
Brussels into its servants.”[76]

The Constitution also designates the Euro as the currency of the Union,
which means Britain’s opt-out of the Euro becomes meaningless if it
signs up for the Constitution.[77]

Article 58 of the Constitution reaffirms previous provisions when it

provides for a member state to be reduced to colony status, with no
voting rights but all obligations to the EU still in force, when she is
considered by others to have violated “human rights” and “the rule of
law”. Of course, these latter terms are undefined and will be
interpreted as the EU’s arbitrary will decides.[78]

The so-called “exit clause” for member states to withdraw from the EU
includes a two-year forced waiting period during which the member
state loses all decision-making powers in the EU and during which the
Union can exercise such powers as it sees fit upon the rebel state.[79]

Any MP who votes to accept the EU Constitution, with its irreversibility

(or “pretence” thereof), will be in breach of their Oath of Allegiance
which is to defend the Queen as sovereign – and she can remain
sovereign only if she is the head of a sovereign state (i.e. an
independent, self-determining state which is subordinate to no
other).[80]
Treason at Westminster

“Few men have been desperate enough to attack openly, and

barefaced, the Liberties of a free People. Such avowed Conspirators
can rarely succeed: The Attempt would destroy itself. Even when the
Enterprize is begun and visible, the End must be hid, or denied.

It is the Business and Policy of Traytors, so to disguise their Treason

with plausible Names, and so to recommend it with popular and
bewitching Colours, that they themselves shall be adored, while their
Work is detested, and yet carried on by those that detest it. “Thus one
Nation has been surrendered to another under the fair Name of mutual
Alliance: The Fortresses of a Nation have been given up, or attempted
to be given up, under the frugal Notion of saving Charges to a Nation;
and Commonwealths have been trepanned into Slavery, by Troops
raised or increased to defend them from Slavery…”[81]

The above was originally written in 1720. Little has changed since
then. Through the complicity of prominent and influential figures and
factions in the Conservative and Labour Party, both employing
deceitful and wholly corrupt means,[82] the UK has not only joined but
become further entrenched in the EU.

Perhaps we will draw to an end with the now infamous words of Prime
Minister Edward Heath. As Prime Minister, in the House of Commons
on 25th February, 1970, in the build up to EEC entrance, Heath said:
“There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe.”

Yet in 1991 he was asked: “the single currency; a United States of

Europe; was that in your mind when you took Britain in?”. Edward
Heath replied, “Of course,yes.” (emphasis added)[83]

And in a White Paper published in July 1971 concerning Britain’s

entrance into the supposedly for-trade-only Common Market:
“There is no question of any erosion of essential national
sovereignty…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.”
(emphasis added)

Time has shown this to be false. What is more, documents released

later showed this statement to have been an outright lie.[84]

Have Ministers been deceiving the British public? As early as 1962

Ministers were formally instructed regarding Common-Market
membership:
“Ministers should in public speeches avoid accepting specific
commitments or giving explanations of the Government’s general
commitments which might prove embarrassing when the final terms
(of membership) become known in detail.”[85]

And what about those who want to reform the EU from within? It is
simply not possible. The way the EU is structured, our increasing
minority status, and a host of other factors spelled out in this essay,
stop this from being in any way achievable.

The Hansard Society has said:

“Any attempts by any government to try to amend Community
legislation to its own wishes are doomed to failure…Parliament has
little, if any, input upon the process of European law-making…”
(emphasis added)[86]

Conclusion and a Plea

The opening quotation of this article is from Andrew Fletcher of

Saltoun. He spoke great wisdom in those words. Truly, unless we first
love our own, we can never truly love another; unless we put first our
own kin and country in the dispensing of our charity and duty, we will
never truly develop the character and feelings necessary to “love [and
treat] all equally”. This is a natural truth founded upon free will (itself
the reason for sovereignty’s existence) and cannot be forced by
political means. Britain, in stark contrast to Europe, has had a long
tradition of liberty of the individual. Today, despite our own domestic
problems, our overseas investments are far larger than any European
nation; two thirds of all “European” investment into the USA come
from Britain; Britain is second to only the United States in terms of
investing overseas; over half of all commercially viable inventions
discovered in the last sixty years have come out of Britain; British
firms were the purchasers of nearly half of international acquisitions
and mergers in the first part of 1999 alone. We are the fourth largest
economy in the world. This is a triumph of a good system. Yes, it could
be improved. Yes, there are problems. But there will be many more
problems if we join the EU and, what is more, we will not possess
the power to put them right.

Everything Common Law stands for, everything patriots have ever

fought for, and everything freemen have ever loved and dreamed of, is
now under threat of extinction. Will Britain remain a free nation? That
is what hangs in the balance. Don’t let anyone convince you
otherwise.

End Notes

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of
men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver, or by what
principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of
giving?…It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than
in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to
man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to
every man.” (Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of
Government; emphasis added). Hence Paine explains that the
philosophy of Civil Law is unnatural, and that rights are natural (they
exist by virtue of nature or God, not because others have granted
them to us); he also concludes that they must therefore be equal to
all.

“In spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts
from God [the natural right to individuality (life), liberty, and
property] precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life,
liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On
the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property
existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
(Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, pp. 2; emphasis added).

To understand why the right to own and control property is necessary

in order to exercise any other right, and why no society can truly be
free, or rights secure, where there is no right to own and control
property please read Clarence B. Carson’s excellent article The
Property Basis of Rights available on-line at
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-
rights/.

1. Stand Fast By Our Constitution, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book

Company, pp. 139.

2. The word “sovereignty” has reference to that which is supreme

or the highest. Sovereignty exists within the individual because
of his free will and so his natural right and power to make his
own decisions and to act upon them. It is this power in the
individual that, when delegated to government, gives life and
authority to the power of government to make and enforce laws.
“There are,” said Thomas Paine, “but two divisions into which
power can be arranged. First, that of willing or decreeing the
laws; secondly, that of executing or putting them in practise.
The former corresponds to the intellectual faculties of the human
mind which reasons and determines what shall be done; the
second, to the mechanical powers of the human body that puts
that determination into practise.” (Thomas Paine, Dissertations
on First Principles of Government)

3. As quoted by Eugene W. Castle in Billions, Blunders and Baloney,

p. 259 (as referenced by Ezra Taft Benson in his address, United
States Foreign Policy given at the Farm Bureau Banquet in
Preston, Idaho, June 21st 1968 – see “Suggestions for Further
Study” below).

1) Ezra Taft Benson, United States Foreign Policy given at the

Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho, June 21st 1968
(see “Suggestions for Further Study” below).

2) Ibid.
3) Ibid.
4) In AD 438 the Roman Senate rubber-stamped the
Theodosian Code. This code of laws was created by a
group of jurists appointed by both the Eastern Roman
Emperor (Theodosius II) and the Western Roman Emperor
(Valentinian III). J. Reuben Clark said “[These laws] had
provisions covering such so-called modern concepts…as
price fixing, black markets, excessive taxation, socialized
medicine [a national health service], conscription of labor,
anti-semitism, inflation, corruption in government bureaus,
the relationship between Church and State – all phrases
familiar to our ears. Under these laws the entire population
was organized as in one vast army. All, including the
highest officials, were strictly classified, and even the least
had a station. In substance this meant that everyone did
what he was told, and did not act without permission.
There was a great body of secret police to report
disobedience; there was a ‘special’ secret police appointed
to watch the ordinary secret police. These laws were
framed to provide security. We of today have heard the
same kind of security talk. But, in fact, all this bred not
security, but scarcity of grain, of materials, of men. The
mere making of laws, even in an absolute despotism, does
not change the great laws of nature and economics –
neither then nor now, for there can be no permanent
stability where men are not free. In fewer than forty years
from the issuance of the Theodosian Code the Empire of
 the West fell, notwithstanding the operation, under
complete autocratic powers, of economic devices enacted
to promote the welfare of the people and to preserve the
empire; some of these devices were the same ones that
we have been told will rebuild our economic structure and
preserve our free institutions. These devices failed with
Rome; they will ultimately fail with us.” (Stand Fast By Our
Constitution, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, pp.
140-141).

1. Not many decades after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire
the Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) under Emperor Justinian
established a new set of laws called the Justinian Code. This set of
laws became law throughout all the Eastern Empire in AD 529.
When the Empire fell in AD 1453 the philosophy spread west across
all Europe as the Byzantines fled the Moslems. Thus the Justinian
Code became the system of continental Europe. It is said that the
laws of the Justinian Code, a Corpus Juris system, were so many
that they filled 2000 books (around 3 million verses). Whereas the
absolute power of the ruler was implicit in the Theodosian Code, it
was boldly stated in the Justinian Code.
2. “Here are the principal points of People’s Law [Common Law] as
practiced by the Anglo-Saxons (see Colin Rhys Lovell, English
Constitutional and Legal History [New York: Oxford University
Press, 1962], pp. 3-50): 1. They considered themselves a
commonwealth of freemen. 2. All decisions and the selection of
leaders had to be with the consent of the people…3. The laws by
which they were governed were considered natural laws given by
divine dispensation…4. Power was dispersed among the people and
never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. Even in
time of war, the authority granted to the leaders was temporary
and the power of the people to remove them was direct and simple.
5. Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first with the
individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the
region, and finally, the nation. 6. They were organized into small,
 manageable groups where every adult had a voice and vote. They
divided the people into units of ten families who elected a leader;
then fifty families who elected a leader; then a hundred families
who elected a leader; and then a thousand families who elected a
leader. 7. They believed the rights of the individual were considered
unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of
divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. 8.
The system of justice was structured on the basis of severe
punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person
who had been wronged…treason… [was] considered [a] capital
offense… 9. They always attempted to solve problems on the level
where the problem originated. If this was impossible they went no
higher than was absolutely necessary to get a remedy. Usually only
the most complex problems involving the welfare of the whole
people, or a large segment of the whole people, ever went to the
leaders for solution.” (The 5,000-Year Leap, Dr. W. Cleon Skousen
[USA: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981], pp. 12-14).
3. “…men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid
liberties, rights and concessions well and peacefully, freely and
quietly, fully and completely, for themselves and their heirs from us
and our heirs, in all matters and in all places for ever.” (Magna
Carta, AD 1215). Those rights include the right to due process of
law, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty.
4. “Jefferson’s great ambition at that time was to promote a
renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new
continent. Thus presented, the American Revolution was nothing
but the reclamation of the Anglo-Saxon birthright…” (Gilbert
Chinard, Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, 2nd ed.
Rev. [Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 1975],
pp. 86). It is interesting to note that the members of the committee
set up to design the Seal of the United States (Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin) originally intended one side of
the seal to show the Children of Israel in the wilderness and the
other side to show Hengist and Horsa (according to tradition the
first Anglo-Saxons in England). These ideas proved too detailed for
 a small seal and a simpler design was agreed upon. The Founders
were well acquainted with Common Law and that both the Israelites
and Anglo-Saxons were governed by it.
5. “For more than six hundred years – that is, since Magna Carta,
in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American
constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the
right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also
their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the
justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their
opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating,
or resisting the execution of, such laws.” (An Essay on the Trial by
Jury, 1852, Lysander Spooner; see Vigilance: A Defence of British
Liberty, pp. 70-71; see also “Suggestions for Further Study”
below). The power of the jury is greater than that of
government; without the jury’s consent no person can ever be
punished, no unjust law ever applied, and no just law ever
misapplied. To take away trial by jury exposes every citizen to a
government that acts as both judge and jury – it may do whatever
it wants with none to check it! For a brief article on the importance
and powers of the jury, see Trial By Jury: An Essential Safeguard
For a Free Society available on-line at http://www.freedom-
central.net/trialbyjury.html. In Europe and under European Law
there is no genuine trial by jury anywhere.
6. Leon Trotsky, October 30th, 1917, at Smolny, Petrograd. As
quoted in John Reed’s book, 10 Days That Shook the World.
7. Godfather of the European Union: Altiero Spinelli by Lindsay
Jenkins available on-line
at: http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/?article=104.
8. The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European
Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North, p. 4-17 (see
“Suggestions for Further Study” below).
9. This information taken from Vigilance: A Defence of British
Liberty by Ashley Mote (see “Suggestions for Further Study”
below).
10. Some of the papers present at Heydrich’s meeting at the
University of Berlin in 1942 included such ominous titles as: “The
Economic Face of New Europe”, “Development of the EEC”,
“European Agriculture”, “European Transport”, “A European
Currency”, “European Trade and Economic Treaties”, “Is Europe a
Geographical Concept or a Political Fact?” – words that are all
familiar to us today of course. For more information on the EU, Nazi
Germany and Reinhard Heydrich read Phillip Day’s excellent
article, The German European Economic Community? available on-
line
at http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/101002/germaneec.ht
m. The original papers have recently been translated into English
and made freely available on-line at:
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/germany1942/index.ht
ml.
11. For more information on the authors’ views on the subject of
Nazi origins of the EU see their work Treason at Maastricht, page
123 and also chapter 18. (see “Suggestions for Further Study”
below)
12. See The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European
Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North, p. 18-30, Chapter
2, “The Nazi Cul-de-Sac: 1933-1945″ (see “Suggestions for Further
Study” below). See also the on-line article, The Fascist Inheritance
in the European and Blair Projects by Edward Spalton. (see
“Suggestions for Further Study” below).
13. It seems well documented that certain figures and interests
involved with building up the Nazis also financed and supported the
movement to build a united Europe. The connection between these
conspiring parties and the EU is addressed elsewhere in this essay.
For their connections to Nazism readers may wish to study Wall
Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton; the text of this
book is freely available on-line at http://reformed-
theology.org/html/books/wall_street/.
14. For an introduction to the conspiratorial view of history the
author recommends A. Ralph Epperson’s The Unseen
Hand published by Publius Press. Once you’ve read this you will
 never view history the same way again. Available for purchase from
Amazon UK
athttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0961413506/.
15. See Global Tyranny…Bloc by Bloc by William F. Jasper, “The New
American” magazine, Vol. 17, No. 8, April 9th, 2001. Available on
YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TenIjbnqO0&feature=channel.
or in written form
here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041212071621/www.stoptheft
aa.org/artman/publish/article_8.shtml.
16. For more information on Bilderbergers and other groups
try http://www.bilderberg.org which has a huge list of articles and
links on the matter. Also, The Chronological History of the New
World Order by D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D, gives a more general listing of
dates and quotations charting the globalist agenda from the
beginning of the 20th century; viewable on-line at:
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/nwochronology.
Inclusion of these links should not be taken to mean that the author
of the essay you are now reading agrees with everything written or
linked to on these sites. Readers may also be interested in
thePortman Papers in this connection (see “Suggestions for Further
Study” below).
17. For more information on Retinger and others behind the
development of the EU, see Rogues’ Gallery of EU Founders by
William F. Jasper; availabe on-line
at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_14_20/ai_n2509
3084/. www.stoptheftaa.org looks at the way the same efforts are
being made in America and Canada to establish an EU-style
superstate – under the guise of economic treaties, and supported
by some of the same characters and organizations that have been
involved with the founding and growth of the EU.
18. “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the
superstate without their people understanding what is
happening. This can be accomplished by successive
steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which
will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
 (Communiqué, 30 April 1952, by Jean Monnet, emphasis added).
For Paul-Henri Spaak reference see The “New European Soviet” by
Vilius Brazenas quoting The Great Deception: The Secret History of
the European Union (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below for
both sources).
19. For a full history of the European Union read The Great
Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by
Christopher Booker and Richard North (see “Suggestions for Further
Study” below). A free paper entitled The Bilderberg Group and the
project of European unification (by Mike Peters) is also available for
download (in text format)at http://www.bilderberg.org/bblob.rtf.
According to WorldNetdaily.com’s story, “Guess who’s at super-
secret Bilderberg meeting today: Italy hosts 50th-anniversary
confab of mysterious society of world leaders” (Friday, June 4th) –
available on-line
at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38783 –
attendees from the EU included Frits Bolkestein, Commissioner for
the Internal Market in the European Commission; Tommaso Padoa-
Schioppa, Director, European Central Bank; Rockwell A. Rockwell A.
Schnabel, US Ambassador to the EU; Jean-Claude Trichet, President
of the European Central Bank; Antonio M. Vitorino, Justice and
Home Affairs Commissioner of the European Union; and Gijs M. de
Vries, EU Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator.
20. “Pope John XXIII envisaged a European religio-political
monster which he called ‘the Greatest [Roman] Catholic
superstate the world has ever known’. (The Papal Nuncio in
Brussels was later to describe the EU as ‘a [Roman] Catholic
confederation of States’). United within the ancient boundaries of
the Holy Roman Empire by the common spiritual bond of religion, in
a burgeoning and booming industrial economy, situated
geographically in the world’s most productive industrial complex, it
would march onto the scene of world history – so said Pope John
XXIII – as ‘the greatest single human force ever seen by man.’”
(Professor Arthur Noble,The Conspiracy Behind The European
Union: What Every Christian Should Know, delivered at the Annual
Autumn Conference of the United Protestant Council in London,
 Saturday, November 7, 1998; emphasis added. Complete address
available online
athttp://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=conspiracy). As far
back as 1975 Shirley Williams, a British Labour minister and later
the co-founder of the Social Democrats, commented: “We will be
joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the
dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social
Doctrine will be the major factor in everyday political and economic
life.” For more information the reader is referred to The Principality
and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy European
Empire by Adrian Hilton (see “Suggestions for Further Study”
below).
21. For example,
see http://www.inplainsite.org/html/european_union.html
22. Qualified Majority Voting is the practice whereby each member
state is assigned a number of votes weighted approximately by
population. Britain has 29 votes (from May 2004) out of 345, and
258 votes are required to enact legislation. QMV is extending to
more and more areas of legislation as the EU grows – supposedly to
prevent “total paralysis” – and Britain has no chance of defending
its interests when they differ from EU member states (which they
invariably will due to our differing system, traditions and values).
We have much to lose. Some assurances have been given that a
veto (i.e. no QMV) will apply to important areas such as defence but
the truth is there are many “back-doors” through which QMV can
impose any and every law upon us, not to mention the
compromises the Government seems to be all too willing to engage
in (see “Britain yields to EU over criminal justice” by Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard and George Jones, The Telegraph, May 19th 2004,
on-line at: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-
centre/article.aspx?newsid=238).
23. “When the Maastricht Treaty was before Parliament John Major
forced it through by ruthless whipping and unacceptable personal
pressures. It surrendered sovereign powers of the Queen in
Parliament to an unelected body in Europe without a clear mandate
from the electorate.” (Sir Peter Smithers, former Secretary General
 of the Council of Europe, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph, 4th
January 2000).
24. Borders and Liberty by Andrew P. Moriss, “The Freeman: Ideas
on Liberty”, July 2004, and available on-line
at:http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/borders-and-liberty/.
In connection with this article by Andrew Moriss, the author of this
essay strongly feels that a country should be established along
federal and not national lines. In using these terms the reader
should not be blinded by modern usage (which is often wrong). In
this essay the author has used “national” to contrast with
“supranational”, and espouses nationalism in its non-political sense.
The author, however, remains committed to the idea of a union of
distinct states or provinces within a country such as existed under
the original US Government which was a federal (but since has
increasingly become a national) government. Such divisions would
no doubt be by county or regions of counties in the United
Kingdom.
25. “One Conservative minister, writing about his first visit to an EU
ministerial conference, remarked that on entering the conference
chamber he was given a copy of the final communiqué. When he
pointed out that the subjects had not yet been discussed he was
told: ‘Oh no, sir, the decisions have already been made. You are
here only to sign the communiqué.’” (see Vigilance: A Defence of
British Liberty, pp. 12; see “Suggestions for Further Study” below)
26. “Individual MEPs are not an essential, nor even an important,
part [of the EU]. We are interchangeable bit-part actors, spear-
carriers, participating in a mockery of the parliamentary process.
Oratory plays no part. Reason plays no part. Conviction plays no
part. Our votes cannot change a directive. We are there merely
to furnish an illusion of democracy, providing a veneer to
conceal what is a fundamentally undemocratic process.”
(Jeffrey Titford, MEP, speaking of his experience of the European
Parliament as quoted in Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty, pp.
27; emphasis added. See “Suggestions for Further Study” below)
27. For more information on the ECB please read A Sceptical
Introduction to the European Union (see “Suggestions for Further
Study” below).
28. “In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the
right of both making and of enforcing laws, is vested in one and the
same man, or one and the same body of men; and whenever these
powers are united together, there can be no public liberty…But
where the legislative and executive are in distinct hands, the former
will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as
may tend to the subversion of its own independence and therewith
of the liberty of the subject.” (Sir William Blackstone,Commentaries
on the Laws of England). Compare this with what Montesqueieu
said: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the
same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no
liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch
or senate [legislature] should enact tyrannical laws, to execute
them in a tyrannical manner…Again, there is no liberty, if the
judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.
Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject
would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be
the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge
might behave with violence and oppression.”(Charles de
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Great Books of the Western
World, vol. 38 [Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952], p.
70)
29. Referring to the European Parliament, Ashley Mote writes “In the
unlikely event that a resolution is voted down, under a procedure
known as ‘conciliation’, the vote is overturned and the original
reinstated. The parliament itself has no legislative powers.”
(Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty, pp. 27; see “Suggestions
for Further Study” below)
30. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and
whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (James
Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 47).
31. In the Corpus Juris document published by the EU it reads, in
part, “…designed to ensure, in a largely unified European legal area,
a fairer, simpler, and more efficient system of repression.”
(page 40, paragraph 3). The document also makes reference to
professional judges (26), indefinite detention (20,iii), loss of double
jeopardy and thus presumption of innocence (27,ii), loss of the
right of the accused to be informed of evidence against him (29,iii),
secret trials (34), extradition (21,I,b). This document alone
exposes the real tyrannical nature of the EU.
32. “In the territory of each member State and whatever their
nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities
shall…be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts
performed by them in their official capacity, including their words
spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after
they have ceased to hold office…” (Chapter V, Article 12 of Protocol
36 on thePrivileges and Immunities of the European Communities,
Treaty on European Union; 8 April 1965). These privileges are also
included in the EU Constitution under Article III-340 which states:
“The Union shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of
its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol of 8 April
1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European
Communities. The same shall apply to the European Investment
Bank.”
33. See “EU Arrest Warrant Comes Into Force”, European Institute of
Protestant Studies, taken from The British Church Newspaper,
January 9th 2004, available on-line
at: http://www.ianpaisley.org/new_details.asp?ID=183
34. Chapter II, Art. 17; see also The Human Rights Act 1998,
incorporated within British law, Protocol 1, Art. 1.
35. See “Watch What You Say” by John Hilliker, Philadelphia
Trumpeter, July 2001, available on-line
at:http://www.olusa.com/politics/free-speech-dying.htm.
36. “Now It’s Blasphemy to Mock Europe” by Ambrose Evans-
Pritchard in The Spectator, 18th November, 2000. This article can
 be read for free on-line but you will need to subscribe
first: http://www.spectator.co.uk.
37. S.I. 2001, No. 85. The exact areas where this infringement of
free speech occurs is in public health, public safety, administration
and trade. Read the House of Lords debate of March 20th, 2001
at http://www.bwmaonline.com/Political%20-
%20Motion%20on%20March%2020th.htm
.

38. One Government-supported “reason” for ID cards in the UK is to

combat social security fraud. This is interesting as Richard Thomas,
the new Information Commissioner and Head of the UK Data
Protection Office recently said: “A second justification [for ID cards]
is social security fraud. Well, the empirical evidence is that the vast
bulk of social security fraud is caused by fraud about people’s
circumstances, not about their identity…” (“ID Cards ‘will be boon
for forgers’” by Alan Travis, home affairs editor, The Guardian,
January 8, 2003); full article available on-line from Guardian
Unlimited at:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,870470,0
0.html. For an excellent argument against ID cards see Sean
Gabb’s pamphlet, Identity Cards: Some Brief Objections available
online at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc087.htm; see also
a short article by the author at http://www.freedom-
central.net/idcards.html which also references many resources for
further research.
39. Government Paves Way for EU Identity Cards by Marc
Glendening, Tribune, August 1st 2003; full article available on-line
at:http://www.democracy-
movement.org.uk/main/tribuneAug03.html.
40. Henry St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone’s
Commentaries, Vol. 1, p. 300 (1803).
41. For more information please read All The Way Down The Slippery
Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil
Liberties in Amercia by Joseph E. Olsen and David B. Kopel, on-line
at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html.
42. “Why I am going to the European Court” by Daniel Hannan, MEP;
from Freedom Today, May/June 2004, p. 25
. View article online at http://www.hannan.co.uk/news.htm.
43. Winston Churchill, minute to the Home Secretary, 21st
November 1943.
44. Section II, Chapter 8, heading (d): “Measures for countering
fraud against the financial interests of the Community.” The House
of Lords interviewed two EU representatives who stated that Corpus
Juris could be, and would be, introduced under Article 280 of the
Amsterdam Treaty (see pages 84-85 of the 9th Report, House of
Lords, 1998).
45. EU Commission proposals (Directorate General XX) detail EU
criminal code and procedure. Article 26.1 provides for cases (with
sentences up to seven years) to be heard by courts “consisting of
professional judges, excluding simple jurors and lay magistrates.”
46. Protocol annexed to Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Article 30
requires Britain, on her entrance into the EMU, to transfer £8000
million of gold and dollar reserves to the ECB in Frankfurt,
Germany. This cannot be reversed once done. Article 42 of this
same Protocol allows for all remaining reserves to be transferred if
a majority of the other EMU countries ask for it – Britain
could not veto this.
47. In 1999 the entire European Commission was forced to resign
due to corruption charges; but most who “resigned” just carried on
as normal. The House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee has
the view that corruption is endemic and unreformable in the EU
(see PAC report issued 25th August 1999). For more on EU financial
corruption see Ashley Mote’s site at: http://www.ashleymote.co.uk.
48. The Pink Book 2003, United Kingdom Balance of Payments, HM
Government, Central Statistics Office, 2004.
49. See EuroFAQs, The European Union faq, p. 7-9 available as html
or pdf on-line at http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com for full
explanations and official sources.
50. ICM survey of 1000 company chief executives, April 2004.
51. Sovereignty Journal, April 2004, letter from Donald Martin
reporting on FSB Annual Branch Conference held in Blackpool 19th
to 21st March 2004.
52. KPMG Consulting survey based on responses from 300 firms.
53. “For continental European politicians a single currency is above
all a political not an economic issue … In the 19th century there
were three failed attempts in parts of Europe to create monetary
unions. The German monetary union was fully fledged by the 1870s
but it began some 40 years before, initially as a customs union. The
Prussian Thaler – as the currency was called – held sway while
Bismarck dominated. The French attempt at a Latin Monetary Union
started in 1865 and included Belgium, Italy, Greece and
Switzerland, and at the time Walter Bagehot warned that if Britain
did nothing we would be left out in the cold. We wisely declined to
join and never regretted it. In 1873, Sweden, Denmark and Norway
started a monetary union which was dissolved in 1924. This albeit
limited history shows that monetary unions fail…” (Lord Owen,
in The Economist, 24th January 1998; emphasis added).
54. The Times, 19th February 2000.
55. Why the New EU is like the Old USSR by Vernon Coleman
(quoting Vladimir Bukovsky) available on-line
athttp://www.vernoncoleman.com/tneuiltou.htm.
56. From Euro to Union by William F. Jasper, 28th January 2002,
Vol. 18, No. 2 of The New American magazine, available on-line
athttp://www.usnationhood.com/fromeuro.html. For more
information (and also American issues) read “Regional Mergers on
the Road to the Global Total State” by the same author, published
on-line
at: http://www.stoptheftaa.org/artman/publish/article_41.shtml.
57. The article from which this extract comes no longer seems to be
available on-line. There is something akin to it by the same author
entitled The Real Purpose of the EU’s
Enlargement at: http://www.teameurope.info/node/214. I would
suggest contacting Uno Silberg if you want to find the original
article (EU and Soviet Union – the same federal socialism ).
58. “Estonians Wary of European Union” by Christopher
Bollyn, American Free Press, 20th August 2003; available on-line
at:http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=35726.
59. “Avalanche of doubts leaves Prodi bruised” by Ambrose Evans-
Pritchard, 10th May 2003, The Telegraph, available on-line
at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/
05/10/wfile10.xml. See more related information
at:http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/RProdi.htm.
60. Defence of the Realm, p. 5; see “Suggestions for Further Study”
below.
61. The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, as explained by
Professor A.V. Dicey’s accepted and classic definition given in 1885.
SeeThe Law of the Constitution by the same author, 10th edition.
(1959), p. 67-68.
62. “Sovereignty for a nation is hard to come by and even more
difficult to retain. It cannot be shared, for then sovereignty
becomes something else, and, for want of a better word, when
sovereignty is lessened the end-product is internationalism.
Sovereignty is neither more nor less than self-government.” Ezra
Taft Benson, United States Foreign Policy given at the Farm Bureau
Banquet in Preston, Idaho, June 21st 1968; emphasis added (see
“Suggestions for Further Study” below).
63. See Chapter 11, pp. 75-78, of Treason at Maastricht (see
“Suggestions for Further Study” below).
64. In 1706 the people of Scotland effectively decided to share their
King and Parliament with England and Wales. Thus was created the
United Kingdom. The new Parliament was to be in England, the
Scottish Parliament was to no longer exist. The statute which dealt
with the terms of this union was called the Act of Union. This vital
part of the British Constitution guaranteed that Parliament would
not encroach upon the rights of the Scots. If this happened, the Act
of Union would be null and void. This would mean the United
Kingdom would cease to exist in its present form. It also would
mean that Parliament’s authority would cease to exist because that
authority originated in the Act. By consenting to the Maastricht
 Treaty, and thus violating the rights of the Scots, Parliament
has invalidated its own authority.
65. For an explanation of the 8 counts of treason levelled at those
involved with signing away British Sovereignty to Europe,
seeTreason at Maastricht, chapter 4 (pp. 43-51) (see “Suggestions
for Further Study” below). For more information on the British
Constitution and the EU Constitution’s incompatibility with it, read
John Bingley’s excellent The EU Constitution is Incompatible with
Ours (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below).
66. Shaping Tomorrow’s EU, Brussels, 4 April 2002.
67. From The Proposed EU Constitution is a Weapon of Mass
Destruction of all the Member states, an article by Ashley Mote. No
longer available on-line but a report of what may have been that
speech can be found on-line
athttp://www.bullen.demon.co.uk/acml20.htm. Ashley Mote can
also be contacted at his site (see above).
68. The European Constitution against The British Constitution: A
Short Critique by Torquil Dick-Erikson, M.A. (Oxon), published by
the UK Independence Party, April 2004; pp. 6
69. Ibid. pp. 15.
70. Ibid. pp. 15-18.
71. Ibid. pp. 6.
72. Number 17, Cato’s Letters, Saturday, February 18, 1720;
from The English Libertarian Tradition: From the Writings of John
Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in “The Independent Whig” and
“Cato’s Letters” [Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1965], p. 52. Cicero’s
own words on the matter of treason are also poignant here, said
he: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it
cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less
formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But
the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly
whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of
government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor – he speaks in
the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their
garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation – he works secretly
 and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city – he
infects the body politic so that is can no longer resist. A murderer is
less to be feared.” (in a speech to the Roman Senate, 42 B.C.)
73. For details on the deception, vote-rigging and other
underhanded schemes of British politicians see The Great
Deception: The Secret History of the European Union, chapter 8,
“The Real Deceit of Edward Heath: 1970-1975″ (see “Suggestions
for Further Study” below)
74. Question Time, BBC, speaking to Peter Sissons, 1st November
1991. Heath also said: “There is no danger of a single currency.”
(EEC membership information leaflet, 1975).
75. These quotations on Europe, and many others (all referenced
and checked) have been compiled on-line
at:http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Europe/00-Intro.html.
76. Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting of 23rd October 1962 (released
under 30 Year Rule, 1st January 1993).
77. The 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference: The Agenda,
Democracy and Efficiency and the Role of National Parliaments,
House of Commons Select Committee on European Law, 1996.
Suggestions for Further Study
Books
Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty by Ashley Mote. This book is a
must-read. The author presents the case very well and in an easy-to-
read manner. This book is the one book that, if everyone read, would
truly wake up the people of Britain and the free world to their own
blessings and the very real threat of the draconian European Union.
http://www.author.co.uk/vigilance or http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?p
=688
NOTE: You may download and print out for free a text file with
excerpts from this book at:
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/pdf/VIGILANCE%20Ashley
%20MOTE%20Intro.rtf)
Defence of the Realm by Ashley Mote (booklet). Looks at the cogent
argument that the EU treaties, et. al., are actually illegal in Britain.
The text of this booklet can also be found in the appendix of the above
book.
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/MagnaCarta
Treason at Maastricht: The Destruction of the Nation State by Rodney
Atkinson and Norris McWhirter. This book is a testament to the
patriotic and highly knowledgeable Norris McWhirter who sadly died of
a heart attack the same week that it was reported that the Prime
Minister had agreed to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution.
Norris, together with Rodney Atkinson, brought charges of treason
against certain individuals in the British Government. This book looks
at the eight treason charges, the British Constitution, the Nazi and
Bilderberger involvement in the EU, Winston Churchill’s real vision of a
future Europe, and the threat that exists to British and American
sovereignty today.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0950935395
The Last Days of Britain: The Final Betrayal by Lindsay Jenkins
(foreword by Norman Lamont)
Detailing the decades of dishonesty as both Labour and Conservative
governments have betrayed Britain and her people.
http://www.junepress.com/reviewpic.asp?BID=652
Britain Held Hostage by Lindsay Jenkins (foreword by Frederick
Forsyth)
Reveals the truth about who really created the EU and why.
http://www.junepress.com/reviewpic.asp?BID=554
The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by
Christopher Booker and Richard North.
One of the most professional and detailed works on the history of
European union from 1918 to the present. Thoroughly recommended.
http://www.ukip.org
The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy
European Empire by Adrian Hilton.
Available from Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Principality-
Power-Europe-Adrian-
Hilton/dp/0951838628/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12653741
97&sr=1-2
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. Classic work on the proper role of law in a
just society (book). Held in high regard by Britain and the US but
ignored in his own country of France, no doubt because he was no
friend to statist continental philosophies.http://www.lfb.com
On-line Articles & Essays
Historical Deceptions: European Union by Joel Skousen (on-line
essay). Insightful and informed commentary on the dangers of the EU
and how it affects all of us. Taken from World Affairs Brief.
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/EU.shtml
An Essay on the Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (on-line essay).
Excellent essay on the real importance and role of the jury. Once
you’ve read this you’ll never look at trial by jury the same again.
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
A Sceptical Introduction to the European Union by Richard Greaves
(article). As the title suggests, an introduction to the EU touching upon
its major institutions, monetary and banking system, Europol, Corpus
Juris, and other prominent elements. From The Sovereignty Journal.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/euintro.html
Corpus Juris and the Threat to British Common Law Rights (web
article)
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/corpus_juris.html
The “New European Soviet” by Vilius Brazenas (magazine article). Mr.
Brazenas at ninety plus remembers most of the major events of the
last century. He claims the EU is rapidly descending into totalitarianism
and tells us exactly why it could be no different.
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=3945&
The Law is Above You: The Christian Roots of English Common Law by
Michael A. Clark and others (web
article)http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/showart.php?id=31
Britain’s Unique Heritage of Law Threatened by an E.U. Police State: A
Napoleonic System of Repression Now Confirmed in Corpus Juris (web
article)
http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/old/articles/05.htm
Corpus Juris by Stealth. Long web page with updates on current
British-EU topics and how they affect our freedom. (web article)
http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/CorpusJuris.htm
The Fascist Inheritance in the European and Blair Projects by Edward
Spalton. Available on-line at http://klub.org.pl/pipermail/central-
europe_klub.org.pl/2004-August/000115.html.
United States Foreign Policy (speech) by Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra
Taft Benson). An elaboration on national sovereignty and the true
meaning of nationalism; given at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston,
Idaho, June 21st 1968.
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra-taft-
benson/united-states-foreign-policy
Europe’s New Constitution: Philadelphia It Is Not by Patrick Basham
and Marian L. Tupy (web article). A comparison of the proposed EU
Constitution and the US Constitution. This article was published by
Scripps Howard News Service, March 4, 2003.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-07-03.html
The EU Constitution is Incompatible with Ours by John Bingley
(speech). A plain and well-argued address pointing out the illegitimate
position of the EU Constitution within the context of the British
Constitution.
http://www.newalliance.org.uk/incompat.htm
Videos
Visit the UKIP shop for all the latest books and DVDs on the EU at
http://www.ukip.org/shop/category/view/books-dvds
Organisations
The June Press
http://www.junepress.com
Excellent source of political, economic and historical publications. Also
publishes the fortnightly Eurofacts newsletter available on-line
at:http://www.junepress.com/eurofacts.asp. Highly recommended.
EuroFAQ
http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
Written and maintained by an independent group of journalists,
businessmen, politicians and academics who believe Britain’s
membership of the European Union has been a political and economic
disaster. Very clear and well-presented questions and answers
about the EU and Britain. Highly recommended.
The Bruges Group
An all-party independent think tank seeking to stop the centralising of
power to Brussels. Many good links and articles. Rt. Hon. Baroness
Thatcher is the Honorary President.
http://www.brugesgroup.com
The Freedom Association (TFA)
http://www.tfa.net
Readers might also want to study the article Conservative MEPs and
the European People’s Party: Time for Divorce, by Martin Ball and
Jonathan Collet, available on-line
at http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=94).
Freedom-Central.Net
News and Resource Portal for Freedom-loving People Everywhere…
International site listing only the most liberty-loving and reliable
sources of information from around the world.
http://www.freedom-central.net
Periodicals & Other Publications
Portman Papers
Excellent professional quarterly focusing on the threat to British
sovereignty and the Constitution from the EU and other internationalist
forces. Portman Papers is not afraid to go into detail about some of the
less-accepted truths other publications avoid. Highly recommended.
http://www.portmanpapers.co.uk
Other Resources
EuroFAQ’s European Constitution Resource Page
Includes a summary of the powers of the EU Constitution, the
Government and EU position, news and information on the EU
Constitution and referendum, and other links.
http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/constitution
New Alliance Constitution and Documents Archive
The official site of the EU, like its legislation, is somewhat hard to
navigate and find what you want. So here’s an excellent link resource
from New Alliance where you will find all that you need including links
to the various EU treaties and a link to the latest translation of the
reader-friendly draft EU Constitution published by EU ABC (you may
wish to review the PowerPoint presentation found via that particular
link too):http://www.newalliance.org.uk/constdoc.htm. The official EU
site is at http://europa.eu.int.
About the Author
D. Andrews is a writer and researcher who lives in England, loves his
country and is deeply concerned about the decline of freedom in his
own land and the rest of the world. You can view his Video Primer
page at http://www.freedom-central.net/video
If you feel there is any misrepresentation, error or omission in this
article then please contact the author through the feedback form
provided below.

NB: As this article is continually being updated and expanded, please

check for the latest version at http://www.freedom-
central.net/euandbritain.html if you are not currently reading it from
that page. This Version: 17.09.04. Word count: c. 16,300