Vernon Coleman: Was Britain taken into the EU illegally?

Posted: June 17, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, government, History, Legal, People power, Politics, propaganda, Robber Barons

This is a followup to a post about the issue of sovereignty and Britain’s membership of the EU I put up a while back. These are weighty issues the public needs to consider. Needless to say, the BBC won’t be promoting in depth debate about the matter, so it’s up to bloggers and journalists to do the job. Actually, not many journo’s seem to want to raise their heads above the parapet either. I know it’s dull stuff, but please read and think about this. It’s up to us to let the political class know we don’t take kindly to having our liberties, fought for since Magna Carta, signed away to an unelected foreign commissariat which subjects us to summary extradition through European arrest warrants, dictates how we (dis)organise flood defences, and forces us to put the ‘human rights’ of criminals before those of their victims.


Was Ted Heath committing treason when he signed Britain into the EU?

Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?
by Vernon Coleman – 2011

Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn’t actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid.

In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath’s Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.)

Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people’.

However, when it came to it Heath didn’t have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes’. But that isn’t true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain’s constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey’s `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested’. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.’ Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign’.

In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament’s legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn’t just another Act of Parliament. Heath’s Bill used Parliament’s legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.’ Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.)

So, for example, Parliament was dissolved in 1831/2 to obtain the electorate’s authority for the Reform Bill and again in 1910 following the Lord’s rejection of the Liberal Finance Bill.

In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined’.

Wilson’s referendum was inspired solely by the realisation that the consent of the electorate ought first to have been obtained before we joined the EEC. The lack of legitimacy of the European Communities Act brought about the decision by the incoming Prime Minister and Labour leadership that a referendum should be held in preference to yet another general election.

But, almost inevitably, the question asked in the referendum was also illegal since voters were asked: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?’

The problem was that since Heath had ignored the constitution duties and requirements of Parliament and had signed the entrance documents illegally the words `stay in’ were deceptive. We couldn’t stay in the EEC because, constitutionally, we had never entered. We couldn’t enter the Common Market because Parliament did not have the right to sign away our sovereignty.

The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath’s constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson’s referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued’ membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.)

Attempts through the courts to annul our membership of the European Union on the basis that Parliament acted improperly have failed because Parliament, through its legal sovereignty, is the source of the law in Britain and the courts are, therefore, unable to challenge any Parliamentary Act.

Only Parliament can reclaim the legislative powers that Heath and subsequent Prime Ministers have handed to the European Union.

And so, only when Parliament is filled with honest politicians (not inevitably an oxymoron) who are not controlled by the private party system will the mistake be rectified and our membership annulled.

Britain’s entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty.

Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate.

Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson’s election tactics.) The reward of £35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome.

Because of Heath’s dishonesty we never actually joined the Common Market. And so all the subsequent treaties that were signed were illegal.

Britain’s Treason Act (1351) is (at the time of writing) still in place. It states `that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm’.

And under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if `any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

Our membership of the European Union will mean the end of the United Kingdom. So, since our membership of the European Union will doubtless `deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom’ Britain’s entry into the Common Market, under Edward Heath’s signature, was null and void.

Heath committed an act of treason. He betrayed the Queen and he deliberately misled the British people.

Does any of this really matter to politicians?

Is there any hope that Parliament will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and restore sovereignty to the people? Not in the immediate future.

But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy.

Because, officially, we never joined.

An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club.

Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman’s book OFPIS (for details of how to purchase a copy see the bookshop on this site.)

  1. colliemum says:

    Thanks for blogging this essay by Vernon Coleman.
    It is no wonder that it hasn’t been widely debated – the MSM will still not touch it with a barge pole.

    Very interesting that information about the bribe to Heath, via the ‘granting’ of a Prize.
    I am certain that similar bribes will be afforded the present lot, Cameron first and foremost, if he manages to somehow keep us in the EU.

    I’ll be linking to this blog post, Rog, at every opportunity!

  2. Frederick Colbourne says:

    Yes, my previous remark about the Magna Carta, I will let stand. But I agree the 1689 Bill of Rights is still part of the UK Constitution.

    I would add one point here, the Canadian Constitution and its Charter of Rights is more appropriate for similarities and differences to the UK Constitution, because although it is written it adheres more closely to the unwritten UK Constitution.

    Further, the Canadian Supreme Court has declared that the Canadian written constitution is not the whole Constitution of Canada. There are unwritten principles that are implicit in the written constitution. This rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1928 and 1951 both of which referred to the unwritten Constitution of the UK to derive unwritten rules for the Constitution of Canada.

    You may be interested in knowing that Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377(1608) also established constitutional principles derived from common law, specifically national status within the King’s realms. URL:

    Coke is not an easy read and you have to have an idea of what concepts you are trying to clarify. But it’s a worthwhile labour.

  3. Me_Again says:

    There are a number of problems with the final solution. But first, I don’t doubt for a moment that what he says is true, I have always it thought it odd that the joining of the EU was obviously in contravention of the 1689 Bill of Rights, I even recall Clegg dismissing the bill because it was out of date -as if a law becomes out of date rather than repealed?

    The two things that strike me are these. Sadly her majesty would have been well aware of her obligations since she took the the self same oath in the bill of rights, on her coronation. Even if at that tender age she was not cognizant of what her oath meant, by 1972 she would have had advisers to put her in the picture. I simply cannot believe she is unaware of the illegality of what took place, therefore sadly, I conclude she is an accessory after the fact. Bilderberg jumps into mind at that point.
    Secondly, if we were able through a miracle to achieve the required majority in the house to repeal the communities act as illegal, we should also be giving up our rights to exit the EU in a careful and prepared manner as described under the illegal Lisbon treaty clause 50. This would leave us subject to punitive sanctions of any kind from financial to trade without legal recourse. Without the FTA that comes with clause 50 we would not have automatic right to the single market either.

    The odd thing for me on the face of it has been why we have three parties which are almost clones on the subject of the EU, at least at the top of the tree they’re clones. But if you look into it closely I think you’ll find a careful weeding of rising Eurosceptics has taken place over the decades, from all three old parties. No one since Thatcher has reached the prominence of being Prime Minister and overtly been Eurosceptic. But even Thatcher wasn’t overtly eurosceptic for a start, but she wasn’t of course as controllable by the high up europhiles who’s job was to guide her -Clarke/Heseltine/Howe. She only came to grief BECAUSE of her growing euroscepticism. [Ps I’m no big fan of hers but respected her]. This is easily achieved really by having prominent party Europhiles do the stitching up, and I rather expect it would have had cross party cooperation. There will be serious stichers in each of the three, briefing against eurosceptics will be easy by simply passing the brief to the opposition benches.

    There may be idiots in Brussels but that doesn’t mean that those who want the idiocy of the projekt to continue, are idiots themselves. Agendas within agendas……..

  4. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    I am not qualified to comment on the legality of Heath’s actions, but it is clear that he lied to the electorate and concealed the true implications of membership. Successive prime ministers have carried on this tradition. The integration of our country with the EU has continued mainly by stealth, supported by the MSM, particularly the EU BBC.
    [co-mod: see next comment –Tim]

  5. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    Sorry, the last word in my previous comment should have been ‘BBC’. [corrected –Tim]]

    I have always wondered about the legality of handing over control of our borders without consulting with the electorate.

  6. A C Osborn says:

    The likes of Booker & Delingpole might be persuaded to try and print something about this, but I doubt Booker would have any success with his Editor.

  7. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    I fully understand the sentiment behind the final sentence in the above post and I am not going to argue whether or not it is true. I just wish to point out that the country needs a detailed credible exit plan otherwise all the scare mongers will frighten the public into voting to stay in. That would be the worst possible result, much worse than the present situation where the vote has not yet taken place.

    In other words, avoid a referendum like the plague unless there is a high chance of winning it. I see no plans in place to convince businesses, the ignorant, the genuine ‘don’t knows’ and those who currently believe Mr Cameron.

    Our integration with the EU has proceeded by stealth. The public is generally unaware of the extent to which we are ruled by Brussels and the Government and in particular, the BBC, avoids enlightening the public. Most people are unaware of the ‘competencies’, areas of legislation where the EU has total power over member states. These include trade, agriculture, food, transport, and employment law, to name just a few.

    I am old enough to remember when the MSM in this country reported debates on these matters as bills came up in parliament. Today, there are barely enough proposals within the responsibility of our politicians to produce a Queen’s speech. The MSM does not report the passage of new legislation because it takes place elsewhere and may alert the electorate to the fact that our democratic involvement in legislation is non-existent. This lack of any connection with the policy and law making process is actually the famous “disconnect” that voters feel with respect to politicians.

    The ‘stealth’ tactic has been very successful. when did your MP last tell you that the EU has taken over all major transport policies? Unfortunately, the MSM are to blame as well. Many people regard the EU as being, (yawn), completely irrelevant. Some believe that the UK is not in the EU.

    Most do not appreciate the extent to which the UK has handed powers over to the EU and the extent to which the EU power grab continues relentlessly every day.

    Some politicians, rather worryingly, do not seem to grasp this. Others, like Clegg, really welcome the fact that we are members of a club whose raison d’etre is to become a unified country of Europe.

  8. Richard111 says:

    Interesting post Rog, with very interesting comments. I can only say I left the UK because of Heath and returned because of Thatcher. Now I am old and stuck but I can still shoot. Any offers?

  9. Me_Again says:

    well said Mr Cat

  10. tallbloke says:

    Some well informed comment here. Keep it coming please. We need this debate.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    You really need to understand the history behind what is happening Because like the UK the U.S.A. is running into the same problem. With the USA it is the WTO.

    Read Pascal Lamy, EU bigwig and former WTO Director-General, on the hidden agreement in the 1930s to remove “…the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…” and install a new international order
    “All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.” ~ (wwwDOT)

    And then see what Lamy has to say about the EU as an “Experiment”

    I see four main challenges for global governance today.

    The first one is leadership, i.e. the capacity to embody a vision and inspire action, in order to create momentum….

    The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources, to solve the problems in the international sphere, to bring about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people. The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results… [They really really do not like the idea of National Sovereignty because it gets in the way of what the unelected bureaucrats want.]

    The third one is coherence, for the international system is based on specialization… It is a fact: the UN is not really overarching, assuming this was the initial intention.

    The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy…. I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community… [This is where CAGW and cries of save the environment come in. [They are a means of promoting the legitimacy of an international governing body.]

    There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States. How has this endeavour coped with the challenges I have just outlined?

    In other words the EU, like the Soviet Union was a grand experiment by the internationalists to decide the best way to organize a “new international order” This is why the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed. They decided to pull the plug on that experiment. That is why the UK and others were tricked into joining the EU and why it was originally billed as a TRADE treaty (just like the WTO) This is why Clinton worked like crazy to get China into the WTO. SEE: Clinton’s China Policy

    The USA was protected from the sanctions in the WTO before Congress would agree to ratify the treaty but the bureaucrats immediately acted like the sanctions were in place and used that to move forward the goals of the WTO. (SEE:

    From the Federal Food and Drug Agency in 2008 (They have since changed it.)

    International Harmonization

    The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

    Where does the US Constitution stand on treaties?

    A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    Where the “agents” of the Internationalists are confusing people

         The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations [Note the word nation@ although not explicit, is certainly implied.] The United Nations is an Organization – a Global Corporate Bureaucracy. The ‘experts’ in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders — lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example — have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of ‘treaty-supremacy’ for decades. Their ‘expertise’ is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the ‘common man’ (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let’s not go there.

    Here’s a perfect example of ‘expert’ propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…
    “Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

    Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away. [The reason for attacking the Judeo-Christian Religions and propping up Islam.]

    The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.
    “There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”

    Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.
         The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress.  A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?

    Case Closed
    Source …(wwwDOT)
    [mod: block quoting looks awry, fixed last one only –Tim]

  12. Me_Again says:

    The whole problem with the world government/games without frontiers meme, is that it is credible only when you have studied the EU, our entry into the EU, various discussion groups from the 20’s and 30’s and America’s attempts to do a similar thing to the EU using the north American continent and finally the possibility that America and the EU want to tie up together too -eventually. Not many people do that.

    America’s continued interference with European affairs by way of high level statesmen repeatedly saying that Britain is better off in the EU and Scotland is better off in the UK, is evidence to support the above contentions and suggest that they are continuing their own continental ambitions along with the transatlantic link. The Japanese have also expressed a similar desire but overtly regarding business.

    This global ‘stuff’ would be laudable [even if still not what people want] were it for altruistic reasons, but it isn’t is it? It’s all about money, and making more money, fcuk the serfs.

    Such plans can work only if they stay in the dark corners and carry out their work unobserved by the ants in the colonies. When any ants become aware or make enough noise to threaten the activity of the superior creatures, they are eradicated. So take care people, the moment you start to successfully awaken public awareness to the grand plan -is the time to make sure you life assurance is up to date.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the big lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    So says Dr Joseph Goebbels and he aught to know, the bastard.

    Our only tactic can be to get the people to a state of awareness faster than the state can suppress us. On both sides of the Atlantic people are working tirelessly to undermine our freedom of speech and a variety of other freedoms which will translate into broken heads and accusations of all kinds when the barricades go up. Just look at the distortion of the truth in Ukraine and Syria. These people have no morals and only one objective, to which end they care not a jot how many heads need breaking to achieve it.

  13. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    At the core of such issues is the question of democracy. Everyone knows what it means but most people don’t recognise whether it is working for them or whether they have lost it. As a result, they don’t care, politics and politicians are disliked and apathy takes over.

    However, the symptoms of this process are evident, though the electorate may not realise that their discontent is actually due to the loss of democratic accountability and the loss of control.

    The current concern about uncontrolled immigration is linked directly to EU membership. There is nothing the UK government can do about it. Increasingly, the rules are being made at the global level, but let us leave that aside for the sake of keeping the point simple.

    This example causes frustration and highlights the stupidity of handing over control of our borders to unelected bureaucrats. However, it is one of the very few frustrations where members of the public are aware of the bigger picture. Politicians had to come clean because they are powerless to intervene and their excuses no longer work.

    The free passage of people within the EU is well understood, but most people overlook the fact that our borders are really the EU borders and dilution of our culture and identity is part of the EU plan. The attempt a few years ago to create regions whereby parts of the UK found themselves in the same region as parts of France was just another attempt to kill off the notion of the nation state.

    Even seemingly domestic irritations leave the public frustrated without them ever realising that the EU was at the heart of the issue. Post Office closures and increased postal stamp charges are good examples. The creation of the single European postal market required that all government subsidies had to cease in order to have a level playing field. The market had to be opened up to all of the EU. Royal mail had to give up the lucrative B2B sector and was left with the declining domestic consumer market that uses postage stamps.

    Transport is an EU competency and the same is happening there. The single European railway market is being created with common rules for everything from safety to drivers’ training. The UK is well advanced in dancing to the EU demands. Again, as a precursor to spreading the commercial involvement to all EU members, government subsidies must cease. This is why the fares increase every year.

    The public complain about the consequences of these events. Their complaints fall on deaf ears. The other political parties are silent, there is no choice. These things did not appear in party manifestos, they just appeared. These things add to the general discontent and the political elite and Europhile press take care not to enlighten the public that control of these matters lies outside of the UK and beyond our democratic reach.

    Automatic vehicle monitoring, automatic speed limitation to road speed limit are aspects of the EU transport policy that have been leaked. “We will not accept that”, claimed the Transport Minister while his civil servants were busy adding road speed limit data to the GPS EU roadmap database.

    The point I am trying to make is that democracy is about control and the more the citizen can influence decisions, the better. The EU has been designed to be a country whereby the political elite are not inconvenienced by having to bother about the wishes of the electorate. We are now experiencing the consequences of that, but after many decades of integration by stealth, the majority of the voters are completely ignorant about it and our political class and the MSM aim to keep it that way.

    The horsemeat scandal made headlines for weeks but politicians and the MSM managed to avoid mentioning that food safety is the exclusive responsibility of the EU and it is illegal for member states to interfere. The same is true of the breast implants scandal, product safety is an EU competence and the UK is not even allowed to analyse the products.

    The key issue is awareness. The voters need to understand that their democratic rights have been taken away. They have no say in these matters. The blame does not lie with the EU, which has no end of websites that explain all about the competences with detailed policies and plans for all to see.

    Our politicians and the useless BBC and press take care not to inform us. The EU is boring and the public would rather watch Coronation Street and moan about the increase in train fares during the adverts than discover what happened to our democratic rights.

  14. Me_Again says:

    Well said Mr Cat.

  15. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    I suspect that the ability of local government, unelected quangos and national government to squander huge sums of taxpayers’ money without any fear of the consequences is a fairly good measure of the lack of democratic accountability and control.

    In my view, the waste of our money has rocketed in recent years.

  16. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    External governments and global businesses have a loud voice when it comes to expressing opinions about whether or not we should stay in the EU, etc.

    These opinions are based purely on self interest. When our democracy is at stake, there is only one correct answer and that is to get out. Everything else flows from that.

    Big business likes the EU. The free movement of people and assets allows them to avoid paying tax in the countries where they make the most profit. They have no loyalty to anyone. This is why any exit plan needs to create opportunities for these businesses while making sure they don’t rip us off.

    Remember that the same people told us that our economy would collapse if we didn’t join the Euro.

  17. jeremyp99 says:

    If you want the full gory story of how generations of politicians have lied to us about the EU, I highly recommend Christopher Booker and Richard North’s “The Great Deception”. Civitas also have some excellent shorter publications dissecting the lioes made by the political classes regarding the EU.*Version*=1&*entries*=0

  18. jeremyp99 says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says:
    June 18, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    Big business likes the EU.
    Of course they do – the EU’s regulatory obsession always favours large corporations. Witness their current attempts to close down independent plant seed retailers.



    for lots on this (no quotes needed)

  19. JohnM says:

    Commence reading. This has already been well-covered, and planned:

  20. tallbloke says:

    JP99: I covered the seed regulation story here a year ago:

    John M: Richard North certainly understands the sovereignty issue, but prefers an article 50 negotiation route to an EFTA position in the interim.

  21. Gail Combs says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says….
    Nice summing up. The EU is the blue print for the WTO.

    The USA just got saddled with the “Food Safety Modernization Act” This “Harmonizes” our food safety regs with international reg. Compliance with WTO even make it as a one liner in the law.

    I won’t go into the details, however I produced a bar chart similar to the CDCs (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) Fig 1: Number of reported foodborne-disease outbreaks 1993-2002 in – (wwwDOT) ,back in 2000. I gave it to a group who used it in a presentation to Congress. It was only AFTER that presentation that CDC trotted out the “Enhanced Surveillance” propaganda to cover-up what was actually happening to our food supply.

    If the state requires you to file taxes does it matter whether or not you file them in paper form or file them electronically? Will the % compliance really change that much because the method of reporting changed?

    The “Enhanced Surveillance” propaganda, is used to cover-up the switch from the original US law requiring actually hands on inspection and testing by the USDA to the “new improved” international HACCP regs that turn food safety over to the International Ag Cartel members the new rules relegate government inspectors to only inspecting corporate paperwork not food.

    For more on international HACCP (you are stuck with it too in the UK) see: HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns
    For the actual results of HACCP implementation in the USA and the REAL CAUSE of the doubling of US food Borne disease a year after the switch, SEE: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

  22. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke says: @ June 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    JP99: I covered the seed regulation story here a year ago…
    Actually that and livestock regs is where I entered stage right many years ago. The CAGW fight came after we lost the fight for the right to farm.

    As far as the EU Plant/seed Law That has been around for quite a while.

    …Dig,dig,dig…. Found it: (some links are over a decade old)

    1991 PVP monopoly has applied to seed multiplication and also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. Previously unlimited right of farmers to save seed for the following year’s planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if national government allows, can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm.

    May, 2003, the European Patent Office in Munich granted a patent to Monsanto with the number EP 445929, with the simple title “plants”, even though plants are not patentable in European Law. (wwwDOT)

    January 30, 2004, Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9, “to defend the agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.” USDA’s Jeremy Stump, says, “It’s from farm to fork.” The order covers animals and crops – the entire food supply chain – and includes shared operations with the CIA. (wwwDOT)

    December 2006 “In the EU, there is now a list of ‘official’ vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be ‘sold’ to the ‘public’ To keep something on the list costs thousands of pounds each year…Hundreds of thousands of old heirloom varieties (the results of about eleven thousand years of plant breeding by our ancestors) are being lost forever . (wwwDOT)

    Feb 2007 GRAIN press release USA: Seed companies want to ban farm-saved seeds
    A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year’s planting. See History at (wwwDOT)

  23. tallbloke says:

    Gail: Thanks! you are truly encyclopaedic.

  24. Sleepalot says:

    Heath’s treason was done when he repealed the Statute of Praemunire in the 1967 Criminal Law Act –

    in that he “compassed the death of the Sovereign” by removing Her Majesty’s sovereignty.

    The Statute of Praemunire was the Act that invested sovereignty in the Monarch, ie, by stating
    that no subject could be summoned before a foreign court, it made the King’s Court (Parliament)
    the supreme court in the land.

    _That’s what “sovereignty” is: the power to make, and enforce, the rules ._

  25. suricat says:

    If I read this corectly. Ted Heath devolved sovereignty from the Ruling Monarch to the Plebs, then denied the Plebs the right to a Plebicite before using Parliament’s Plebacitic Power to pass the laws that he wanted. That would make him a President without a Congress (the House of Lords was previousely imasculated)! Wouldn’t it?

    Though I’m not quallified to say so, THIS LOOKS LIKE HORSE-PLAY with the voice of the British (Scots, Welsh, N. Irish, Cornish and ‘English’ (Angles, Saxons and other imported populations) people [Plebs])! I’m not surprised that there’s a hint of Devolution in the air!

    I’ve always considdered England to be synonymous with Britain, but the EU seems to be making British Provinces from our ‘British’ collective. I find this unacceptable and I blame more than two Parliamentary parties for this.

    We have more than two parties competing for Government during a General Election, but the employment of a ‘first past the post’ system for vote counting statistically can’t return a ‘true result’ for more than ‘two parties’!

    Using this system with more than two electable Government parties can result in the party with the highest overall vote count not winning a single seat (statistically) in Parliament. This is ‘so wrong’ for a United State of Britain!

    Best regards, Ray.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Sleepalot: “_That’s what “sovereignty” is: the power to make, and enforce, the rules ._”

    Partly, but this doesn’t mean sovereignty resides in Parliament or the Crown. Ultimately, the Crown is subject to parliament, and Parliament is subject to the will of the people, who may exercise their right to dispose of it (by armed rebellion if necessary according to the original Magna Carta) if parliament infringes the commoners natural rights to freedom.


  27. jeremyp99 says:

    Tallbloke (me too, I’m 6’6″!) – I gather the EU plans on seed control were kicked out (according to realseeds, referenced above), which is good news – but MegaCorp will be back on that account for sure. Mr. North – well, I think I’m with him on that, though I wish he’d get over his hissy fit about his Brexit paper being rejected!

  28. tallbloke says:

    JP99: I can only take Dr North in small doses, so I didn’t read about what happened with the IEA prize competition. Why was Flexcit ‘rejected’?

  29. jeremyp99 says:

    I didn’t get that far, as the hissy fit was extreme! I’m the same – he’s a good guy doing good work but I think has become somewhat OCD about it.

  30. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    As discussed above, the UN and its various agencies are now doing a big takeover, which really makes the EU redundant. The Europhiles claim that you have to be in the EU to be at the decision making meetings of the single market.

    The single market is now part of the global market and the decision making has moved to a higher level. Countries like Norway and Iceland have places at the negotiating table. The UK is not invited. The UK is represented by the EU. Bearing in mind that the UK is one out of 28 countries, there is no guarantee that the EU negotiates anything that may be in the interests of the UK.

    I should point out, in view of earlier comments, that I get a fair amount of information from Richard North’s blog. However, as a dedicated Eurosceptic since before the EU existed, I have my own views too.

    One view I would like to state before this thread becomes history is that I do not support a referendum on EU membership any time soon. We would lose.

    A “stay in” vote is much, much worse than the current situation. It would be seized as a blank cheque for the Europhiles to indulge in their greatest fantasies with assumed electorate support.

    The current situation whereby politicians are wary of further blatant handovers of power because of the perceived public anti-EU mood is actually more secure.

    The public are very ignorant and very fickle when it comes to Europe.

    I know that I shall be written off as a pompous git but the truth is that many people don’t care and don’t know much about the political scene. Some people don’t seem to know that we are part of the EU. Many people have no idea about how much the EU determines our way of life. Many people have no idea about the EU competences which overrule any views we may have. Most people are guided by what the BBC and the Government tell them. Both of these organisations will tell them to remain within the EU. So will the various trades unions. So will all of the MSM as far as I can tell. So will most of small businesses. So will most of medium size businesses. So will most of large businesses. So will the USA, all European nations, Japan, the Chinese, and almost everyone else in the world.

    How do you rate our chances of a ‘No’ vote, and why? We will lose, no question.

    How can we ever win?

    Number 1: Tell the people how much we are governed by Europe.
    Number 2: Demonstrate that the EU is hell bent on federalism.
    Number 3: Have a credible exit plan that addresses all fears and provides significant opportunities.
    Number 4: Provide credible leadership to implement all of these.

    I don’t think we are in a position to proceed.

  31. Me_Again says:

    Mr Cat, good points well made.
    I think one of the problems is our perception that the federalists are almost at the winning post and therefore we rush to a referendum which we may or may not win.

    Dan Hannan is fond of quoting ‘The hideous might of the EU propaganda machine will bear down on us’, he’s probably right as are you.

    The problem is that I don’t think we have a choice but to go for it. Heads I win, Tails you lose.
    I would agree with your conclusion BUT I think events have made an appearance this time. I think the massive vote against the EU was a shocker to them. BUT they won’t change. It might just be that as we debate that, the sleeping dragon awakes.

    I can only hope. It has been lonely for quite some time beating this drum BUT despite meeting very, very few people in the last 6 years who endorse the EU, of late I have seen a change on a larger scale.

    I have hope.

  32. ren says:

    Dangerous rainfall in south-east Europe.

  33. Gail Combs says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says:

    …I know that I shall be written off as a pompous git but the truth is that many people don’t care and don’t know much about the political scene. Some people don’t seem to know that we are part of the EU. Many people have no idea about how much the EU determines our way of life. Many people have no idea about the EU competences which overrule any views we may have. Most people are guided by what the BBC and the Government tell them….

    Very Very TRUE!

    It goes for the USA and the World Trade Organization too. This is from an old essay by F. William Engdahl who has been tracking this stuff for twenty years.

    The WTO and the Politics of GMO

    …Who controls WTO?

    Almost never does someone ask ‘who really controls the WTO?’ The question is of utmost importance for the future of global food security.

    The essential control of WTO decisions, decisions which have the full power of international law and can force governments to repeal local laws for health, safety and such if WTO claims it prevents the free trade of GMO products, that power is held by private interests, by a global US-centered agribusiness cartel…. [All my research shows this to be true -GC]

    The four WTO controlling countries, known as the QUAD countries, are USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. In the QUAD, in turn, the giant agri-business multinationals exercise controlling influence, most clearly in Washington.

    Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge another’s laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers.

    The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. Incredibly, the names of the judges are kept secret! Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power.

    The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO’s. One of the most influential in creating the WTO in the first place was an organization called the IPC or the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council or International Policy Council, for short.

    The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. The IPC demands removal of ‘high tariff’ barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA….

    What is very interesting about this is the USA used to have the right to a trial by jury for any civil action over $20 and all criminal actions. Now if you violate an FDA, USDA, EPA or any other bureaucratic regulation “a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats” within the department that wrote the regulation determines your guilt. This can result in prison terms and multi-million dollar fines without any jury trial!

    The Supreme Court has re-interpreted the 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 which gave US citizens the right to a trial. Note that this re-interpretation again was done in the 1930s when Pascal Lamy said the decision was made to get rid of National Sovereignty.

    The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission [of trial by jury in civil matters] by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,”

    The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases.

    In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

    ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter,

    “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

  34. Gail Combs says:

    This is what the Amendment actually said:

    “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….” ~ Amendment VII

    Pretty darn clear isn’t it?

    So why would the Politicos want to remove US citizens RIGHT to a jury trial?

    That brings us to another well hidden part of US law.
    US citizens as jurors have the RIGHT and duty to judge not only the case by the LAW itself. We as Jurors CAN set aside laws passed by Congress! It is called Jury nullification and is referred to as Case Law.

    This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite really want to keep it hidden.

    On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose– became part of British constitutional law.

    It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system’s best kept secrets.

    Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous…
    FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

    Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case…… [/ex]

    FIJA = Fully Informed Jury Association

  35. Guy Ropes says:

    I’m glad I found your site Tall bloke. What you see depends on where you stand. A tall bloke should be able to (and I’m sure does) see more. Jefferson, unfortunately, was wrong. If the Government itself is corrupt then a jury trial is no anchor. Today we have heard of the death of Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four, who was shamefully convicted and imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit. If anyone has evidence that things have changed in the UK it would be good to hear from them. As a newcomer to your site, may I ask if you have ever questioned the fate of the Berlin Wall? Did it fall or was it pushed? This is probably old hat but I’ve not heard it debated. The only obstruction to the EU’s eastward push was the wall. The clinical assassination of a particularly prominent German a short time afterwards was seemingly never linked or examined. If this thin theory has ever been shot down by commentators cleverer than me, I would be grateful for directions to their conclusions. Refreshing reads, thanks.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Evening Guy, and welcome to the talkshop. I have to confess ignorance; who was the ‘prominent German’ you speak of? Most of the East German’s were heartily sick of their socialist experiment (or so we’re told), and the West Germans wanted the reunification of the nation as a final renormalisation of the country’s international standing. Tell us more.

  37. Me_Again says:

    I’d be interested to review the evidence against Conlon again. Like that idiot shot by the police which then kicked off the London riots, he was no innocent. Because the court of appeal overturned his conviction does not make him innocent. That the plod at the time were into the business of getting the evidence to fit the criminal does not mean their instincts were wrong, it just means their methods were sloppy.

  38. Me_Again says:

    They are still paying for that reunification all these later which is why they are so reluctant to consider a continued transfer of money from Germany to the PIIGS. They know how a transfer union works and are still being squeezed by the old ‘osti’ states.

  39. Guy Ropes says:

    I don’t claim to have investigated this in depth – I’m certainly no expert as you will find out. I’m anti- EU and the thought crossed my mind one day (about 4 years ago) that the wall was what was stopping the EU’s eastward expansion. If it fell, the ‘project’ could continue on it’s merry way (and has). So did it fall or was it pushed? Was there an alternative ‘reason’ than that generally accepted? Russia was pot-less at the time and in need of dosh. The head of Deutschebank was in favour of giving money to Moscow. Others weren’t. A short time after the wall fell, said ‘head’ was travelling in convoy in an armour plated vehicle with escorts front and back when his car, and his car alone was blown up by a precision device. Dead needless to say. (His legs were severed by the shrapnel which the explosion manufactured and which sliced through the armour plating). The Red Army Faction was initially blamed but things came to nil. BTW he was a Bilderburger to boot. I’ve just learnt the last few bits by searching the net and Wikipedia has a section on it. The guy’s name was Alfred Herrhausen. He had to have upset someone quite badly to say the least! Happy solstice.

  40. Guy Ropes says:

    Hi Me Again, to hear Conlon speak at length was to believe him. His book was pretty convincing too. So, with the benefit of hindsight and much research by several worthies including MPs, was the appeal wrong to release the “conspirators”? Conlon claimed that in his police cell he was shown a letter purportedly coming from Downing Street and addressed to Police which allowed them to do exactly whatever they wanted as long as they got ‘a result’.

  41. Gail Combs says:

    Guy Ropes says:

    “…. I’m anti- EU and the thought crossed my mind one day (about 4 years ago) that the wall was what was stopping the EU’s eastward expansion. If it fell, the ‘project’ could continue on it’s merry way (and has)…. “

    I have no real evidence just bits and pieces and glimpses. But it looks to me as if the Soviet Union and the EU were both set up by the same group (The International Bankers) to see which method was best for ruling the serfs.

    The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was funded by the bankers link and some ( David Irving) say Winston Churchill who called for an EU in 1946 was also working for the Bankers (a group called The Focus). Former Prime Minister Tony Blair certainly works for J. P. Morgan to the tune of to £2 million. link

    Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton’s professor and Mentor. Tony Blair and Clinton are part of a think tank pushing the head of the Fabian Founded London School of Economics reconstituted “Third Way” (New name for fascism)

    The Anglo-American Establishment
    by Carroll Quigley

    One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.
    The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire-builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.
    … the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members. The plan of organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.” Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a “Junta of Three.” The leader was to be Rhodes, and the junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Miler. In accordance with this decision, Miter was added to the society by Stead …

    With the death of Rhodes in 1902, Milner obtained control of Rhodes’s money and was able to use it to lubricate the workings of his propaganda machine. This is exactly as Rhodes had wanted and had intended….

    Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
    by Anthony C. Sutton

    [The] build-up for European war [WWII] both before and after 1933 was in great part due to Wall Street financial assistance in the 1920s to create the German cartel system, and to technical assistance from well-known American firms … to build the German Wehrmach.
    … The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal.
    [The] interplay of ideas and cooperation between Hjalmar Schacht [Hitler’s financial advisor] in Germany and, through Owen Young, the J. P. Morgan interests in New York, was only one facet of a vast and ambitious system of cooperation and international alliance for world control. As described by Carroll Quigley, this system was “… nothing less than to create a world system of financial control, in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”
    This feudal system worked in the 1920s, as it works today, through the medium of the private central bankers in each country who control the national money supply of individual economies. In the 1920s and 1930s, the New York Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, the Reichsbank in Germany, and the Banque de France also more or less influenced the political apparatus of their respective countries indirectly through control of the money supply and creation of the monetary environment. More direct influence was realized by supplying political funds to, or withdrawing support from, politicians and political parties in the United States, for example, President Herbert Hoover blamed his 1932 defeat on withdrawal of support by Wall Street and the switch of Wall Street finance and influence to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
    Politicians amenable to the objectives of financial capitalism, and academics prolific with ideas for world control useful to the international bankers, are kept in line with a system of rewards and penalties. In the early 1930s the guiding vehicle for this international system of financial and political control, called by Quigley the “apex of the system,” was the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland. The B.I.S. apex continued its work during World War II as the medium through which the bankers – who apparently were not at war with each other – continued a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, information, and planning for the post-war world….

    There are many other bits and pieces that give a glimpse behind the curtain and the scenery is not nice. Serfdom if we are lucky, slavery if we are not.

    No matter what else, you can be sure the Elite hate and fear the middle class and want to eliminate it.

  42. Me_Again says:

    Very interesting post Guy. This bit is particularly relevant to our politicians and the EU.

    “Politicians amenable to the objectives of financial capitalism, and academics prolific with ideas for world control useful to the international bankers, are kept in line with a system of rewards and penalties.”

    It does rather explain why, in defence of the indefencible, they all start to sound the same. It explains why otherwise apparently intelligent people come out with such rubbish, they have another agenda.

    The only question is how long can Nigel resist them or has he already been built into the equation?
    Maybe the dire consequences of EUEXIT for us are the hidden consequence? Pull the money plug?

    I would argue though that in the short to medium term BREXIT could actually be better for the bankers. It would give them a platform at the edge of the abyss from which to observe their experiment and a vehicle for investment into the rest of Europe.

    The worst thong about such manipulation is that it shows how puny our efforts are…………..

  43. Guy Ropes says:

    If Nigel hasn’t yet been built in, then we can assume that attempts will soon be made to do so. But he’s still in a minority over there, even now, so they probably don’t see him as too dangerous yet. If UKIP make inroads next year then that, of course, will be a different matter. I have mixed emotions over UKIP. I’ve been involved for over 12 years and, good heavens, they’ve missed some open goals in that time but after attending the Marsham Street meeting, SW1 just before the last polls, it was at last clear that they’d introduced, behind the scenes, someone who had an understanding of production values. I attended with a dyed in the wool socialist who was on his feet cheering half way thro’ the evening with the rest of us. It was a very effective show and my pal admitted as much. Contrast that to the Michael Meacher SW1 committee room meeting I went to last week where all was doom and gloom. Interesting times.

  44. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    It doesn’t matter whether they conned us into joining the EU. We are in, whether we like it or not.

    The bottom line is this: “Do we want our laws to be decided by unelected bureaucrats in Europe or do we want to retain some democratic control over the people who make our laws?

  45. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The public are fickle, but it swings both ways. The next big thing in the EU is likely to be another power grab within the Eurozone. It will be another step towards federalism.

    The big question is whether they can sneak it through within existing treaties or whether they have to amend or create new treaties. They want to avoid the latter at all costs because it involves democracy which is alien to the EU culture.

    I am not proposing that such events will offer an opportunity for the UK to negotiate a better deal for the UK. That will be the spin put on the situation by Europhiles.

    The step towards more federalism is a clear justification for UK withdrawal from the EU.

    These are the two possibilities. Try to fudge UK subservience to EU control via cosmetic concessions or view the increase in federalism as the last straw for membership.

    We know which option Mr Cameron will favour.

    Provided the options are made extremely clear to the electorate (and that would be a first) there is a possibility that a vote to leave the EU could be secured.

  46. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    Finally, and I promise to stop after this, has anyone noticed that climate sceptics seem to be eurosceptics as well?

  47. tallbloke says:

    SC: Good points, and yes, there do seem to be many climate sceptics among the eurosceptics and vise versa. I think it’s because both groups are composed of people who think for themselves and weigh the arguments and evidence in the balance.

  48. Gail Combs says:

    Agreed Talkbloke. And so do others who have studied the subject.

    The US electroate was dumbed down intentionally and they are now making it international – aka Common Core. Robin who posts at WUWT has a website called Invisible Serfs Collar, devoted to Common Core. He is a lawyer and has been reading all the documents. One of his relevant essays: Collecting Student Data to Practice PsychoPolitics on a Massive but Invisible Scale without Consent

    Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld wrote this very important essay:

    Dumbing Down America

    I am often asked to name those educators responsible for the change in primary reading instruction which has led to the decline of literacy in America. People ask this because by the time they understand the history of the reading problem and of the dumbing down process that has been going on in our public schools for the past forty years, they recognize that all of this is not the result of a series of accidents but of conscious, deliberate decisions made by our educational leaders.

    After twenty-five years of research, I can state with complete confidence that the prime mover in all of theis was none other than John Dewey who is usually characterized as the father of progressive education….

    In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children.

    Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

    In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:

    When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.

    When the social quaility of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life. It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-inclosed continent. intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else.

    And he wrote in School and Society in 1899:

    The tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting …

    The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of merely learning, there is no clear social gain in success threat.

    ….And so, high literacy had to go….

    The ultimate goal of the elite is a society composed of dumb serfs. Since John Dewey’s method hasn’t worked. And flooding the decent schools with little inner city drug pushers (aka busing) hasn’t worked. The final try is singling out the gifted students at an early age. Labeling them ADHD because they are bored out of their minds and forcibly drugging them with drugs that cause permanent brain damage or other problems.

    I won’t go into a long post on the drugging of our children. You can read one of my comments on the subject here:

  49. Gail Combs says:

    I probably should point out my area of interest over the last couple of decades has been:
    1. Why is the greatest civilization that mankind has created trying to implode. [Sabotage]

    2. Is the implosion by chance or is it deliberate. [Deliberate]

    3. If it is deliberate, who is behind it. [A group of wealthy bankers/industrialists who think they can run the world better than the Great Unwashed can and who fear and hate the challenge from the middle class.]

    4.How long have the plans been in the making. [Since the 1800s at least.]

  50. […] Vernon Coleman: Was Britain taken into the EU illegally? […]

  51. […] Vernon Coleman: Was Britain taken into the EU illegally? […]