Copyright © 2015 - 18 euexit.com. All rights reserved.

13th November 2018

Occupation without Force

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso (2008) commenting after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (2007)  stated:

  • "We have the dimension of empires, but there is a great difference. The empires were usually made through force, with a centre that was imposing a diktat, a will on the others, and now we have what some authors call the first non-imperial empire. "


It is true that, thus far, military force has not yet been used in order to compel the individual Member States to give up their independence, but neither has it been done by popular consent - certainly in the UK, whose population were assured that their sovereignty had not been compromised by entry into the European Economic Community (1972) during the 1975 Referendum on the Common Market - and that myth has been perpetuated ever since - we explore the reasons for that deception and how it came about. When it comes to diktats from the "centre" though - they come thick and fast.

Background
According to the parliament.uk website (Into Europe: Import and Export, Into Europe):

"In the 1950's Britain enjoyed strong trading relationships with Commonwealth countries, but there was a much feeling that the nation's trading relationships should be more fully developed in Europe'"

Towards the end of the 1950's Britain's trade was declining compared to other European countries in the recently formed - Treaty of Rome, (1957) - "Common Market" - Free Trade Area and Britain applied to join the European Economic Area (EEC) but it was rejected in 1960. A second attempt to join took place in 1967 and negotiations began in October 1970. The initial rejection was by France under Charles de Gaulle; but he was replaced by George Pompidou, and in the UK, McMillan was replaced by Edward Heath

The Treaty of Accession into the EEC was debated in the House of Commons during 1972 and we take a snapshot of the debate covering, admittedly a very short part of the debate on Clause 2 of the European Communities Bill against the backdrop of public opinion at the time: 

"Domestic opinion was strongly against membership and there was strong concern over whether the terms negotiated were good enough for Britain."

The Treaty was subsequently signed by Edward Heath in Brussels on the 22nd of January 1972 - which signed Britain up to accepting all previous EEC regulations, the Treaty of Rome and the terms of entry - the Treaty came into effect on the 1st January 1973. Following the creation of the European Union (EU) in the Maastricht Treaty (1992) the terms of Britain's entry into the EU were written into the European Communities (Amendment) Act (1993) and came into effect in November 1993 following Parliamentary approval.


The Initial Deception
In January 2001 the Public Record Office at Kew opened the files relating to Edward Heath’s application to join the Common Market in 1970.


The first part of this article refers to research by Christopher Booker - based upon these, previously secret, Foreign Office documents,  which were published in 2001, after 30 years under wraps. (see Britain and Europe: The Culture of Deceit by Christopher Booker - https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/899-britain-and-europe-the-culture-of-deceit)


These included FCO:30/1048 and a number of other, related documents; one in particular, the Werner Report was of particular interest:


"The Werner plan for the "Common Market" could lead to “the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)"


The Werner plan had been commissioned by the Council of Ministers in 1969 to propose the future direction and development of the Common Market, and it was publicly available, though not widely circulated. "Privately, Her Majesty’s Government had no objection to the political union Werner was proposing. (PRO/CAB 164/771)" but they were concerned that it might inflame public opinion. (The EU was being discussed within the Common Market at least as early as 1969)


Basically, our politicians were generally aware, before 1970, at least, that the "Common Market" would likely develop intoa European Federal State, but they did not want the British people to know what was planned, and so began a systematic deception upon the population of the UK - where the majority of our elected representatives and Civil Servants have, ever since the 1st of January 1973, been working, not for the interests of their electorate, but to further the aims of Britain's enemies in Europe.


In fact, the British government (under Harold MacMillan) was aware of the plans for the Common Market even before the signing of the Treaty of Rome (1957) which were:

  • “to achieve tighter European integration through the creation of European institutions with supranational powers, beginning in the economic field … the underlying motive of the Six is, however, essentially political”. (PRO/FO 371/150360. Bell op.cit. p.1) - (see Short EU summary)


Lord Kilmuir's response to Heath - in 1960 Edward Heath asked the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir  what the constitutional implications of signing the Treaty (of Rome)  and the response was that :

  • "..in several respects the loss of sovereignty would be considerable: by Parliament; by the Crown in terms of treaty-making powers; and by the courts, which to an extent would become “subordinate” to the European Court of Justice (PRO/FO 371/150369, Bell pp.36-9)"


  • “...the Council of Ministers would eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes …" - (Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) came into force in 2014)


  • “I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”. - (as the British public have recently discovered)


In 1961, MacMillan discussed  whether or not to join the "Common Market" with his Cabinet with the following opening line:

  • "if we were to sign the Treaty of Rome we should have to accept its political objectives, and although we should be able to influence the political outcome we did not know what this would be.”(Bell pp.59-62)


The above comments and statements leave no doubt about the implications for Britain of joining the "Common Market" - In the event Britain"s application was vetoed by Charles de Gaulle.


Heath gives away our Fisheries

"On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six (the original group - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany) hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given “equal access” to each other’s fishing waters, under Brussels control. (bracket added)"


"...the Heath Government’s response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of their price of entry, the four applicant countries, Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the Community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. (all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO 30/656-9)" (After Booker)


Booker's research continues to elucidate how the Fisheries giveaway was illegal, but Heath did not challenge the Six and went on to deceive the British Fishermen, Parliament and the British public:

  • Geoffrey Rippon, when questioned "...claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply not true. So barefaced was this deceit over fishing rights that successive governments and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth of what had been done for the next three decades.


Thus developed the environment of deceit which pervades our political system; from the lowest Civil Servant to the Prime Minister as a result of joining the "Common Market"; regarding all matters that relate to our relationship with Brussels.


We see parallels in the behaviour of our Political class repeated during each attempt to bring about further integration into a new German Hegemony in Europe; including the present time with the disreputable "Merkel - May" (Chequers) plan to keep the people of Britain under German control.


Little wonder that Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO:30/1048) and associated documents were secured under the 30 year secrecy rule - in order to entrap the populations of the Britain in the latest attempt to rule over Europe - without them realising what their elected representatives were selling them out behind their backs.


Debates in Parliament 1972

The following represents a single snapshot of the debate that were taking place in the House of Commons 14th June 1972)


Mr Peter Shore (Stepney) on Clause 2: (HC Deb 14 June 1972 vol 838 cc1510-607 1541)

  • "First, I emphasise what is apparent to all—the formidable nature of the rights and powers that the European institutions will acquire, if we pass this Clause, in relation to Britain and the British people. Over the whole area covered by the treaties—perhaps we do not need to be reminded that we are talking not just about the Rome, Paris and Luxembourg Treaties but also about the hundred other treaties which have proliferated in the life of the Communities—Britain will in effect cease to be self-governing. The power to make law, the power to raise taxes and to spend money, will have passed out of the control of Parliament and of the people whom we represent.


  • "Just how completely this transfer will be effected is made all too clear in subsection (1). Not only must we import, without discussion and without any ability to amend, the output of these twelve years of Community legislation, but henceforth, in relation not just to the thousand regulations which already exist but to the tens of thousands which are yet to come, the representatives of the British people will have no legislative function whatsoever. We cannot make them, we cannot amend them, we cannot repeal them. We will simply be notified, in the official journals of the Community, that they exist."


  • "Further, under subsections (1) and (3), the Community acquires the right to tax the British people, in particular to take the proceeds of the new levies on our imported food and the whole of our Customs duties and up to a one per cent. value added tax. These sums, which will total anything from £500 million to £700 million a year will not belong to us at all. They will become part of the "own resources" of the Communities and they will "flow", as the Treasury Ministers have told us, directly from the British people to the European institutions, and this House will have no power to alter or to stop the flow or to decide on what these large sums will be spent."


Opposition Response

The opposition response to these comments about sovereignty were countered by their claims that sovereignty is not lost - only shared as we do with other organisations. Except that no other organisation can do what is being described by Peter Shore - take primacy over our Domestic and International Laws as Lord Kilmuir pointed out. Nor is it the intention of other organisations we have joined, WTO, NATO for example to control every aspect of the lives of the populations of Europe - as was proposed even as early as the 1950's and 60's as the projected version of  the "Common Market" as a political  union.


Prior to the vote on Clause 2  Mr Shore said:

  • "We are voting today not simply or even primarily about whether we should join the European Communities on the terms so disastrously negotiated. We are voting as well about whether we shall continue to be a Parliament worthy of the name."The result of the vote: Ayes 296, Noes 288. (Majority  8)"


European Communities Act (1972)

The voting for the European Communities Bill itself was carried 301 to 284 (Majority 17) on the 13th July 1972; it received Royal Assent on the 17th October 1972 and came into effect on the 1st January 1973. (Clearly there need to be Parliamentary rules to prevent small majorities carrying such important Bills) 


1975 Common Market Referendum - the Deception continues

In 1975 Harold Wilson called a Referendum on Britain's continued membership of the Common Market and one of the main concerns related to whether or not Britain's Sovereignty was at risk by remaining in the EEC.


Regarding British sovereignty; the 1975 Referendum pamphlet contained the following comment:


"WILL PARLIAMENT LOSE ITS POWER?"


and the answer


"This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union ... as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law."
Judge Bruce Morgan, judgement in Sunderland metrication case April 9, 2001


But it wasn't the people who surrendered their sovereignty in 1973 - they were never asked. What happened was that their elected representatives took the sovereignty of the people and held it hostage on behalf of the EEC(EU) -  Clause 2 can be repealed on exit day; but Mrs May is doing her best to ensure that is never reached. Our country has been occupied (without force) by the EU through collusion and deception of our own elected representative - EU collaborators.


Home