“It is impossible for Britain to accept the principle, that the most economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody”

Clement Attlee, 1950


“Europe's nations should be guided towards a 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 a federation.”

Jean Monet, (a founder of the EU)





The establishment political parties of the UK cannot be trusted on sovereignty, immigration, or anything else.


The nation wakes up

“Now everything is different. In the past twelve months, like a heavy sleeper roused at last by an insistent alarm bell, the British have woken up and got to their feet. They have rubbed their eyes and cleared their throats and got ready to speak, to give their answer. It is as though with one accord, they had said one to another: ‘This is not a little thing, but a great business: we will decide it ― no one else’.”
These words could easily have been spoken in the past few weeks or as the results of the Brexit referendum became clear, but they were not. These are the words of the much maligned politician, Enoch Powell, in a speech in Doncaster in June 1971 at the time of Britain’s entry into the EEC. The parallels between then and now are uncanny and comparisons are worth making.

Brexit was predictable. Speaking in Northern Ireland in January 1971, Enoch Powell said this:
“That is the question. That is the real debate is about. In this, each must speak for himself. For myself, I say that to me it is inconceivable that the people of this nation could or would so identify themselves politically with the people of the continent of western Europe to form with them on entity and in effect one nation.”

No referendum was held under prime minister Edward Heath when Britain agreed to the accession treaty in 1972. Under the premiership of Harold Wilson, a referendum after fresh negotiations was called in April 1975 and held on the 5th June. On the right, and the left of the Labour party there were those who opposed staying in. The mood of this group was well captured by Barbara Castle’s memorable words during the campaign: “They lured us into the market with the mirage of the market miracle.” The remainers won.

Recovering our sovereignty

Initially in 1961-62, Powell was not an opponent of British membership of the European Economic Community as the EU was called then. Only as time passed and he saw that something very different from a free trade area was envisaged, only then did he see that in his first assessment he had been grossly mistaken. In the same speech in Northern Ireland he said,
“The European Economic Community, despite its name, is political; and the question of British membership is a political question.”
He went on to forecast the introduction of the Euro and the ERM.
“There has to be in effect one currency for the whole Community, whether it is a new common currency or whether the existing currencies become automatically interchangeable at permanently fixed rates.”
Political union was from the outset the stated aim of the Treaty of Rome and Powell speaking in Smethwick, West Midlands in September, 1969, he made clear that he understood this.
“The precondition for any political unity is the subordination of the parts to the whole. Short of force, this can only come about through a settled, deep instinctive conviction felt by those concerned that they belong first and foremost to the whole and that its interests override those of the parts. Unless and until this conviction exists, democratic or representative institutions are unworkable. On the other hand, without such institutions, the acts of sovereignty which a political unit must perform on behalf of all its members and which must bind all its members, would be intolerable and unacceptable.”
These insights should have served as a warning against ever being a part of this now utterly discredited and failing monster.

Not to be trusted

The European Union is charged by Brexetiers today in the mainstream parties with undermining our parliamentary democracy and sovereignty. However, when they speak of ‘getting our country back’, establishment politicians are likely to have in mind something different from the rest of us. Paramount to their concerns is that power returns to them and not anyone else. This being so, very little is likely to change. From recent statements, despite leaving the EU, immigration will continue apace to secure access to the single market. ‘Free movement of people’ is an integral element in this arrangement. British politicians are more than likely to cave in to the threats and demands of the Europeans on this account and the referendum will thus be set aside. The only difference will be that henceforth we would have no input on the rules and regulations that would apply to our trade and we will be ruled by political crooks of our own, rather than those in Brussels. That the frightful Guy Verhofstadt, former prime minister of Belgium and current leader of the Liberals and Democrats in the European parliament, certainly no friend of Britain, looks set to be the chief negotiator does not bode well for a satisfactory outcome for us. It was he who, during a European parliamentary debate, accused the Leave campaign and UKIP in particular of using ‘lies’ and ‘Nazi propaganda’ to secure a winning vote. His attack was bitter and personal, as it often is from this source.

The great democratic swindle

In practice ‘democracy’ in Britain rarely gives any authority to the voice of the people. Vox Populi, Vox Dei or ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God’ has little political relevance except as a slogan from the lips of those who like quoting Latin. The general understanding of ‘parliamentary democracy’ is that every few years the people vote in a government, who then rule and make decisions on our behalf roughly in line with a manifesto published previous to the election. When we get fed up with one government, we then elect another. That is the theory, but the reality is very much different. Due to an electoral system manifestly skewed in favour of the two main political parties, it means that a government can be elected, as last time, on less than a quarter of the vote, given complete power to rule despite the fact that most of the population did not want them. Once elected the manifesto and its promises are largely forgotten and the government, led by the prime minister and his cohorts, proceeds to carry through what they really had in mind all along and never mind anyone else. This is hardly the voice of the people, still less the voice of God ― nothing but a massive deception. Is this what the Brexit referendum is pledged to recover? If so, we can hardly expect them to carry out the wishes of the voters.

In democratic terms, as against in a general election, in a referendum each vote carries some direct weight. The real danger now is that the wishes of the British people will now somehow be circumvented, both in the matter of sovereignty and that of immigration which was uppermost among people’s concerns. There have been signs on the Tory side of a softening. Boris Johnson, once leading contender to replace Mr Cameron, has said that he does not believe that the main concern of voters was about immigration and that he thinks ‘access to the single market’ is more important. The MEP Daniel Hannan also maintained that the Leave campaign never promised to reduce immigration only to control it. It would not be a surprise to find these untrustworthy politicians coming away with a deal that is a betrayal of the wishes of the 17.5 million people for whom the reduction of the huge swathes of immigrants entering Britain and Europe is important. These politicians should not take us all for granted just because the British people are not in the habit of immediately rushing to the barricades Serious consequences of some sort would follow such a betrayal and social unrest could not be ruled out.

Consistency may not be enough to halt a backward drift

One politician who has remained firm throughout has been Iain Duncan Smith and he has stated categorically that the British public will not tolerate retaining open borders with Europe. He has said this despite the protestations of the Europeans and the remarks of Daniel Hannan that access to the single market must see the free movement of people continuing. Duncan Smith, on the other hand, has totally ruled this out. He has said all along that Leave means you get back control of laws, government and also borders. This is what the British people voted for. Whilst there will be visa feel travel, permanent settlement and working without permission will not be entertained. Leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling, has backed Iain Duncan Smith’s remarks. Liam Fox too maintained that unfettered immigration is too high a price to pay for access to the single market. Will they make good on their promises?

A waverer is Theresa May, but then she never was in favour of leaving the EU and agrees to Sharia courts for Muslims. At one time she wanted to pull out of the European Convention of Human Rights. The moment she declared her intention to run for the prime minister’s job, she inexplicably ditched any such plans. It is the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice that between them have made it so difficult to deport miscreants, criminals and other undesirables back to where they came from. The step in this direction by Theresa May does not bode well for future action against those we want to throw out of Britain. The future of EU citizens living in the UK could also be in doubt, according to May. She has offered no expectation of continued residence.

Lying and conniving

The outcome of the referendum was clear, but many in the ‘Remain’ camp obstinately refuse to accept it. Petitions, marches and protests abound, attempts to blame Brexit for an alleged increase in ‘racist’ attacks. A new referendum is demanded, keep voting until we get it right. The question is now as to whether any future prime minister and his/her government will deliver on the clear wish of the people of this nation. Things in some quarters are already looking decidedly shaky. A number of politicians who voted out seem to be retracing their steps, whilst those on the other side are resisting its full implementation. In the dark halls of Whitehall, in the Foreign Office particularly, reside nameless officials who will still see it as their first duty to deliver for the EU and not our country. It was the lying conniving of the British establishment and the media that took us into the EEC in the first place and then kept us there. The truth is now plain for all to see, but will these forces pull the same trick for a third time? We shall see, but certainly they are almost bound to attempt it.

Many plots exist to attempt to sidestep the results of the referendum. There was the rather arrogant and disrespectful suggestion of David Lammy that MPs should simply not endorse the result of the referendum in parliament. It seems a result is only democracy when you get the answer you want. Among those trying desperately to back pedal is Tony Blair, the now discredited ex-prime minister. “Don’t rush to Brexit – we’ve got to keep our options open!” Given the opportunity, he would set aside the referendum. From another quarter, a legal challenge is being attempted, it is thought by big business, and a plea prepared for the High Court. This has caused outrage and fury. It is expected, thankfully, to fail as the European Communities Act 1972 permits the Government to initiate changes to treaties with the EU, including leaving. Conservative MEP, David Campbell Bannerman, who supported the Leave campaign called the legal move a disgrace. He continued: “This sort of attempt to subvert a clear democratic result is disgraceful. We saw from Tony Blair and other interventions that there is now an attempt by Remain supporters to overturn this result. ... I have seen before in Northern Ireland what happens when democracy is ignored. We will have riots on the streets is this result is blocked in some way and if this legal challenge is an attempt to allow Remain supporters to use Parliament to ignore the will of the people.”

Jeremy Hunt, failed Health Secretary and government bully boy, has come up with another wheeze. Do not invoke Article 50 right away to get the exit underway, this limits things to two years. The next Prime Minister should instead ‘negotiate a deal’ with Brussels, come to a sensible compromise on immigrants. The resulting deal could then be put to the people again either in another referendum or the Conservative manifesto at a fresh general election. It isa blatant attempt to frustrate the clear will of the British people. It will not happen like that; the Europeans have already said quite clearly that there can be no negotiations of any kind before Article 50 is invoked. Dragging things out or the indefinite postponement of triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by the UK plays into the hands of the Brexit blockers and enables them to derail the withdrawal.

Expect no changes, no reforms

Please note, negotiating deals with the EU has never worked nor will this change now. From the outset, there has been constant deception, trickery and efforts to hide the truth from us. This is exactly what happened in 1971/72. Then as now all ‘negotiations’ with Brussels are an irrelevance. The talks with Brussels pertained solely to the stages of the transition by which Britain would join. Now it will largely be about how we can leave. There will be no discussions on matters of principle. Enoch Powell speaking in Frankfurt of all places in March 1971:
“Britain has expressly renounced any intention of attempting to negotiate about the principles or rules of the Community itself; these she accepts as they are and would claim, after becoming a member, no more influence on those principles and rules than any other member would have in the same circumstances.”
So will it be as we seek first to extricate ourselves from this suffocating and utterly corrupt organisation. We went in on Europe’s terms, we leave in the same way and will renegotiate our trade deals in line with the inflexible demands of their treaties.

Powell’s conclusion was: “It is therefore humbug to talk about waiting to see what the terms will be, or not joining the Community unless the conditions are right.” Of course it was humbug. Our politicians are deceiving themselves or us in the same way now by saying they will negotiate a trade deal beneficial to Britain after we have left the EU. It is not going to happen. Any trade deal will conform in every respect as it did on joining to ‘those principles and rules’ that apply to full members: no change here then.

The four freedoms, according to Germany’s Peter Altmaier, Merkel’s chief of staff, must remain intact in any talks. This sounds very much like the arrangements some in government have been hinting they will agree to in order to retain access to the internal European market: double dealing in the style of Ted Heath. Whilst the Poles may protest at any refusal by Merkel to negotiate, putting the EU in danger of breaking up, their words in the end will count for very little. The Europeans have made their position clear. Xavier Bettel, Luxembourg’s prime minister left no room for any doubt: “We are not on Facebook, where things are complicated. We are married or divorced but not something in between.” Stefan Lofven, the Swedish prime minister, has said that British access to the single market without the free movement of people was “out of the question”. Will the British negotiators capitulate? It will be very surprising did they not do so. Daniel Hannan MEP is whistling in the wind if he imagines for a second that his words will carry any weight: “Our opening bid is we want access to the single market without freedom of movement.” It just is not going to happen.

European intransigence

Admittedly, David Cameron has claimed that Britain will refuse to sign any free trade deal with the EU without there being a real curb on the free movement principle, but then he will not be in on the negotiations. Also, this is something that both Merkel and Junker have said they will not give ground on. This brings us back where we started. Certainly, he is right to point out that it was intransigence on this very matter that led to the British decision to leave the EU. They continue stubbornly to refuse to offer any worthwhile reforms, nor can they for they rightly understand that the unfettered free movement principal is essential to the complete political and economic integration of Europe. On our side, the British public thought and still believes that immigration is out of control and they want something done. There is much talk among those eyeing up Cameron’s job about ‘curbing’ free movement, but we are yet to see what they mean by this. Cameron caved in once to Merkel will his successor not do the same in return for access to the single market? We have been served ‘thin gruel’ once; this is likely to happen again.

Despite the protestations of great sorrow, clearly the Europeans are furious. One Polish MEP remarked with unbelievable stupidity that Britain could not expect Polish pilots to fight for them again as they did in the last war. There have been many equally nonsensical and bitter remarks from the Europeans. Clearly, they did not expect the British public to respond in the manner in which they did. Some still believe we are bluffing. Elmar Brok, chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs and a leading member of Germany’s CDU, does not believe Britain will leave the EU. He regards the referendum as advisory and not binding. Speaking of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, he said “they are destroyers led by vanity”. Meanwhile Austria’s finance minister, Hans Jörg Schelling, made the claim that in five years’ time Britain would still be a member of the EU. Nevertheless, the impact of the situation is beginning to dawn on Europe. Even stone-hard Wolfgang Schäuble is saying: “We can’t continue on like this in Europe, but we, in Europe, have to concentrate on that.” He of all people should have been more forthcoming to Cameron when he came around Europe with his begging bowl instead of making himself a major contributor to our prime minister’s humiliation. They brought all this on themselves. Certainly, it looks very much like Jean Claude Junker could be for the chop ― doubtless gone inside a year if Mrs Merkel gets her way. The Eastern bloc countries, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary the Czech Republic are all calling for radical changes. The truth is beginning to be recognised that the people of Europe are becoming increasingly restive and disillusioned. The failure to deal with the flood of refugees and immigrants, Merkel’s open door policy to all and sundry have not been well received anywhere. Further referenda and exits in other member countries now appear highly likely. Are we witnessing the death throes of an ailing EU? Will the German attempts at resuscitation work? We shall see.

The response of Martin Schultz, one-time bookseller now president of the European Parliament, has been to press yet harder for a united federal super-state in Europe. According to reliable sources, a document has already been prepared in Germany under the watchful eye of Wolfgang Schäuble, the man dubbed in Greece as the ‘mad executioner of Europe’. He favours making things difficult, if the UK wants continued access to the internal market. The reasoning behind this seems to be that should life be made easy for the Brits, other countries could take this as a cue for other countries to follow Britain’s example. Instead of lightening the touch on individual countries after Brexit exposed widespread discontent with the EU throughout Europe, Schäuble wants to tighten yet further its iron grip. The reform he has in mind is to get rid of the EU Commission. In its place a new body would oversee debts, stability and growth with the powers to reject member State’s budget plans. In essence it means that Berlin would have the last word on the financial plans of all those countries within the Eurozone. The German economic master plan, the heavy chains round Europe’s neck, kept in check by interest rates not force of arms. 

Others at the door, in or out

As Britain stands at the exit, Turkey stands at the entrance, but who else is on their way out? Speaking for himself rather than in any official capacity, Janos Lazar, minister for the prime minister’s office in Budapest, confessed recently that the EU does nothing to protect the rights and values of Europe. Although twelve years ago, he voted for Hungary’s accession to the EU, today he would not do so because of his deep disappointment. Whilst Hungary is not planning an exit referendum at the moment, one on the immigration policies of Brussels is to be held in September or October as to whether mandatory immigration quotas from Brussels should be accepted or rejected. Certainly, further isolation of the central and eastern bloc is inevitable after Brexit. The outcome has especially unsettled the former communist region in the east. The cracks in the union are showing. Poland has been highly critical of the ‘founding countries’ of Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands getting together to discuss reform and excluding everyone else. A rival meeting was organised in Warsaw. Prime minister, Viktor Orban of Hungary, recently gave a robust speech very critical of Brussels. Orban blames Europe’s failure to manage the issue of migrants as the basic reason for Britain’s exit.


When the treacherous Edward Heath took us into the EEC in 1972, it was on terms dictated by Europe. When eventually we depart, despite ‘negotiations’, much the same is likely to happen again. We shall leave on EU terms. The sticking point will be the free movement of people within the EU. Whatever is negotiated, EU council president, Donald Tusk has insisted that there cannot be a “free trade agreement” with Britain that does not include free movement and this has been firmly reiterated by Angela Merkel. It is at this point that our politicians are likely to fail us or deceive us; to say the agreement is one thing when it is plainly another. At the very heart of the internal market are the four freedoms: the movement of people, of goods, of capital, and the right of establishment and freedom to provide services. Not one of these four will be surrendered by Brussels, we must agree or we are out. This has been made abundantly clear time and again. Whilst an absence of ‘red lines’ may be promised in negotiations, these four foundational freedoms will not be relinquished. The temptation will be, and this has already been muted by numerous, even professedly Leave, politicians that access to the EU single place being paramount, the four freedoms will remain. Cameron and Johnson and Daniel Hannan MEP have each made statements implying as much ― no promise was made to reduce immigration, only to control it. Free trade [the EU knows nothing of free trade] is the priority not immigration. Sure, there may be border controls, but EU citizens will still be able to claim a right to residence and access the UK health and benefits system. Nothing seems to change.

We want our country back!

We give the last word to Mr Powell, speaking in Doncaster in June, 1971:
“Opinion has been right to fasten upon sovereignty as the central issue. Either British entry is a declaration of intent to surrender this country’s sovereignty, stage by stage, in all that matters to a nation, and makes a nation, or else it is an empty gesture, disgraceful in its hollowness alike to those who proffer it and those who accept it.”


D. William Norris



“Britain could not be an ordinary member of a federal union limited to Europe in any period which can…be foreseen” Winston Churchill

































Content 1
Content 2