Peer highlights fear tactics used in 1975 referendum on 40th anniversary

When Ted Heath’s personal papers from the 1970s and earlier became public a decade ago and after his death, those papers plainly showed that he contemplated ‘delivering’ the U.K. as a political part of a new European country. In his correspondence with others on the Continent he stated the obvious truth that no U.K. Government could be ‘up front’ with the British people on the formation of a new European federalist system. It had to be done by stealth. And Brits who paid attention to the matter plainly saw the shenanigans. An economic trading unit called the EEC as a first step. Who could be against increased trade between countries in the same area of the world. When the two parts of Germany reunited, the writing was on the wall for the federalist elites to push for not just an economic union but a political one. The referendum being held shortly should more properly have been held in 1991, before the U.K. ratified the Maastricht Treaty, the first version of the Treaty on European Union. But John Major and his Tory Government, along with Labour, blocked us from having our say on political union. Economic integration changed to political integration in 1992. The E.U. elites have been given the 23 years since to push their integrationist federalist agenda, hoping that the older generation who knew the U.K. as a country would largely die out, hoping that massive immigration of peoples with no indigenous background in British culture would favour the federal system, hoping that threats, blackmail and other scare tactics would make a difference when push came to shove and the British people finally had to be given their say on the continuing integration. Well, we’ll see in only a matter of months if Brits want the U.K. continually integrated more and more as a part of a larger country (where now 80% of new law governing us comes in from offshore as Directives rubber-stamped at Westminster and put on HMSO stationery to hide the fact) OR if Brits want the U.K. back as a sovereign independent self-governing country where those at Westminster originate 100% of the new law governing our lives. We’re finally going to get our say. It will need mature, disciplined, clear thought in making a decision that will bind our children and their children.

I agree Phil. Heath knew percisely what he was doing when he took us into the Common Market. He was well aware that the Treaty of Rome makes “ever closer union,” a founding principle. He was given the Charlemange Award, plus £30,00o, for delivering up Britain to the ‘New European Reich’. But we are not the only ones angry at the Commissariat in Brussels. Greek Islanders have told me that they were openly lied to about the benefits of membership. Germans are demonstrating in their tens of thousands against immigration and Brussels control. That, as I see it, is or will be our greatest problem. The British Media are known to take money from Brussels to promote the European Union as being beneficial, so they are hardly likely to tell us the truth about the anger of other countries to the ‘untouchable’ commissioners. They are byond criticism and beyond the law, rather like the Consuls of Rome. The information I have been picking up is that 95% of our laws come directly from Brussels, as Directives or Regulations, and are passed into British Law by Statutory Instrument. This begs the question of why we still need Westminster, Follyrood, Stormont and the Cardiff (plus 1000 Lords) if that is the case. Perhaps if some group were to attack their right to exist, should we remain in the EU, many would change their mind about staying in.

As stated above by earlier correspondents, the original proposal to join a, ‘Common Market’ was indeed a scam and the politicians of the time knew it. The ultimate goal was and still is indeed, a ‘United States of Europe’. This Grand Plan was laid over sixty years ago and the original ideas came in a manifesto from the young Italian Communist, Spinelli. In 1944 he admitted that developing the USE would not take place if it were by democratic means. He saw the Grand Plan developing only by stealth without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening before it was too late.
So, what about all this current nonsense spouted about how we would suffer if we withdrew from the EU? Two thoughts immediately spring to mind: UK companies will have and will continue to have, in place negotiated ongoing contracts for the supply of goods or services to businesses in Europe. No doubt if the UK supplying firms were uncompetitive they would not have the business. It would be absolutely bizarre if European firms for simply ‘bloody-minded’ reasons cancelled contracts and elected to pay more for the same goods and services from other businesses based in the EU. It won’t happen. More broadly, was there life in the UK before the Common Market? Yes there was and there could well be a rather unfettered life again!
One further thought on Cameron’s so-called, ‘negotiations’. He’s already backsliding now by stating unequivocally that he does not question the ‘free movement’ of peoples. This ‘free movement’ is in fact a form of EU ‘multiculturalism’: the more the UK is diluted with voters from other parts of Europe, the more askew will be the voting with its inbuilt bias toward the EU. At least European voters will not take part in the Referendum…………….. (at least so far……)
On the subject of the massive and continuing influx of immigrants, can someone please explain to me why Cameron’s EU counterparts should agree with his proposals to limit Uk state benefits to migrants? Aren’t they all currently financially better off by the transfer of the benefit claimants to the UK? Why on earth would they agree to Cameron’s proposals?

If you would like to see the tactics that will be employed in the IN/OUT EU referendum refer to the tactics used in the lead up to the referendum in Ireland on the Yes/No acceptance of the European Constitution or (Lisbon Treaty).

“hoping that massive immigration of peoples with no indigenous background in British culture would favour the federal system,”

This is a very good point. The greater the onslaught of immigrants over time the greater the disparity in numbers between the indigenous people in this country and the newcomers. If the immigrants are looking for a safe place in the First world to settle with the infrastructure already in place for them and at the same time able to move within that bloc then a United states of Europe INCLUDING the UK might appear a safer bet than being in a country outside of this Authoritarian Federation. These people risk death getting to Europe.