The EU moving the goalposts so as to ensure nobody holds up the rush to full integration

That is the proposal from the senior Lib Dem MEP, Andrew Duff, who wants to amend the EU’s own rules, so that they will be at variance with the norms of international law, by allowing treaties to come into effect before all the signatories have ratified them. His plan is that instead of treaties requiring unanimous approval, as set out very clearly in the Treaty of Rome, future EU treaties would come into effect once just four fifths of member states had deposited their instrument of ratification in the vaults of the Italian government.

Andrew Duff is quite clear about his motives, here's part of his letter suggesting this change that he sent to President Jerzy Buzek

So there we have it, rather than address the concerns of opponents of any future treaties Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat would rather change the rules so opponents can be ignored.


The EU is a juggernaut heading towards 'ever closer union'; the UK electorate needs to be asked if it wants to be on-board this juggernaut or not. However the opinion polls have made it very clear that the UK population would vote to leave the EU if asked, so that is why we will not be asked.

The EU in another power grab?

The EU's mania for power and control knows no bounds and if what Devils Kitchen writes is true, the EU is set for a huge power grab. I thought someting was afoot when there were rumblings at PMQs about the EU, Kate Hoey is a reliable barometer of matters EU. So Devils Kitchen's piece with more than a nod to Douglas Carswell is a must read, if not a pleasant one.

Douglas Carswell writes:

'If you read the European Commission document 11807/10 [PDF], however, it doesn’t seem quite so clear cut. Studying it, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the new rules on fiscal oversight are going to apply to all EU Member States, not just members of the Euro.

The paper – subtitled “Tools for stronger EU economic governance” – focuses on how Member States, not just Euro countries, “will act in compliance with the EU framework.” The “new structured mechanism” for vetting each countries budget will be applied to “all Member States”.

In or out of the Euro, the paper suggests Britain may indeed have her budget subject to EU Commission vetting – albeit that the time table for this “semester” process might allow officials to claim that the Commons gets to see it first.

And what if Brussels did not approve of the tax and spend policies of our democratically elected government?

If such rules only apply to Eurozone countries, why does page 5 of the document, under the heading “Corrective Action”, say that “This mechanism would apply to all Member States”. Use of that word “all”, again. If there’s a caveat saying “all” excludes Britain, I couldn’t find it.


...


EU competence is to be extended into member state’s fiscal policy, with the power to make law for "all EU Member States". And it appears to have been kept hidden until today.

Not even the European Scrutiny Committee, I’m told, had sight of a paper by the “Task Force to the European Council” called “Strengthening Economic Governance in the EU” until today.

This hidden paper appears to confirm two things:

a) Despite what we were told in June, UK budgets will now become EU business. They might not be able to impose sanctions on us if they disapprove – yet. But they are involved.

b) According to the document, “The Task Force recommends a deeper macro-economic surveillance with the introduction of a new mechanism underpinned by a new legal framework .... applying to all EU Member States”.

Yep. That’s right. The EU is to legislate in a new area. In a way that could apply to all EU Member States.

And you thought there would be no further transfers of power to Brussels, eh?'

The question of the day is "Have we been had?" and the answer is... YES and I am not a happy blogger.

David Cameron's first battle with the EU

The relationships between the new Conservative/LibDem government and the EU were always going to be tricky as the range of views is so wide. I was not pleased when David Cameron did not make Mark Francois his Europe Minister instead promoting David Lidington.

Almost immediately there are two issues that will test this government. First France and Germany are trying to push through plans to regulate hedge funds and private equity firms, a vote will be held in Brussels next week under qualified majority voting so the UK could be isolated. Of course one issue here is that London is the centre of Europe's private equity activity and the City & Mayfair are home to around 80% of all European hedge funds; Frankfurt and Paris are jealous. The second issue is that Herman Van Rompuy, the EU President, has set up a task force to arrange the setting up of a "gouvernement économique" to cover all 27 member states of the Union. This project has the strong support of France and Germany and is just another move to 'ever greater union'. This economic government is due to be discussed next week and will include all countries having to have their Budgets approved by this EU body before being put to the House of Commons. Jose Manual Barroso, the Commission President, said

"What we are suggesting is for there to be an assessment of draft budgets and see if this fits in well with what goes on elsewhere in Europe because national measures have an effect on others"

Be under no illusions that the move to ever closer union is accelerating, the failure of the UK to elect a majority Conservative government gives the EU-fanatics a window of opportunity and they are determined to push ahead as fast as possible.

The question is, is David Cameron willing to take on the EU and risk his coalition with the LibDems breaking down in its first month or will he back down and risk alienating his EU-sceptic backbenchers and supporters? It will be a tough decision and not an easy one.

Prime minister Gordon Brown said there will be no rise in the basic rate of 20 per cent tax should Labour win the election

I hear that our 'honest as the day is long' Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has said there will be no rise in the basic rate of 20 per cent tax should Labour win the election. So that means one or more of the following:

* Increases in National Insurance which is Income Tax by another name for most people

* Below inflation increases in personal allowances

* The 20% basic rate will stay but a new 30% rate will be introduced at a lower level and in addition to the 40% rate

* Rises in VAT and applied to currently zero rated items

* Rises in fuel duty

* A new annual tax on the capital element of savings (not the interest, the capital)

* A tax on the sale of main properties (currently tax exempt)

* Rises in any other stealth taxes that Gordon Brown can think of


Yes I am so f**king happy that Gordon Brown has said that there will be no increase in the basic rate of Income Tax, that's really convincing and reassuring.

Mind you since this is the same mendacious c**t that promised us a referendum on the EU Constitution & reneged and that promised an end to boom and bust before leading us into the biggest bust for generations; I wouldn't be too reassured.

Hold on a moment isn't he also the same lying t**t that (alongside Tony Blair) in 2005 promised no increase in Income Tax and promptly increased National Insurance. Looks like he's trying the same trick again.

This is definite 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me' time - so get angry and get even by ensuring that Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and the rest of the Labour leadership have the smug grins wiped off of their faces on 7 May.

Trixy on the EU

Trixy explains why she doesn't love the EU any more in a post from 2007 that deserves wide readership. I was especially pleased to note her opposition to:

"4) Galileo satellite system: Multi billion pound 'grand project' that is driven by delays, costs and technical problems. Will be superseded by competition. The need to pay for this project is the main reason for the hated road pricing scheme."

I was worried by one point that I had not heard of before:

"24) PC lexicon: The European Commission has issued a document to go to all member states informing them of the language they are able to use and words which are forbidden, in the event of a terrorist attack. They have refused to release this guide, but admit it exists."

A Falklands wrinkle - EU related

Katabasis has an interesting wrinkle on the latest Argentinian sabre rattling over the Falklands.

"EU law, as ensrhined in the Lisbon Treaty amendments. Of interest in particular is Article 42, Section 7 of the Lisbon amended Maastricht treaty. It states:

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".

And the note in the document accompanying this - in case you weren't already clear on what it meant - states: "Mutual assistance clause for ALL member states in case of an armed aggression."

Having read carefully through all of the consolidated treaties, (Part 2 (Part 1 is here) of my analysis is still in progress - the amendments to the Rome/Amsterdam treaty are far more numerous to those to Maastricht, its going to be a monster piece), what is striking about these sections is the clarity of the language. There are so many places in the treaties where matters are left - I believe intentionally - vague, so as to be amenable to whatever sort of spin the EU wishes to put on them at the time, it is noticable when the treaty suddenly expresses things in crystal clear clarity.

If you read all of the complementary sections (articles 34 up to 42 regarding security issues, and for extra clarity, Articles 24 onwards regarding foreign policy) you will see just how specific the clauses are. When I initially read them (as you can see from my reaction in my earlier analysis), it was from the point of view of the U.K. having to do all of the heavy lifting with regards to a conflict with which - prior to the rise of the EU's power - it would have had no interest in pursuing. Now the tables are turned.

My major point here is that if Argentina attacks, this single issue will call the EU's bluff - and at a potentially far more significant level than current concerns over the status of the Euro.

So who is going to tell the Irish or the French that in signing Lisbon, they might now be shortly committed to sending troops to South America to defend British territory? "

Interesting...

Baroness Ashton tells the truth

Baroness Aston the ex CND EU's first High Representative for foreign affairs and security is reported as saying that "I won't be an extension of the British government". Anyone who has read my blog will be not in the slightest surprised as I have stated many times (most recently here and here) that "EU pensions are paid on the understanding that the EU can remove this pension, if in the view of the Commission or the Luxembourg Court, the recipient "fail(s) to uphold the interests of the European Communities", I wonder if that applies to EU salaries as well?

The last day of freedom in the UK and the rest of the EU

Tomorrow, 1 December 2009, the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty comes into force and the end of the free European nation state is within sight.

Ian Parker-Joseph's blog is worth reading on this matter.

The EU and taxation

Rumours abound that the quiet, unassuming Herman Van Rompuy, the first permanent president of the European Council, is not the nonentity that the MSM seem to be suggesting he is. Rather he has form as a proponent of EU taxation and it seems that this source of central EU revenue will come via a combination of CO2 taxation an a form of Tobin tax. Thus a trade body reliant on its members for its income becomes a state with its own independent sources of income. The EU project has always been about 'ever closer union and the implementation of the EU Constitution, albeit in the guise of the Lisbon Treaty, takes this project several large steps closer to fruition.

The time for European nation state is running out, all hail the EUSSR.

Coincidence or EU stitch-up?

So until October 2008 Baroness Ashton was Labour’s leader in the House of Lords and played a key part in getting the Lisbon Treaty through the upper house and avoiding the calls for a referendum. Now Baroness Ashton is the surprise selection of the EU's 27 member states as high representative for foreign affairs and security.

Coincidence?

Democracy EU style

"European Union leaders are gathering in Brussels to select their first full-time president and foreign affairs high representative."

So the BBC advise us tonight.

That's nice I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone in the EU that maybe the people who pay for the EU might be allowed a say.

Democracy, don't make me laugh.

Pravda speak sense again

I have blogged about Pravda articles before: here and here, so I am not surprised to be doing so again. This time it is about an article by Hans Vogel entitled "Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is a Reincarnation of the Former Soviet Union". Do take a read of the whole piece but here is an extract or two to give you a flavour:

"Article 8 is also very interesting. It would seem to state that one's personal data are safe. But are they? Under current EU regulations, member states are required to keep records of all e-mail traffic and all telephone conversations. In fact it is as if the government would be reading all your letters. Many EU member states, the government can enter your computer at will and change data and records on your computer without your knowing it. All this snooping and spying is, of course, in the interest of state security, to “fight terrorism!” It all looks as if the Nazi slogan “Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!” (You are nothing, your people is everything) were put into effect in today's EU.

Ah, and then there is, of course, freedom of expression. Article 11 establishes this unequivocally. Currently, all 27 EU member states have such a provision in their constitutions. Yet on at least two issues, EU citizens do not enjoy this freedom of speech. In a number of member states (Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, the Czech Republic) it is a criminal offense to publicly wonder whether six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II. Even if you would believe that, say, no more than 4.5 million Jews were exterminated, this could land you in jail for years. It is effectively prohibited to conduct research into this topic (to try to establish how many Jews were killed during WW II), because it makes you a “Holocaust denier.”

Nor is it allowed in some states to make any sort of remark criticizing islam. This will immediately cause you to be prosecuted for what in the US is called “hate speech.” This is happening to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who will be put on trial next January for making allegedly disparaging remarks about islam, whereas what he really did was assemble a movie using available footage, to demonstrate the violent nature of islamic teachings.

Free speech, or freedom of expression is really a very simple issue, a clear-cut case. Either you have free speech, in which case you may say ANYTHING at all, or you have no free speech. It is like being pregnant: either you are, or you aren't. It is impossible to be a “little bit pregnant,” just as it is impossible to have “some free speech.”

Thus in the EU today, there is NO free speech. Nor will there be any when the Lisbon Treaty takes effect. The EU crackdown on “illegal” downloads, threatening anyone caught downloading copyrighted items more than three times with lifelong exclusion from internet access, can be interpreted as an indication that a major offensive against one of the few remaining vestiges of freedom is underway. "

"Article 50 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution granted all citizens freedom of speech. But whoever dared voice criticism of the system in any coherent, vocal way, was severely punished. Punishments included loss of job, domestic exile (nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov), and assignment to a mental hospital. There was no free speech in the old Soviet Union, like there is no free speech in Europe today.

Similarities between the Lisbon Treaty and its communist predecessors are quite remarkable, for instance in the clauses on equality before the law.

Article 34 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution proclaimed full legal equality for all: “citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.” The East German Constitution echoes this. Article 20:1 reads: Independently of his nationality, race, religious ideas, social background and position, every citizen of the German Democratic Republic enjoys the same rights and duties. Freedom of religion and belief are guaranteed. All citizens are equal before the law.” Coincidentally, the Lisbon Treaty is strikingly similar: “ Everyone is equal before the law ” (article 20), and “ Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited” (article 21). "

The article goes on to reference Vladimir Bukovsky, who you can find more about on this blog, here's Pravda's take:

"As recently as 2006, a most eloquent and insightful warning against the EU and the Lisbon Treaty's precursor, the ill-fated “constitution”, was given by former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky. Traumatized by the experience of living in the Soviet Union, Bukovsky noted the deeply disturbing similarities between the old Soviet Union and the blueprints for the EU super state. The European Commission, he noted, was the exact equivalent of the old Soviet Politbureau, in terms of the secretive way power was exercised, the recruitment and personalities of its members and the scope and reach of its decisions. The “European Parliament” today (and under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty) is a mere rubber stamp institution, just like the “Supreme Soviet” of the old USSR.

As a matter of fact, there are so many similarities between the old Soviet Union and the EU that mere coincidence is unlikely. Bukovsky argues the EU was designed to be like the old USSR. The architects of the EU? Mostly social democrats, whom Stalin quite aptly called “Social Fascists.”

Most Europeans have not yet understood this. Most are still indifferent, but their indifference will soon vanish when the full weight of repressive EU policies and EU taxation doing its destructive work will be felt.

Sooner than anybody now thinks, the only way to vent criticism of the EU will be in the form of jokes. No doubt many of the characteristic old Soviet jokes will be dusted off and given an anti-European Commission twist.

By that time, all Europeans except for the privileged class of “eurocrats” will be prisoners in the EU. However, they will certainly have a wonderful Constitution. "

Keep an eye on this BBC site

The BBC's Democracy Live site has a section devoted to a "Guide to where power lies". Keep an eye on the pages on the EU, I get the feeling they will need rewriting very soon...

The EU Lisbon Treaty - the truth at last

Now that the EU Lisbon Treaty (the European Constitution in another form) will become law within weeks, Czech President Vaclav Klaus having signed the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the BBC are letting the truth out. Whilst the news pages still stick to the approved line that

"The treaty was drawn up to streamline decision-making in the EU, and is a watered-down version of a draft EU constitution rejected four years ago."

Gavin Hewitt feels able to reveal that

"The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document. It had been shorn of some references that implied Europe was growing closer to being a federal state."

Gavin Hewitt goes on to admit that

"The British goverment, who promised the people a vote, changed its mind. The treaty was described as a technical change that did not require a referendum. All the indications were that the British people wanted their say and most likely would have rejected the treaty."

I am disgusted by the way that Gordon Brown and his colleagues denied the UK public a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I am disgusted by the way the EU forced the Irish to re-hold their referendum, I am disgusted by the way that the EU leant on Vaclav Klaus to ratify the Treaty and I am disgusted by the way this all being rushed into being before any UK general election. The trouble is that I have very little faith that David Cameron will, if elected, do anything substantive to change matters. It seems that the UK will in very short order become a province of the EU and we will all be subjects of the great EUSSR. Maybe Tony Blair, Gordon Brown & Peter Mandelson's New Labour project is coming to final fruition before the UK electorate throw them out of office.

Now Gordon Brown is moving foreign policy power to the EU without even informing Parliament

I thought we lived in a representative democracy, I was clearly wrong. The Times reports that:

"Confidential plans to form the new European External Action Service (EEAS) by next spring will be agreed by Gordon Brown over dinner at the start of a two-day summit in Brussels.

But rather than a simple reorganisation of existing EU diplomatic activity, the new institution will take on the trappings of a fully fledged ministry such as the Foreign Office or America's State Department.

The Conservatives have attacked the Prime Minister for signing up to the plan, which follow weeks of secret negotiations, without public scrutiny or any debate in the House of Commons.

According to a restricted document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, the new Brussels institution will take responsibility for the "strategic direction" of EU foreign policy and will have its own independent budget.

It will be headed by a "High Representative", or EU foreign minister, who will take over key military, crisis planning and intelligence bodies previously controlled by national governments."

Will an incoming Conservative government have any real powers or will Gordon Brown, Tony Blair & Peter Mandelson have ensured that the real powers reside in the EU?

Is Gordon Brown about to announce that the UK is ready to join the single currency, the five economic tests having been passed?

There are rumours that Gordon Brown is considering signing the UK up to the Euro in the very near future so as to remove any chance of an incoming Conservative government calling a referendum on any aspect of EU membership.

The electorate have always been promised that there would be a referendum before any entry into the Euro, but we were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution and you know how that was side-stepped.

Currently the Government's Euro Assessment website shows the famous "five economic tests" and the results of the 2003 assessment. To remind you, the five economic tests are/were:
"1. Are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others could live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis?
2. If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?
3. Would joining EMU create better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain?
4. What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK's financial services industry, particularly the City's wholesale markets?
5. In summary, will joining EMU promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?"

The "five economic tests" were in fact just the most publicised of the four key building blocks that this Labour government declared in 1997 would decide when the Labour Government, who had already committed the UK to the principle of joining the single currency, would actually join the Euro.

The four key building blocks are/were:

"1. a successful single currency within a single European market would in principle be of benefit to Europe and to the UK: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability
2. the constitutional issue is a factor in the UK's decision but it is not an overriding one, so long as membership is in the national interest, the case is clear and unambiguous and there is popular consent
3. the basis for the decision as to whether there is a clear and unambiguous economic case for membership is the Treasury's comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests
4. whenever the decision to enter is taken by the Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people."

Reading the 2003 report it is incredible how wrong the Labour government was then about the economic prospects of the UK. Here's a few examples:

"The Government is committed to building on the platform of stability and has announced a wide-ranging forward-looking policy agenda to deliver high levels of output and employment. This will help to make the economy more convergent with the euro area for the future. "

Gordon Brown has managed to make the UK and the Eurozone converge in one key way; Sterling and the Euro are nearing parity.

" What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK's financial services industry, particularly the City's wholesale markets?

Over the four years since the start of EMU, the UK has attracted a significant level of wholesale financial services business. The strength of the City in international wholesale financial services activity should mean that it continues to do so, whether inside or outside EMU. EMU entry should enhance the already strong competitive position of the UK's wholesale financial services sector by offering some additional benefits. Again, while the UK's retail financial services sector should remain competitive either inside or outside the euro area, entry would offer greater potential to compete and capture the effects of greater EU integration that would arise from the single currency and other efforts to complete the Single Market, in particular the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) - benefits which are postponed while the UK is not in EMU. Overall, the financial services test is met."

Do I really need to "fisk" this one?

Fancy a laugh? OK try this extract (my emphasis):

"Enhancing stability and flexibility: housing

* To deliver a more settled platform of stability in the future and a higher degree of convergence, the Government is committed to a comprehensive programme to improve the functioning of the housing market. Building on the reforms to deliver a step change in planning policy, the Government is undertaking further significant changes in the planning system, supply of housing and housing finance to tackle market failures, increase the responsiveness of supply to demand and reduce national and regional price volatility. These measures are beneficial in their own right to improve the stability and flexibility of the UK housing market and wider economy, but will also increase the housing market's compatibility with the euro area, encouraging greater convergence over time.

* This means implementing quickly and decisively past reforms to housing supply and going further to address both supply and demand in the housing market and macroeconomic stabilisation more generally:
o
o on the supply side, the Government is requiring new Regional Spatial Strategies to take account of volatility in the housing market and promote macroeconomic stability as part of delivering sustainable development; tough and credible measures, including intervention, where local authorities are not delivering housing numbers in high demand areas; and exploring whether, in the medium term, achieving the Government's objectives will require a system of binding local plans. The Government has also commissioned a review of issues affecting the elasticity of supply in the UK, in particular to look at the role of competition, capacity and the financing of the house building industry and possible fiscal instruments, and the interaction of these with the planning system and sustainable development objectives;

o on the demand side, through a review of the UK mortgage market to establish why the share of fixed rate mortgages is so low in the UK compared to many other EU countries and to identify ways of encouraging the market for longer-term fixed rate mortgages; and

o at the macroeconomic level, given that housing is identified as a significant risk factor to the achievement of sustainable and durable convergence and, in the context of the Treasury discussion paper Fiscal stabilisation and EMU, to consider what additional reforms and measures might help deliver wider stability in the economy, including with reference to the housing market, to create the right conditions for convergence within EMU. The Government's announcement of its intention in the next Pre-Budget Report to give the Bank of England a symmetric inflation target as measured by the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices will help ensure inflation expectations in the UK remain in line with those of the euro area."

I wonder when the next formal assessment of the "five economic tests" will take place and what the results would be? Or will parity between Sterling and the Euro be taken as the excuse for rapid entry into the EU? Could the EU loyal Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown deliver such a prize to incoming EU President Tony Blair, and could it be before the general election?

A radical idea abou replacing the EU

"Withdrawal rings my bell. I have a fantastic idea. Why not create a free trade bloc of EU Nations. We could call it The Common Market. No MEPs or commissioners or freeloaders or presidents. Just trade reps from each country. Now, is that a good idea? It's what we all voted for in the 70s!"

A comment by OldRightie on Muffled Vociferation; works for me too...

Is there any way to derail te EU train?

It seems as though Vaclav Klaus is going to give into pressure and sign the Czech Republic's assent to the Lisbon Treaty. This means that the UK will be denied the referendum we were promised by all three main political parties before the last General Election. This is manifestly (pun intended) unfair and so could we not petition the Queen to dissolve Parliament thus forcing an immediate general election? Would that give a Conservative government enough time to organise a referendum and so belatedly kill of the Lisbon Treaty?

In fact the answer is almost certainly that unless the UK leaves the EU, or at least fundamentally renegotiates its conditions of membership, there is no rowing back. The EU is like a train on a set of rails heading in one direction, it cannot be steered elsewhere all it can be is slightly delayed by application of the brakes.

What is the EU?

According to Vladimir Bukovksy as reported in Brussels Journal it's on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels three years ago Mr Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully fledged totalitarian state.

"In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization."

Do read the whole piece but here is a long extract to give you a flavour:

"The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly."

Does the reverse not apply?

"If the president (of the Czech Republic) is obstructing the democratic process and opposing the decision of parliament as well as the will of the people, he is moving beyond the law and will need to face the consequences," a German diplomat told The Sunday Times.

What about when the Prime Minister and Parliament (of the United Kingdom) are opposing the will of the people of the UK?

Does the same rule not apply?