eurealist.co.uk

“Thirty years ago, we joined a common market that was little more than a free trade area. Foolishly, Ted Heath promised no reduction in national sovereignty - instead of emphasising the strength that comes when sovereignty is pooled. But we all knew that the Zollverein was only the beginning. The free trade area begat a community and the community begat a union. At each step along the way, political and economic integration went hand in hand. It would not have been possible to run the single market, which Margaret Thatcher’s government supported with such enthusiasm, without a political and legal framework to enforce its acceptance and application”.

Roy Hattersley should know that Ted Heath deliberately lied to the British people about the Common Market to underplay the seriousness of what he was doing, to keep the people uninformed and misdirected by describing the move as entry into a trading block the classical Monnet Method, tell the people it is for trade when in fact if whole aim is to form a united state of Europe.

Had Heath, as Sir Roy suggests emphasised the strength that comes when sovereignty is pooled. He would not have been able to sell entry as he did, and three years later the referendum would not have been won as it was on false information to the British people. We would have been able to explain the bleeding obvious, you cannot pool sovereignty! You either do or you do not have it.

“The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty deserved support on its own merits. But half of Europe wants it applied to the whole union to make sure that Gradgrind welfare policies do not allow skinflint companies to undercut competitors in more progressive nations. Economic and political union cannot be separated. The free movement of capital and labour have to be politically defined and legally regulated. That is a necessity, not a matter of choice. An army and a unified foreign policy may be optional extras. A common competition policy - by definition a political proposition - goes, automatically, with a common external tariff”.

Yes unification has been sold on these terms which are again classic Monnet describe a policy designed to unify as a trade policy.

In the first instance the Professor is wrong to say economic and political union cannot be separated that is exactly what did happen In the early 1950s, ministers from the six members of the ECSC drafted a constitution for a new form of democratic government to control the planned European Defence Community (EDC). Monnet had intended that the EDC would be a parallel organisation to the ECSC. This so-called European Political Community (EPC) would be able to levy taxes and would establish a Common Market. The collapse of the EDC, voted down by France led to the EPC being shelved. But now we see the political part being reintroduced.

The argument that just because the need to trade with each other we should also have to have exactly the same laws is nonsense and simply a cover for integration.

The point “to make sure that Gradgrind welfare policies do not allow skinflint companies to undercut competitors in more progressive nations” clearly shows the thought process behind the argument, why is it more progressive V Skinflint?

The free movement of labour and capital, common competition and common external tariffs do not rely on a central government taking all powers to itself and making laws for the whole union, all it needs is agreement between the countries.

Parts of the social chapter were rejected by the Prime Minister (Major) at the time and without an opt out, the Maastricht treaty would not have been signed. To simply dismiss this by saying it “deserved support on its own merits” is to belie history which shows clearly it was not deserving of support.

The Single market has been a failure the claims for the single market stimulating economic growth have not, so far, been fulfilled. The Cecchini Report claimed that the internal market would add around 5% to the GDP of the European Community’s member states, reduce prices by 6%, raise growth by 4-7% and create several million extra jobs. It would “put Europe on an upward trajectory into the next century”, assuming the pursuance of expansionary policies (which did not happen). This ambition was not achieved – in fact we have seen a period of poor growth, throughout the
1990s and into the 21st century.

All arguments Sir Roy or Professor Haseler make regarding the need or otherwise of this or that political integration or legal necessity should have been openly put to the British people in 1972 or failing that in 1975 they were not, we were told the exact opposite. Had we been told of this ambition of a small number of people to gain total control of Europe, and unite it into one political unit under one undemocratic government, we would have told them to go and take a running jump.

Roy Hattersley was part of the group, who he now says should have told us the truth. He had his chance to do so then. Although he is on record as being disgusted by the secret arrangements being made to lie to the people, he chose not to be truthful, why on earth should we believe a word he has to say now. Its a bit rich after thirty years of lying to the British people to now try to rewrite history Sir Roy.