eurealist.co.uk

EUrophobe

The phrase “nail on the head” comes to mind
I’ve poached this from a forum on which I post occasionally. The author Frederick Forsyth received a surprise letter from the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) inviting him to become an ‘East of England Ambassador’. Read EEDA’s letter below and Mr Forsyth’s response in which he turns down such a gilt-edged opportunity. His response is superb, and sums up the EU to perfection.

Copy of original letter fromEUrophobe but here is the reply
Dear Mr Caruth

For some ten years, since I became fascinated by the sheer duplicity and mendacity of the Europe Project I have studied it with some intensity and no little research. I presume you are in the same position, so we need not fool each other.

We both know that, for the Europe of (say) 2010 (your own choice) there are only two viable visions. One is what we thought, back in 1972, we were being inducted into until we learned we had been comprehensively lied to. This was the Europe De Gaulle had referred to as ‘Une Union des Patries.’ Brits have always translated this as ‘A Europe of Nations’. It is what the Conservative Party has always claimed to support and what New Labour also pretends to seek, though once again it is lying.

Basically, a confederation of self-governing and sovereign nation-states who have chose by free volition to cooperate towards a goal of enhanced mutual prosperity by the creation of a huge Free Market. That vision was effectively terminated by euthanasia in the Maastricht Treaty, though fools and liars continue to employ the phrase.

The other vision can best be described in the title of a recent pamphlet from the Comite des Regions in Brussels: ‘A Europe of Cities and Regions in an Integrated Continent.’ This is a Europe where so-often pooh-poohed words like ‘ever closer union’, ‘complete political integration’ and United States of Europe, have become literal realities. That clearly is the vision to which you and yours aspire with self-denying fanaticism.

But like all Euro-integrationists, you are being less than frank with the public. Behind the Utopian propaganda lie several less happy truths. The creation of the USE and the continuation of the nation-state are quite simply mutually incompatible. The creation of the USE must mean the End-of-Nation, now at last being openly mentioned in print, though a long-held dream of the Post-Modernists.

Now I happen to be one of the (approx) ninety per cent of the citizens of the UK who regard this country with love, affection and loyalty. I find the end-of-nation, with its concomitant partner end-of-democracy anathema. So I look carefully at how this nightmare might be achieved.

Clearly not by free vote, by fair referendum. Therefore, as ever, by deception, mendacity, dissimulation and fraud. But via which vehicles? One is clearly the abrogation and abolition of the national currency. There has never been a single example in history of a nation abolishing its currency to adopt the currency of a larger neighbouring unit which was still a self-governing country ten years later.

Second, there is abolition of the national constitution, or its supercession by another alien constitution. Parliamentary democracy is the only known governmental system which requires as an absolute need the consent of the governed. All other systems are variants of dictatorship. What Giscard d’Estaing has prepared (and Gisela Stuart MP recently confirmed this in her brilliant Fabian Society pamphlet) is a blueprint for oligarchy, warmly supported by all the oligarths of Europe and the UK. That is why Tony Blair dare not permit the people to speak.

The third way of terminating the nation-state is break-up. That is your chosen road. If you can break provincial England into eight parts, an unavoidable development must then be the abolition of District, Shire, and Borough as units of real local government. That is a given, even admitted by Prescott in an unguarded moment.

The second unavoidable consequence must be the reduction to irrelevance of the national government and its Parliament at Westminster. But there must be two levels of government, for the Region cannot be a nation-state on its own. It must defer to something bigger than itself. That ’something’ if not Westminster, Crown in Parliament, can only be the Federal Government of the USE in Brussels. QED.

So when you say to me: ‘By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,’ you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: ‘By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region….’ etc.

Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all of the time.’ Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.

But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker’s yard.

So, Mr Caruth, until Philippi, ave atque vale.

Frederick Forsyth