Revolution 9

"No essential loss of sovereignty" said Heath when we entered the so-called Common Market in 1973. But as we now know due to the infamous Foreign and Commonwealth Office paper 30/1048 of 1971 it was a lie - a lie that the former Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath openingly admitted to 20 years later. The following is an extract from 30/1048:

...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government...Parliamentary sovereignty will be affected as we have seen. But the need for Parliament to play an increasing (if perhaps more specialised) role may develop. Firstly, although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come. In the interval, to minimise the loss of democratic control...

Those that took this country into the then EEC knew what the project was about and knew they had no mandate with which to take the UK into, but they took comfort largely in two presumptions.

The first that EU was such a wonderful project that when people realised what was being done in their name they would hail it with acclamation. It's partly why Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a genuine exit clause, those in the EU think their project is such a fantastic idea they don't believe anyone would want to leave.

The second presumption was that even if the people didn't celebrate the "brave new world" it would be too late for them to do anything about it. Those that took us in were of the view that they would be long retired or no longer with us before the people of the UK came to realise.

The flaws with the first presumption are self-evident - any system that requires establishment by stealth (the Monnet method) is never going to receive the acclamation of the people who have been deceived. The second presumption is also incorrect. It's never too late; no political system can survive without consent, even if the consent is induced by fear. Once popular consent is withdrawn then it's game over.

We see a good example of this with the Stasi. A ruthless, efficient and effective secret police - one of the best that's ever existed - it relied on huge numbers of citizens to be informants, yet once that consent was withdrawn in 1989 it simply collapsed...almost literally overnight.

The FCO's prediction of "the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government" was unerringly accurate and is coming to pass in a big way in the 21st century.

With this in mind we begin to see the inevitable outcome of that "political error of the first magnitude"...people are starting to withdraw their consent. As noted by Autonomous Mind the Independent has an article that reports that 4 in 10 people are “alienated” from Britain’s political parties and say they will not consider voting for any of them:

Lord (Paul) Bew, the crossbench peer who chairs the committee, told The Independent today: "One particular cause for concern from the research is the number of people, especially young people, who feel disconnected from the political system and political parties."

He said the growth in the size of this group over the last 10 years represents a real challenge to politicians, parties, local organisations and community groups to provide the public with a sufficiently attractive and relevant set of options to choose from.

Lord Bew continues:

That requires public office holders to be seen to be demonstrating the seven principle of public life - selflessness, accountability, objectivity, integrity, honesty and leadership."

I'll leave readers to make their own jokes at this juncture. But the article (and it's by no means alone) does illustrate an important point that the legacy media is waking up to the fact that something has gone badly wrong with the system even if they are reluctant to pinpoint one of the main reasons.

What we see are the predictions of 1971 coming to pass, however not only were they wrong to take us in they were also wrong to assume it would ever be too late to rectify their mistake.

It's time to eradicate their mistake.

A Stitch Up

Calling England picks up on further evidence that the 'Great Debate', as Ted Heath called entry to the EEC between 1970 -1975, was fixed and particularly "engineered to produce a yes vote [in 1975], funded by the CIA" And surprise surprise the BBC helped in the deception "by removing anti-EEC broadcasters and providing extra air-time for the pros together with slanted pro-EEC programming."

From a pamphlet titled Britain Overseas Spring 2000, the relevant extract below begins page 12 (Calling England's original link seems broken but here it is via Wayback Machine):

Tucker: I went to the European Movement, and talked to them, and they helped to put the funding together for breakfasts which we held at the Connaught Hotel. Ernest Wistrich (Director of the European Movement) was there, actually to be briefed in many ways. Norman Reddaway (an official at the Foreign Office) was
the person given to us by the Government, as our liaison man and he came to the breakfasts.

Cook: The Information Research Department (of which Norman Reddaway was a member) at the Foreign Office seems to have had links with the intelligence community. Certainly, earlier in his career Norman Reddaway’s Information Research Department played a part in destabilising the Sukarno regime in Indonesia in the 1960s.

Tucker: During that time … we got an extra five minutes on the ITN News in the evening added for us to give information.

Cook: That five minutes came out of a direct negotiation with (ITN News Editor) Nigel Ryan at one of those breakfast meetings?

Tucker: Yes – I mean it was a wonderful, wonderful news opportunity.

Cook : And Radio?

Tucker: Jack de Manio was a (Radio 4 Today programme) presenter who was terribly anti-European, and we protested privately about this and he was moved.

Cook : By Ian Trethawan, Director of BBC radio and a known friend of Edward Heath.

Tucker: We issued a newspaper, called the ‘British European’, edited by that famous cartoonist, Phillip Zick, and we distributed massive numbers of them freely. We used to have, for instance, in the Summer, on the beaches, young women giving them away and they used to wear T-shirts with the message ‘Europe or Bust’.

Cook: T-shirts, a newspaper, bumper stickers, posters, a pop song, not to mention breakfasts at the Connaught Hotel. Making friends and influencing people on this scale never comes cheap. So who was picking up the tab?

Spicer: Within business and industry there was a great deal of support and of course money … the figure of £5 million has been bandied about … which flooded in to the European Movement and to the Conservative Group for Europe.

Cook: And who paid for the breakfasts at the Connaught Hotel?’

Spicer: I think this was … you have to talk to Geoffrey Tucker.

Cook.: Who paid for the breakfasts?

Tucker: Well, I’ve never had much knowledge of the funding. The European Movement certainly paid for some of them. I don’t know …

Cook: It is sometimes alleged that the funds that came to the European Movement had come in rather curious ways from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the United States. Is that something you’ve heard?

Tucker: Yeah … and I was absolutely astonished by it. I was rather tickled about it. Frankly, I didn’t care where the money came from. I didn’t know about it. It could come from anywhere as long as it was there to do the job.

Cook: That allegation that the CIA was involved in promoting a united Europe. It was the simplest of questions which led to the most surprising discovery about Edward Heath’s campaign to persuade the British people that to join the EEC was in their best national interests. Who paid for the European Movement? Who financed the publicity campaign?

And:

Aldrich: I was absolutely astonished to discover that the library had the entire archive of a CIA front organisation which documents from start to finish funnelling millions of dollars into Britain – with all its accounts, with all its receipts and correspondence, for example from British Labour MPs to individuals in American intelligence organisations. So I was absolutely astonished when I opened these dusty brown cardboard boxes not considered to be terribly important … and discovered one of the most exciting intelligence archives of the post-war period.

Cook: That begs a question – why was Washington so interested in Western Europe?

Aldrich: The US had invested a great deal of money in European recovery with the idea that only a recovered Western Europe would be able to resist Soviet encroachment … and the US was keen to see a federalist Europe because it views Europe almost in its own image. The Americans continually talk about the United States of Europe.

Cook: So if the CIA were bankrolling European Union, how come no one noticed who was paying the piper?’

Aldrich: The whole accounting structure of the European Movement was designed to hide the fact that CIA money was coming in. And the way this was done was to have a core budget which covered the fairly mundane activities of running the European Movement’s office, paying for the cleaners etc. All this came out of money that was generated in Europe. The CIA money was hidden by putting most of the operational costs, for example, the European Youth Campaign, into special budgets which were not subject to the normal accounting procedures. It was possible to hide CIA money and to make sure that most people in the European Movement were unaware that this CIA money was coming in. Very few people at the top were actually aware of where this funding was coming from.

And nothing has changed since:

America has publicly voiced its concern about the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union, stating that London's "voice" within the EU is "critical to the United States".

40 Years Ago Today

That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain . . . should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude.’ Lady Thatcher

Sadly among the New Year celebrations, we must note that today is 40th anniversary of one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made in its history - entry to what was then the EEC (euphemistically called a Common Market).

The EEC was nothing but a staging post onto the final goal of full political and economic union. Britain was joining a project that was designed to eradicate democracy and sovereignty. Despite Heath's assertions that, “there is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty”, the politicians at the time, particularly Heath, were well aware this was not true and kept the true nature of the project hidden from the British public. And so began the underlying characteristic of our membership - monumental deceit; lied to on entry, lied to during membership and lied to about the nature of exit.

Inevitably a number of articles have appeared today, but it's Christopher Booker's in today's Daily Mail that lays out fully the nature of our 40 year membership.

Thankfully though there seems to be light ahead, as there now appears a significant shift in the mood music if not momentum. For the first time politicians, including Cameron, are openingly discussing exit as an option, and not just in the UK either. These comments by Jacques Delors indicate that a UK exit is also being considered by those in Brussels:

"If the British cannot support the trend towards more integration in Europe, we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis, I could imagine a form such as a European economic area or a free trade agreement," Delors suggested.

20 years ago when I started out actively campaigning against our membership not once did I imagine that Delors would ever utter words such as those. It's a sign of how far we've come and how the sentiment is shifting. For the first time in 40 years, our withdrawal looks to be a realistic prospect.

Such a situation though was always inevitable. Not only because the UK is such a reluctant member as Booker notes: 

During those 40 years the British have never been happy members of this club. Too often we have been out of step, and even bitterly at odds, with the rest — as in our refusal to join that single currency.

More importantly though the nature of the EU project makes such a clash unavoidable. With idealism that firmly resides in make-believe territory, Monnet's EU vision was by removing the nation state and democracy and instead leaving power in the hands of bureaucrats he could create "an organised world of tomorrow". But the nation state and democracy are so fundamental to human needs that such an artificial system that tried to defy the laws of human nature would be unworkable. I didn't choose to be English, I just am. And nothing will alter that fact, certainly not a system or a government foisted upon me against my will.

Monnet knew this, and subconsciously acknowledged this fundamental flaw in his plan, by determining that his project should be implemented by stealth, gradually constructing it without ever acknowledging the ultimate goal. He hoped, as did British politicians in the early 70s, that by the time the project revealed itself it would be too late to change anything. That situation of the project revealing itself is now coming to pass.

And it is not without some irony, that the EU who abhors the nation state, adopts many of the characteristics itself; it has a flag, a national anthem, and a capital city. Rather than try to abolish the nation state, it in effect is trying to force through a change of allegiances, from one flag to another. How anyone thought this could work successfully beggars belief. But think it would work Heath, Monnet et al did. That we embarked on such a folly of the first magnitude is testament that ending 40 years of membership won't bring back our democracy on its own, instead 40 years is a reminder that we never had it in the first place.

But above all else, exiting the EU does mean I, like many of my fellow countrymen, will no longer live and die as an EU citizen. I truly hope I live to see the day we leave.

Happy New Year.

Membership Is 'Our' Choice.

Visionary, administrator, public figure, private adviser, Jean Monnet played a leading role in the conception and creation of the European Community. His constructive ideas and tireless activity have been a constant source of inspiration to those engaged on building a new Europe. Our future freedom, peace and prosperity will owe much to his genius. Edward Heath November 1977.

The above quote helps to demonstrate that our membership of the EU, as I've touched on before, is because our own political class wish it. Ted Heath knew what the project was about and still took us in and eagerly 'picked up the soap' on behalf of our country to do so. No Prime Minister since has taken us out, and instead each, ever since, has engaged in a perpetual war of deception to keep us in.

We are members because this country's political class wishes it even against the sentiments of its own people. It chooses to. The EU never used trebuchets to knock down our castle walls, instead we lowered the drawbridge, invited them in and gave them the best rooms whilst telling them that they could stay as long as they like. Here's an example of my point from the European Union (Amendment) Bill and the Lisbon Treaty: Implications for the UK Constitution (page 27) in 2007-8 (my emphasis):

We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty would make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States’ right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee decided that Lisbon was not unconstitutional because ultimately Parliament could decide to reverse the process should it choose. That we remain members against the wishes of the British people means, in conclusion, the actual fault line lies between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and Brussels. The need for the Harrogate Agenda hopes to address this fault line.

The EU does not force us to be members and nor will it force us to remain members if we want to leave. They don't force rule upon us, instead our establishment chose to be ruled by Brussels. A crucial difference.

In many ways the signs are that the EU has had enough of us being the awkward partner. The impending treaty designed to try to fix the Eurozone crisis, by virtue of making the next step towards European unity, will essentially exclude us from the inner core. We will be left on the sidelines whether we like it or not. The Independent (a Europhile paper) emphases this point the EU is fed up of us:

Germany and France don’t want a “Brexit”. But, talking to their officials in the margins of yesterday’s failed EU summit, I was struck how increasingly fed up they are with what they see as the UK’s self-centered, peripheral demands as they struggle with an existential crisis. The chances of Britain securing big wins like opting out of the social chapter of workers’ rights are described as “less than zero”. The days when Germany and France will go an extra mile to help Britain may be coming to an end. That is a dangerous moment. Mr Cameron insists he does not want the UK to leave the EU. 

So they'll be glad to see the back of us. And it's with this in mind that we come to EU exit. As Christopher Booker says (my emphasis):

The belief that we can repatriate powers we have given away to the EU is a sure sign that whoever voices it hasn’t really got a clue as to what the EU is about. The most sacred rule of the “European project”, ever since it was launched in 1950, is that once a nation state has handed powers of governance to the centre they can never be given back. The last thing our European colleagues would be prepared to do at present, when all their attention is focused on driving on to ever greater union in a bid to save the doomed euro, is to discuss Britain’s wish to defy that rule by allowing us to opt out of treaty commitments we legally entered into. 

And this leads me on to Article 50 - the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty. If we are to leave the EU we have no choice but to invoke it. To leave the EU, invoking it is first and foremost our international legal obligation under the Vienna Convention, because the Lisbon Treaty is an international treaty. It also means that the EU is bound by the same international laws as we are when negotiating an exit.

Just repealing the ECA 1972 (which took us in), and hoping it simply takes us out is no longer possible. In the 40 years hence, much integration has taken place - in the form of many treaties passed subsequently, such as notoriously Maastricht. Clearly then repealing an act of Parliament 40 years ago, based on a so-called 'Common Market' is no longer relevant to us now, too much water (and EU law) has passed under the bridge.

It's precisely because the EU is all encompassing and makes most of our laws that we have to negotiate with the EU an orderly exit. Because if we get rid of one set of terms and conditions by leaving, then clearly we need another set of t's & c's in order to trade from outside, for example; trade, mobile phone roaming, telecommunciations, postage, cashpoint machines, bank transactions, landing slots for aircraft - all of which currently come under EU law. Come out without agreeing essentially a new contract and all of these will cease to happen between us and the EU from day one of our exit. A wonderful situation to be in the current economic crisis!

Yet some still see Article 50 as a trap - a way of keeping us in forever. But not possible, because of Section 3 of Article 50 (page 46) which states quite clearly (my emphasis):

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

This in short makes clear that either we agree a settlement with the EU or, regardless of the changes in EU voting in November 2014, in absence of such an agreement we exit by default. The only price to pay is a wait of 2 years. In my view after 40 years, another two years as members with a definite exit date is a small price to pay, rather than the false promises of 'sometime in the future but really never' situation we have now.

As such because there's an arbitrary 2 year deadline in invoking Article 50 we actually shift the balance of power towards us. As an example, the US President. Limited to 2 terms in effect Obama will only serve 2 years de facto now he's been re-elected. Power is intangible; it strolls towards us but runs away. By imposing such an artificial arbituarty line restricting the President to be elected again, via the American constitution, it removes on his behalf the threat of another re-election which drains him of power towards the end of his term - rendering him a lame duck.

And so it proves with Article 50. It puts the EU on the back foot...because the deadline renders them powerless not us. For example (Article 50 (4) page 46)

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

In other words during the exit process we are banned from further interaction with EU processes. So what? We'll continue to be subject to all EU directives, regulations and decisions with no input, which makes very little difference to what happens now, but crucially we can now ignore them. Due to the time limit - the power drains away from the EU - because there's no way they can enforce any breach. By the time a breach by us, in terms of us ignoring them, is brought before the European Court of Justice, we'll be long gone and outside their jurisdiction.

Thus article 50 allows Cameron to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, allows him to maintain our trade with the EU with minimal disruption, and by nationalising all EU laws into British ones (with a view to unpicking them later) from day one make the transition from EU member to non-EU member seamless.

That he doesn't is his choice...but it's not ours.

A Slow Death

The bad news in the Eurozone keeps on coming; France is in trouble and is likely to be another Eurozone country to go pop, Greece unsurprisingly is still buggered and Eurozone unemployment swells to a record high:

In latest confirmation that the eurozone crisis is far from relenting, unemployment in the 17-country bloc reached a staggering 18.5 million in September, according to the European Union's statistical office, Eurostat.

The figures showed a marginal increase on August’s rate of 11.5 per cent, with the number of those out of work increasing by 146,000. But in comparison to last year’s September records, when unemployment was at 10.3 per cent, 2.2 million more Europeans find themselves out of work.

Similarly, youth unemployment (joblessness under the age of 25) recorded a 2.3 per cent annual increase on last September’s figure.

Across the whole 27-nation European Union unemployment reached a rate of 10.6 per cent, increasing by 169,000 since August.

Unemployment rate spiked in countries at the epicentre of the crisis. Spain posted a September-to-September increase from 22.4 per cent in 2011 to 25.8 per cent in 2012, with Portuguese unemployment swelling from 13.1 per cent to 16.7 per cent over the same period.

But it was Greece that recorded the most dramatic surge in joblessness, as unemployment figures shot from 17.8 percent in July 2011 to 25.1 per cent in July 2012 – the most recent month when figures were available. August data will likely be posted next week.

Overall, the record high in unemployment paints a bleak picture of the eurozone, plagued by declining consumption and waning business confidence.

Much as it is desirable for us to wish that the whole stupid project would just collapse in a big bang, it's more likely that it will suffer a slow and protracted death, thus taking us all down. Instead of making Europe a major player on the world stage, as puffed up unelected EU politicians like to reassure themselves with, it will instead do precisely the opposite - a kind of self inflicted industrial strength dose of Rohypnol - the rest of the world will take what they want and move on.

We are chained to a corpse, and no amount of pathetic arguing of semantics over the EU budget will change that.

Still, a little schadenfreude can be had that Ted Heath's other legacy - leaving his house to the nation - is up for sale because no cares about visiting it:

Charity closes Ted Heath's house after it flops as a tourist attraction with less (sic) than 40 visitors a day

I particularly like this quote ( my emphasis):

A charity is set to close Ted Heath’s house after it failed to be a lucrative tourist attraction because the ‘memories of Sir Edward Heath receded into history’.

God moves in mysterious ways...

Battlelines Drawn?

"The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again" George Santayana

For part of this afternoon, I've been reading the two-day debate in Parliament in 1991 which took place before the [EU] Intergovernmental Conference to produce what would become known as the 'Maastricht' treaty. It's fascinating stuff which often beggars belief - the same old arguments but more importantly the utter arrogance. It is a goldmine of quotes (some of which I'll add to my sidebar later). Here are just a few examples:

[Douglas] Hurd: Norway has not yet made a decision on whether she wants to enter the Community. She held a referendum that went the wrong way, but my hon. Friend is right in thinking that Norway may find an opportunity to reconsider. I do not yet know. 

And:

Mr. Cash : [Mr. Kaufman] said that, when he went to the European Parliament in 1987, he was, to say the least, a reluctant European. Could he explain how, in the following five or six years, he has made such a massive transformation? Is it because he is hoping that there will be a socialist Europe?

 And:

Mr. Edward Heath: Today we must welcome the fact that the three major parties in this country all agree about the importance of the Community... It is in the interests of our businesses to have a single currency. Imagine what would happen if the rest of the Community had a single currency, and we were the only country without it. What would happen to our business men and our investment? The consequences would be unthinkable.

And: 

Rev. Ian Paisley: I also took part in the vote in the House in 1972. It comes ill from the lips of  [Mr. Heath] to say that he had a mandate to do what he did. I remember the cursing and threats--I saw one hon. Member being hammered over the head with an Order Paper. There was certainly no democracy in the House when it took that vital vote to go into Europe. Every hon. Member who took part in the debate knows that perfectly well. 

In just two days of debate, the sham of our so-called representative democracy was laid bare 21 years ago. Ted Heath correctly points out all three major parties agree with our membership. We were taken in on a lie, our continuing membership is based on lies, if not the complete truth - yet those in Parliament 'decide' that is in our interests regardless - that it believes that we must be governed by someone else - MP's giving power away lent to them temporarily by the voters.

As such, as Witterings from Witney consistently argues we now live in a form elected dictatorship - a view shared by Thatcher in the above debate:

Now, it looks to me as if three parties will be for a single currency and for sacrificing a great deal of the work that it has previously been the right of Parliament to do. How are the people to make their views known in this absence of choice? That was the particular point. My right hon. Friend will remember that our right hon. Friend the noble Lord Hailsham, made an interesting speech on elective dictatorship.

It's with this in mind that I refer to Cameron's article in the Telegraph (published Sunday) yet again promising a referendum (we've been here before) despite ruling out an in/out one a couple of days ago:

The Prime Minister uses an article in The Sunday Telegraph to say that Britain is in danger of getting swamped by EU legislation and bureaucracy which he would like to see scrapped. He makes clear for the first time that changes will need the “full-hearted support of the British people” down the line and adds: “For me the two words 'Europe’ and 'referendum’ can go together.” 

 'Real change' he calls it, but:

Mr Cameron argues that an in or out referendum is not the right choice because the “vast majority of the British people” wants changes to the current relationship with the EU.

Today was Armed Forces day, an opportunity to thank those who gave their lives trying to defend a system which meant that future generations could change their government without having to do the same. Cameron is one of many that is an example of how that sacrifice was betrayed.

The consequence of which are the rules of the game no longer apply, as Autonomous Mind writes

Dear reader, if you want power then it has to be taken back.  Our servants have made themselves our masters.  They will not give power away.  Rejecting these people is not enough, we have to defeat them.  The game has to be played differently.  The rules of the game no longer apply.

Cameron, Parliament nor the main parties are any longer the future - we have to defeat all of them.

Record Low...

Mike Smithson at Political Betting has an interesting post on the latest polling figures of the 3 leaders of the main parties (my emphasis):

Combined view of the three leaders moves to record low.

After I’d Tweeted the latest YouGov leadership numbers I was asked whether the overall aggregate negative of 121% was a record. I stand to be corrected but I cannot find a period in modern UK political history when all three leaders have registered such poor numbers at the same time.

Generally when one or two are down then the other is up. What we are seeing is quite exceptional. 

This view is echoed by the Spectator:

Everyone's a loser

Have the opinion polls ever looked more discouraging, overall, for the Tories during this government? Not that I can remember, although I'm happy to be corrected...But Ed Miliband, for all his bravado in the Observer today, shouldn't get too excited just yet...the public appear similarly mistrustful of both the Tories and Labour at the moment...

One final point: the proportion of people telling YouGov that they will vote ‘Other’ at the next election is at its highest level (17 per cent) for all of this Parliament. 

Individual polls always have to be treated as just that, but it does add to a trend that the gap between the governed and governing is ever widening. One major, albeit largely unacknowledged, reason is we are outsource more and more of our sovereignty away to an unelected bureaucratic body, our own MP's are left with an ever diminishing pool of power as highlighted by Dr Richard North:

Having offshored most of Britain's governmental powers, some to Brussels and others to amorphous, anonymous groups such as the Bank of International Settlements, there is so little left of public policy-making in the UK that the elites are driven ever-more to micro-managing an increasingly limited spectrum.

So emerged the "schools 'n' hospitals" meme, as the only two issues of any substance over which British politicians still had any influence – issues which have dominated successive elections. And so it is that today The Boy returns to the Failygraph to write about – you guessed it - schools 'n' hospitals.

I link to it in the side bar, but it's worth reproducing the words of the infamous document 1971 FCO 30/1048 (my emphasis):

...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within the member states and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential.

Parliamentary sovereignty will be affected as we have seen. But the need for Parliament to play an increasing (if perhaps more specialised) role may develop. Firstly, although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come.

In the interval, to minimise the loss of democratic control it will be important that the British Parliamentarians should play an effective role both through the British membership in the European Parliament and through the processes of the British Parliament itself.

The document suggested that problems of "public anxieties" masquerading as concern for "loss of sovereignty" would only become fully evident at the end of the [20th] Century. This situation has now come to pass and despite the reluctance of the MSM to acknowledge where the power has gone as the big three UK Parties operate as a closed shop. In the real world "public anxieties" are at an all time high as predicted.

It can't (and won't) continue like this

Busted

Marvellous:

In 1992, Heath came back the Oxford Union to speak in a debate about the EU and, at the same time, to unveil a bust of himself. It was a controversial occasion: a group of Eurosceptic undergraduates removed the sculpture to a safe house, and announced that they would return it only if Heath voted for a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. He was, understandably, unamused.