THE decline and fall of the European Union
Major General Sir Laurence New CB CBE
[Freedom Today-Spring 2008]
Sir Laurence New sees similarities between the Soviet and European Unions.
MICHAIL GORBACHEV is quoted as saying
" The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe."
If the comparison is just, it follows that Brussels (which is as deficient of glasnost as Moscow ever was and as centralised as Rome) will decline and fall as surely as did the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. One need only ask how soon and from what disease.
1. How soon? The disintegration could start much earlier in the time-line of the European Union than that of the Soviet Union because it has neither the extreme brutality of the Bolsheviks nor the contrived isolation from foreigners to ensure conformity.
2. From what Disease?
The fatal flaws in the Bolshevik experiment are already evident in the European Dream.
a. Both were conceived by visionaries who allowed only part of their visions to be seen.
Lenin claimed that the Bolsheviks were seizing power in the name of the Soviets of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies; but it was the Party, a
"clan of professional revolutionaries"
a party elite, that was to rule the country for the next seventy years. The visionaries of the EU, Schumann and Monnet ,were guilty of the same deceit. Jean Monnet said "Europe's nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.
b. Both Unions were conceived as non-democratic.
The Soviet leaders exercised dictatorial authority, unthreatened by the democratic process by which we have been ruled for the past 793 years under
Lenin claimed brazenly that the
"dictatorship of the Proletariat justifies the use of force unrestricted by law"
Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov were never at risk of being evicted from their official residence if the people decreed their time was up. Similarly the executive of the EU are in no way dependent upon us, the proletariat, for their tenure in office.
c. Both Unions were intended to be essentially secular.
The Christian Faith was decried in the one and ignored in the other. If there was an appetite for a spiritual dimension it was to be satisfied by the political myths of Marxism in the one and the European dream in the other. Herein lay one of the most robust seeds of decline, since a conscious rejection of universal moral principles exposed both unions to the pervasive consequences of
d. Checks and balances were omitted in both Unions.
The Soviet leaders were entirely above the law and were entirely corrupt. The EU is institutionally corrupt. The scale in the EU is not deep but it is broad, evidenced by the much publicised cases of abuse of allowances and misuse of funds. This is evidenced by the sacking of the whistleblower, Marta Andreason after she revealed the widespread fraud and lack of control which she was hired to uncover.
The extent of harassment of whistleblowers such as Paul van Buitenan, who brought down the Santer Commission, is reminiscent of the behaviour of the KGB. Some of the prominent political leaders have brought to their EU office a past which includes well publicised convictions for corruption.
c. Parliamentary Authority.
Members of the European Parliament have no authority over the unelected EU Commission than the Sovnarkom had over the Politburo, or after 1946, the Presidium. Equating roughly to the Council of People's Commissars, the European Parliament is a very large talking shop, a fig leaf to cover the
LACK OF DEMOCRACY
whose principal constitutional responsibility is scrutinising
In this they have been unsuccessful, and not they alone, the auditors having declined to sign off the accounts for the past twelve years.
f. Excessive consumption of resources.
Lenin and his successors were profligate in their use of the national wealth which they inherited. They expended vast sums on their bureaucratic machine and on rewarding the Party elite. This misuse of resources, when and where it became known or suspected, was one of the seeds of eventual disillusionment.
The cost of the European Union is likely to invoke the same eventual penalty. It is estimated that membership of the EU already costs the UK some £850 per annum for every British man, women and child. A family of four is thus paying £3,400 per annum on average for the privilege of belonging to the EU. Even if the benefits were evident this would be unsustainable.
g. Abolition of the old provinces.
Lenin's strategy, in accordance with Marxist precepts, was to degrade the old provinces which had been the basis of the Russian Empire. This was to prove fateful; the awakened desire of the people to re-establish their provinces and nations was one of the main engines which powered the eventual break up of the UNION. The EU strategy has been similar. It can be clearly seen in the case of the United Kingdom. The Westminster Parliament has been deliberately sidelined by the EU Commission, some 80% of all UK legislation being conceived in and implemented from BRUSSELS.
The Maas-tricht Treaty divided the British isles into twelve regions, namely
with nine English Regions namely
YORKSHIRE and HUMBERSIDE
each with their own minister, and each increasingly answerable directly to
The then Deputy prime Minister, Mr John Prescott was used as an enthusiastic tool in establishing the regions. The people of the NORTH EAST rejected the proposal for a formal assembly but were powerless to prevent the process of regionalisation which has continued despite the democratically expressed will to the contrary.
Lindsay Jenkins's book
" Disappearing Britain"
reveals the extent to which this strategy is being extended and enforced.
h. The apparently irreversible growth of the Bureaucratic Appendages.
Twenty years after the October Revolution, Stalin was already bewailing the size of the Bolshevik apparatus. In speech to the plenum in 1937 he said
" In our Party there are three to four thousand top leaders, some thirty to forty thousand middle leaders and one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand lower ranks".
The scant evidence is that these numbers were only the tip of the bureaucratic iceberg.
No European leader has had the courage to admit the size of the European bureaucracy but the evidence is that it is vast and growing.
As law making, policy and implementation are switched to Brussels from the national capitals one might hope for a sizeable reduction in national civil servants but the enthusiasm for the European Dream amongst civil servants, not given to self-immolation, is surely the clearest indication that this is not at all on their agenda
3. The Written Constitution
The Government appears to be intent upon accepting the self-amending EU Constitution despite the growing evidence that the people, if consulted, would deliver an overwhelming rejection.
The people are not fools; it is evident, even to those disciplined by the Party Whip , that the strategy embodied in the Constitution denies or ignores the dangers referred to above. Yet there is little evidence of mounting rebellion. Perhaps those in Government prefer to listen to their civil servants and advisers who exercise so pervasive an influence in Westminster, and who, like their Bolshevik Party equivalents, have long regarded democracy as a messy obstacle to their running the Union.
[What we find so alarming is that men like Major General Sir Laurence New CB CBE seem to accept the inevitable instead of leading a fight to retain our 'Rights and Liberties'. A few years ago we called on such personages to lead from the front
and mobilise the eurosceptic forces into a unified force with the intention to refuse to accept the EU Constitution under any conditions.
Instead all we have had is TALK-TALK and much more TALK and the occasional Rally which because of the disunity in the ranks was a feeble matter of balloons-and queuing to hand MPs bits of paper with the good old British calm and order.
WHAT WAS NEEDED WAS UNIFIED ACTION AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
All we got were mice instead of lions
We can draw a parallel to our plight today as dangerous as it was during the reign of the despotic renegade King Charles II at a time of Civil War when such men as John Hampden who died with others in the service of their country. Oliver Cromwell and Pym and Elliot who died in captivity and many others decided that they had to fight on to protect their sacred inheritance secured by the Great Charter the
There is in this Great Charter the 61st clause which states that should the Monarch attempt to take away the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE then it is permitted for 25 Conservators to enforce the due observance of the Charter.
Today in June 2008 the world must be looking on in absolute astonishment that a people so renowned in bravery and courage in its exploits over its long history in our Island home and having fought Napoleon and later Bismarck and Hitler in the TWO WORLD WARS in the 20th Century to set Europe FREE - should be hiding behind the barricades instead of taking the fight to the enemy.
The English people have been let down by their so-called eurosceptic leaders who instead of consolidating their forces for battle decided that talking and writing would do. If there was an issue which demanded immediate action it was the
of the once loyal
COMMONS of ENGLAND
HOUSE of LORDS.
in giving away the
"Rights and Liberties
In a phrase from the Civil War during 1630 which fits events in June 2008
"Everything was to be done for the people, nothing by them".
[With the refusal of Gordon Brown to allow the British People a REFERENDUM on the EU TREATY we use the words of our greatest English poet William Shakespeare:
" The man who hath no [faith ] in himself
Nor is not moved with concord [with the people]
Is fit for treasons, Stratagems, and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as [Hell]
Let no such man be trusted.
[All words in brackets are ours]
Shakespeare was and is the very incarnation of
Those who love Shakespeare must love Shakespeare's country. He loved it for its lanes, and meadows, streams and woods; he loved it for its history, and for all the great characters who had fought and worked and died upon its soil. He loved it for its fair maids and sturdy men, whose hearts beat true for the most part, whom he loved with great soul of a man who can see through the outer husk of a person to his inner nature, and to whom everyone around him seemed bound with the bonds of blood and fellowship. In many a play he has given vent to his love for his country: [Phillip Gibbs-1903]
"This royal throne of kings, this sceptr'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi paradise
This fortress, built by Nature for herself
Against infection, and the hand of war;
This happy breed of men, this little world, this precious stone set in the silver sea,
which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands; This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings
Fear'd by their breeds, and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home
(For Christian service and true chivalry)
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry
Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's son:
This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world!"
As with many inhabitants of Shakespeare's county and in other parts of the country there is a reminder in the local churchyard . In Warwick the home of the kingmaker, in the shadow of Warwick Castle there is St Nicolas Church as you enter within the graveyard after crossing the road from the medieval castle a visitor will observe the grave stones of a father John and a son of that name both of whom were stone masons in the service of the Earl of Warwick. There is no mistaking the skilled work which was evident in the stone work. Today, like so many in our country the descendants are in a battle to 'Right the Wrong' however long it takes.
At the time of the Civil War- of PARLIAMENT against the KING -the Buckinghamshire churchyards became as elsewhere the fittest places to muster the trained bands of the county.
In June 2008 it is
THE PEOPLE against PARLIAMENT
but the response of the PEOPLE to save their accustomed LIBERTIES has been none existent and a disgrace to those who have given their lives for their country in the knowledge that they were protecting a sacred trust.
Throughout the country the lives of countless people have links with the historic past and its blooded history which should have warned many that they can never take their 'Rights and Liberties' for granted. Each generation has the solemn duty to pass on to future generations the inheritance which had been fought for over 1500 years on the battlefield and in the courts. Regrettably, the many in our time who thought they had better things to do have ignored the warnings from the past will shortly experience what life is like in a totalitarian super-state.
Those in positions of authority such as the likes of Major general Sir Laurence New CB CBE should have taken robust action years ago to stem the rush to a totalitarian state.
Many others such as the Major General appear quite prepared to accept the situation in the hope that the TREATY of TREASON will be amended or a withdrawal will be possible in the future. As those who have read the TREATY know it is better not to accept the terms in the first place because it will not be so simple to extract ourselves from the dark abyss of the EUROPEAN DREAM. The conditions of withdrawal have a forfeit which is a further burden to bear after the TREACHERY of our PARLIAMENT and the no doubt the breaking of the CORONATION OATH by
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
In the words of the historian S.R.Gardiner of the events in 1688
" In a political constitution it is desirable that one body should be supreme in all important matters, whilst it is equally desirable that it should not be so easily supreme as to be dispensed from the necessity of rendering a reason for its actions, or to be freed from the obligation of doing its best to conciliate those who are opposed to it. The conditions were fulfilled by the Crown in the sixteenth century, and are fulfilled by the House of Commons in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
"It is to no mere alteration of political mechanism that this happy result is due. The moderation of thought, the spirit of compromise, the readiness to give a hearing to anyone who seems to have a valuable advice to offer, these form the soil out of which our
has grown, and in which alone, whatever modifications it may hereafter need, it will in future continue to flourish . Not on one side alone of the great civil strife of the seventeenth century are
OUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL ANCESTORS,
The high energy of a statesmanship founded upon a national resolve may brace itself to noble deeds by the example of Eliot, whilst Strafford's warnings may serve to remind us of the necessity of giving weight to intelligence in the
CONDUCT OF THE STATE.
He who thinks of moderation, of wise dislike of the application of force to solve religious and political difficulties may think of Falkland, whilst the high ideal of life, without which all work degenerates into self-seeking, is inseparably connected with the name of
The thoughts which these men and others like them made their own did not perish with their failure to achieve political success. The religion of Herbert and of Laud reappeared modified but not suppressed after the
had done their uttermost.
The religion of Sibbes and Milton reappeared after the
in the 'Paradise Lost' and in 'Pilgrim's Progress.' The serious intelligence of the
the breadth of view and artistic perception of the
became elements of the national life all the more fruitful of
when they ceased to come into violent collision with one another."
Regrettably , in June 2008 there is no COMPROMISE from our HOUSE of COMMONS or the LORDS but their determination to ride roughshod over the feelings and sentiments of a once FREE ENGLISH PEOPLE who wish to RETAIN their ACCUSTOMED
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES
As stated above:
has grown, and in which alone, whatever modifications it may hereafter need, it will in future continue to flourish . "
The actions of our Parliament in June 2008 has been contrary to the above sentiments.
AS in the fierce struggles in the Civil War we also in 2008 need to
'RIGHT the WRONG'
Finally, we use of the words of our second greatest English poet John Milton who in his ' Paradise lost' has expressed the conflict within and we having in mind a Prime Minister who has battled with his conscience and lost:
"Horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The Hell within him; for within him Hell
He brings , and round about him, nor from Hell
One step, no more than from himself, can fly
By change of place. Now conscience wakes despair
That slumbered; wakes the bitter memory
Of what he was, What is, and what must be."
Gordon Brown is aware that the United States of Europe has no moral compass and as clearly shown above will self-destruct. But the folly is to think that being outside Europe was not an option for if there was one nation state that could more than most survive and strengthen its position in the world of trade and world statesmanship it is ENGLAND with its neighbours with millions of its people scattered around the Globe.
The architects of the nightmare dream of a European Union knew that they had to get their chief opponent ENGLAND with its historically instilled world trade contacts and its democratic parliamentary system neutralised. This our pretended protector of our LIBERTIES our PARLIAMENT has offered to the GODLESS ENTITY for NOTHING!
[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]