A BETRAYAL OF
OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAMED
FROM 1896 -
Events here and in America
have illustrated the Power of a Responsible Free Press to the Security of
is the absence of a ‘Heathgate’–at the beginning, to alert the People, of the Treacherous clique of
Conspirators which enabled the trusting People of this Nation to be deceived by
their Government, Politicians, Civil Servants [where were the whistle blowers] and
we must also include sections of the Free Press. And it has taken almost 50
years for the Truth to emerge into the public domain. What were the
other Governments since then doing in hiding the true facts, which has lost
us our Fishing industry and has done so much damage to the infrastructure of our Institutions, and to the
almost destruction of a Free Nation State.
following article in the Daily Mail on Saturday 8th November 2003
has outlined the events leading to the most treacherous conspiracy since the Reign of James 11.
At that time Parliament had a fit punishment for Traitors. It is regrettable
that those accused of Treason consider the matter of little concern.
The incidents revealed in the Article have been known for some time but they
have been suppressed or ridiculed and the Daily Mail has done a great service to the People and
Nation by the prominence the matter has received at this crucial time in our
We wish to acknowledge the
content of the following outline of this Treachery is from the ‘Great
Deception’; A Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker and
\Richard North. Published by Continuum Books – on November 30th at
£20 plus (£1.99p&p.) Orders received before this date will be for only £16
(plus£1.95 p&p) call 0870 161 0870
is to follow is the Truth
and it may be difficult to accept that so many of our countrymen over the years
could betray their country, but the following facts are indisputable and are
confirmed from Official sources. To those who were earnest for a united
democratic Europe it must come as a betrayal to their good intentions but
events have proved the folly of this country taking this step under the guise
of an Economic Union.
* * *
BIRTH OF A EURO CON
‘One of the great myths of the European project is that
it first emerged from the years after 1945. This enables its supporters to
pretend it is a shiny, new creation of the modern post-war world.
In reality, as
we have already begun to see it is a failed dream that dates back to the 1920s
– making it every bit as modern and progressive as flappers, the Charleston and
the model T Ford.
It was in those
Jazz Age days that Monnet [father of the EU] first
began to develop his ‘supranationalist’ ideas, aided and abetted by a
now-forgotten British civil servant named Arthur Salter, with whom he worked
obsessed by the dream of European unity, and wrote a series of essays and
papers calling for a common political authority that would reduce national
governments to the same status as local authorities.
He wanted it to be run by a’ Secretariat’ of
international bureaucrats, loyal to the new organisation and not to the member
countries. This was the blueprint for today’s European Commission – set out by
one of Britain’s own officials more than 70 years ago.
Other Utopians of the same era were equally besotted by
dreams of international unity, but what had marked out Monnet and Salter was
their absolute conviction that Europe needed far more than co-operation between
independent states. Indeed, the path of inter-governmentalism’ – voluntary
co-operation between separate nations who retained their own freedom – was
anathema to Monnet from the start.
the very idea’ poison’ and ‘pollution’, and saw this rival form of
international action as his greatest enemy – far more so , in fact, than
Part of his
genius lay in his extraordinary ability, operating out of the public eye, to
get other people to promote his ideas.
There is much more enlightening information to follow –– there is
always the book on sale at a special pre November 30 £16 plus (£1.99)
thereafter its usual price of £20 plus (£1.99).
But the other part was his realisation that he was never
going to get his way if he went for it directly and all at once. He knew
instinctively [as did the Great Deceiver of the House of Commons]
that he would have to hide the real nature of his goal behind the pretence that
it was something less extreme.
There is no
more glaring instance of this than the story of how the project was eventually
launched in the early 1950’s when six countries – Germany, France, Italy,
Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg – were persuaded to place their coal and steel
industries under the direction of one central authority.
The scheme was
presented as a way of fostering peace in the fragile post-war world.
Since coal and
steel were the industries on which modern warfare depended, so the argument
ran, it was surely only sensible to remove them from the clutches of individual
All this was
promoted as the as the personal vision of Robert Schuman, France’s foreign
minister. European enthusiasts have long bemoaned Britain’s failure to support
the so-called Schuman plan as our ‘worst’ mistake of the post-war period By
standing aloof from the negotiations, we supposedly missed the chance to exert
our influence on European integration from the start. But the truth is
startlingly different – indeed, every aspect of this ‘official’ story is false.
Although Schuman was the public advocate for the plan, in
reality it was the work of our old friend Monsieur Monnet. He had first
outlined it to a colleague in 1941, the year after his Franco-British union was
He gave his proposals to Schuman, knowing he needed to
resolve a dispute with Germany over the iron and steel heartland of the Ruhr,
and then used him as little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy to mouth his own
All the time, he tried to hide his true objective –
which, as early drafts of his plans made clear was to use the scheme as ‘the
first stop of a Franco-German Union’, on the same lines he had proposed for
France and Britain in 1940.
This, in turn, was to be part of a wider European
federation. No wonder Monnet referred to his work as a ‘silent revolution’
He had just one worry. The whole scheme hinged on power
over coal and steel being handed to a separate ‘supranational’ authority,
completely free from the control of member states, which could then be the
embryo of a future federal government.
realised that Britain, then Europe’s most powerful nation would never agree to
such an idea, since it would entail losing control over more than a million
workers in newly nationalised industries.
He feared that
British ministers would demand changes to put national. Governments back in the
driving seat – torpedoing Monnet’s secret federal agenda.
Frenchman’s answer was simple – he made acceptance of the ‘supranational’
principle a non- negotiable condition for entry into the talks. He then set a
ridiculously short deadline for Britain to agree.
words, far from Britain casually snub in these crucial discussions and giving
up the chance to influence them, Monnet had deliberately excluded us –
precisely to avoid our influence being exerted.
Yet it is a fiction of ‘aloofness’ and ‘failure to
participate’ that has come to dominate the mythology surrounding Britain’s
involvement with the European project.
It rests on a determination to portray the founders of
the project as reasonable and open to ideas, whereas the British must
invariably be shown as obdurate and lacking in vision.
The central implicit vision behind this vision of history
is: Europeans – positive, forward-looking, good; British – negative,
[There is much more to follow, though this is only
an outline]. For to order the book ‘A Secret History of the European Union’ by
Christopher Booker and Richard North published by Continuum Books before
November 30th at £16 plus (£1.99p&p) or after this date the
usual price of £20 plus (£1.99p&p) 0870 161 0870