Another blow for British farmers

“Battery chickens” are a thing of the past in Britain, and millions of pounds have been spent ensuring that this form of egg production is well and truly eradicated in this country. But now it looks as if the EU, which helped to push through this policy in the first place, is no longer interested in enforcing it and will allow egg producers on the Continent to flout the law, thereby undercutting British farmers.

John Dalli, the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, told the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee recently that the Commission will no longer make any serious attempt to ensure that the battery cage ban is properly enforced or that consumers will be made aware that they are buying battery eggs.

The Commissioner’s statement brought a furious response from committee member Stuart Agnew MEP, who is himself a farmer and a producer of free range eggs.

Mr Agnew has launched a campaign to ensure that eggs bought and sold in the UK from January 2012 onwards will be from approved sources and not from illegal battery farming. From 1st January, a ban on eggs produced from battery cage hens is due to come into effect, but despite being warned many times the European Commission has failed to take any serious steps to enforce the ban or to pressure member states to prepare for it.

Unfair competition

The biggest concern is with eggs produced in Eastern and Southern Europe, Mr Agnew said. “Five EU member states – Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Spain and Greece – have to date provided absolutely no information about their efforts to comply with the legislation. Mr Dalli told us that it is the responsibility of member states to ensure compliance, not the Commission, which is a total abrogation of responsibility for legislation it generated.

“This effectively means that British egg producers, who have invested £400 million of their own money to comply with the ban, are being abandoned and many could go out of business in the face of unfair competition from battery egg producers in other EU member states.

“It becomes more than ever vital that the UK Government takes urgent steps to ensure that imported eggs comply with the law.”

The UKIP MEP added, “In order to protect British egg producers and consumers from illegally produced eggs, I am stepping up pressure on supermarkets to ensure that they will not be sourcing battery produced eggs after 1st January. I am also making sure that they are aware of the potential problem of illegal eggs coming into the country and/or being used in food products they are selling to British consumers.

“Fortunately, some consumers are waking up to the problem and, to date I have had nearly 400 emails on this one subject. I have replied to every one of them, supplying a list of 22 supermarket head office addresses that they should write to and I have suggested that they should also write to their local MP, to get them to pressure the Government to ensure that businesses that trade in imported eggs are made aware of the need to avoid battery produced eggs. The response has been overwhelmingly supportive of my campaign.

“One other big lesson everyone should learn from this crisis,” said Mr Agnew, “Is that if we were an independent self-governing nation, we would never have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess.”

Lord Stoddart gives ‘eurozealots,’ who still want Britain to join the euro, some home truths

During a debate in the House of Lords on ‘Recent Developments’ in the EU (16.2.12), the independent Labour peer and former Campaign for an Independent Brtian chairman, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has made a major speech in which he challenged “eurozealots,” including the Deputy Prime Minister, who continue to call for Britain to join the euro and told them some home truths about the current state of the EU. He also outlined the threat and the cost to Britain from the Solvency II capital rules and the proposal to make mortgages in default after 90 days in arrears.

Lord Stoddart said: “…. the Solvency II capital rules, which I believe are now being agreed, will cost the British financial industry £600 billion, according to JP Morgan. They will cause massive damage to the United Kingdom’s pensions industry and will virtually kill off the last vestiges of final salary schemes. That will hurt ordinary British people. We should take note of that.

“Then there is the proposal to make mortgages in default after 90 days in arrears, which conflicts with the Government’s own policy of helping people, quite rightly, to hang onto their homes when they are in financial difficulty. Then there is the demand for another £9 billion to meet the additional commitments in the present financial round, which will cost the United Kingdom £1 billion. That is extra to the £10.3 billion that we have already committed and money that we do not have.”

Lord Stoddart was also scathing about the EU’s treatment of Greece: “The treatment and humiliation of Greece by the EU is alarming, disgraceful and completely undemocratic. Furthermore, the Greeks have had the right to govern themselves taken away and the leaders of the Government are unelected Prime Ministers. The political parties now have to guarantee that they will put into place measures that will hurt ordinary Greeks in a manner that is totally unacceptable in anything other than a third world country.”

He expressed his surprise and amazement that “in spite of everything that has happened” “eurozealots”, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, still want to “get rid of the pound” and “join the euro.” Lord Stoddart said: “I find that quite incredible.”

The full text of Lord Stoddart’s speech is as follows:
My Lords, I am very pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and I am sure that the House enjoyed his very lively speech. I was also glad that he corrected the trade figures from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. Some people seem to believe that we did not trade with Europe before we joined the Common Market in 1973. But of course before 1973 we had very good trading relationships with Europe and made a profit on many of our exports; including cars, incidentally.

It is difficult to know where to start in a speech about the European Union because of the chaos that reigns in the Union, particularly in the eurozone. As usual, there have been some disparaging comments about those of us who are called Eurosceptics. I would remind those people that the Eurosceptics warned of the dangers of joining or having a single currency. We were told that if we did not join, we would be sidelined. We would miss the train and we would miss the boat. Indeed, people like me were called unpatriotic because we believed that it would be inimical to British interests to join the single currency.

We have been vindicated by events. We are not pleased about that, but we have been vindicated. We believe that the euro currency in the eurozone would not be good for this country even if it might be good for other countries. What surprises and amazes me-and we have heard it again this afternoon-is that the eurozealots who want to get rid of the pound still believe that the United Kingdom should join the euro. In spite of everything that has happened, they believe that we should still join. Even the Deputy Prime Minister believes that. I find that quite incredible.

The eurozone has proved that a single currency cannot work without fiscal and political union. A lot of people have pointed that out this afternoon.

This debate is about developments in the European Union. So far we have heard about great issues, but all sorts of things are going on all the time in the European Union, many of which affect ordinary people in this country. For example, the Solvency II capital rules, which I believe are now being agreed, will cost the British financial industry £600 billion, according to JP Morgan. They will cause massive damage to the United Kingdom’s pensions industry and will virtually kill off the last vestiges of final salary schemes. That will hurt ordinary British people. We should take note of that.

Then there is the proposal to make mortgages in default after 90 days in arrears, which conflicts with the Government’s own policy of helping people, quite rightly, to hang onto their homes when they are in financial difficulty. Then there is the demand for another £9 billion to meet the additional commitments in the present financial round, which will cost the United Kingdom £1 billion. That is extra to the £10.3 billion that we have already committed and money that we do not have. We will have to borrow £1 billion more. Only on Tuesday, the EU Commission announced that 12 member states, including the United Kingdom, are suffering from severe economic imbalances leading to economic shocks and that they will be placed under stringent observation so that they do not compromise the stability of the EU.

That dictatorial language and action is now commonplace in the EU. The treatment and humiliation of Greece by the EU is alarming, disgraceful and completely undemocratic. Furthermore, the Greeks have had the right to govern themselves taken away and the leaders of the Government are unelected Prime Ministers. The political parties now have to guarantee that they will put into place measures that will hurt ordinary Greeks in a manner that is totally unacceptable in anything other than a third world country. That is in advance of what will be done.

Some of us predicted that eventually there would be fighting in the streets in the European Union or Common Market. We now have it. We have fighting in the streets not only in Greece but in other countries as well-

As usual, a crisis situation is being used to transfer more power to the EU institutions. The fiscal agreement was made between countries other than the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic. It may be intergovernmental at this stage. However, all experience has shown that inter-governmentalism eventually collapses and becomes an EU competence. That happened following the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon treaty, all of which transferred more powers from nation states to the institutions of the European Union.

However, even this does not go far enough for the European top dogs. Frau Merkel, for example, was recently reported in the German newspaper Handelsblatt as saying that step by step, European politics is merging with domestic politics. She called for closer political integration, with members ceding further powers to the European Commission, which ought to be the real government of Europe, with the Council of Ministers operating as a second chamber and adding strength to a European Parliament. That is the vision of people such as the Germans, which is also supported by the current President of France. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, does not agree with that. He is calling for a completely different sort of Europe-but Germany and France in particular are determined to go very much further than the noble Lord outlined in his speech. Of course it is not only the leaders of individual states who are doing this. Mr Barroso was this week telling the Chinese that the EU will become a fully-fledged political union after the financial crisis. I hope that the Government will tell these people that that is not the vision that the United Kingdom has for the European Union; and, indeed, that the British people will not tolerate that. They want to continue to be governed by their own elected representatives and by institutions that have been built up and been successful over many hundreds of years.

How much longer can the Euro survive? And, if the Euro collapses, what will happen to the European Union?

By Andy Smith

While America and much of the English-speaking world struggling to climb out of recession, the EU is still in the depths of economic gloom. The crisis is deepest in Eurozone countries such as Greece and Ireland which, due to the failures of the Single Currency, have had to turn to their EU neighbours for a financial rescue package.

In fact it was cash-strapped Britain that had to bail out the Republic of Ireland and prevent the Irish economy from crashing completely. With virtually all European governments having to make draconian cuts in public services, and with unemployment rising dramatically across the Eurozone, protests have often turned into full-blown riots.

One size fits all

None of this should be a surprise to anyone. The problem with the Euro is that it is a “one size fits all” solution that puts economic control in the hands of the EU. There is no scope for flexibility to suit the circumstances of different countries. Single currencies only work in single states. The political leadership of the EU has already taken us a long way down the road to a “United States of Europe” with its Maastricht and Lisbon treaties – but the Eurofederalists’ dream of a single, totalitarian EU State, is just out of their reach. And will continue to be while the Eurozone – the ultimate expression of European “unity” – flounders.

In the meantime, the economic problems grow. And the crisis is not confined to the poorest Eurozone countries. The more efficient economies, such as Germany, are being dragged into it. And even Britain, in the EU but still outside the Eurozone, is affected. Having spent millions of pounds on a rescue package for Ireland, we will soon be asked to help shore up the near-bankrupt economies of Portugal and Spain too. What’s more, around half of our exports currently go to countries in the Eurozone, and if the economies of the Eurozone decline further, so too will Britain.

Not immune

So, despite making the right decision to keep out of the Single Currency, we are not immune to the Eurozone’s developing economic crisis. This is totally unsustainable. But the political leadership of the EU – including our supposedly Eurosceptic Prime Minister David Cameron – will do everything they can to keep the Eurozone afloat and keep the EU together. Their answer is to try to increase Brussels’ powers and accelerate the process of “convergence” and unification. This is in spite of Prime Minister Cameron’s pledge to block any power-grabs by the EU without a referendum.

So much for politicians’ promises!

What then are the inevitable consequences for the Eurozone – and the EU? Soaring unemployment, widespread business failures, and unavoidable political crisis throughout Europe…

There is, however, an alternative for Britain. Withdrawal from the EU would enable us to escape the crisis, save billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that is currently poured into the bottomless pit of the EU, and regain the trading opportunities in the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world that have been largely closed to us since we joined the “Common Market” in 1973. Britain has been an outwardlooking trading nation for hundreds of years. But this began to change in the 1970s when we entered the Common Market – and turned out backs on the Commonwealth. Today, it is the straitjacket of the EU that prevents us from taking advantage of our longstanding relationship with countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Eurofederalists dismiss groups like the Campaign for an Independent Britain – opponents of the EU – as “Little Englanders”, implying that we have no interest in the world outside the British Isles. In reality, the federalists are the insular ones – Little Europeans – whose worldview is narrow and whose minds are closed.

What CIB wants is for Britain to opt out of the failing EU and instead become a major independent trading nation once more, in charge of our laws, government and trade. The choice facing Britain is simple: stay in the EU and go down with the sinking ship of the Eurozone, or sail away to a brighter, more prosperous future

British Industry Betrayed

Industrial WastelandYet again the Government has awarded a major engineering contract to a foreign supplier – in this case to the German conglomerate Siemens when it should have gone to Derbybased train-maker Bombardier. As a direct consequence, over 1,000 jobs have been lost in Derby and the building of railway rolling stock in the area looks set to come to an end after 150 years. This is entirely due to European Union procurement rules and the Government’s failure to stand up for British interests and protect British jobs.

Edward Spalton, national vice-chairman of the crossparty Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), comments: “The de-industrialisation of Britain was foreseen as an integral part of the EU project from its earliest days. Time and again, our politicians award major contracts to foreign companies in preference to British ones. We can contrast the deceit and bad faith of Britain’s political class with the devotion to duty of Britain’s navy, army and air force which we so recently celebrated on Armed Forces Day.”

Mr Spalton points out that British soldiers swear an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen … and defend her against all enemies”. Over 350 British military personnel have died in the last few years keeping that oath in Afghanistan. Cabinet Ministers also take an oath when they become members of the Privy Council and swear to “bear faith and allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and [to] assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions … granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown … against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates and generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty.”

Mr Spalton says: “Ministers who took this oath made the Queen and all of us into subjects of the European Union, bound to obey dictates of its officials whom we did not elect and cannot dismiss. This is the rottenness at the heart of the state which betrayed the workers at Bombardier and many other firms. The soldiers kept their oaths to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, and so of the country, against all comers. Yet the ministers who give them orders in the Queen’s name do not keep theirs.”

Whose side are ministers on?

Writing in the Derby Telegraph, Mr Spalton explains: “British governments have frequently preferred to give large orders to EU companies rather than to British ones. The army’s biggest ever order for lorries went to MAN Fahrzeuge when there were perfectly suitable British suppliers. They also bought an Austrian armoured vehicle, the Pinzgauer Vector, supposedly to provide extra protection for troops who were being needlessly killed in the Snatch Landrover. The Pinzgauer was withdrawn because it was even more dangerous. The driver sat over a front wheel arch, vulnerable to land mines and explosive devices.

“So Bombardier is in a long line of British companies and workers who have been consistently rejected by British governments in the name of ‘EU rules’. We may well ask: Whose side are they on?”

European Odyssey by Edward Spalton

From Moderate Support to outright Opposition to the EU Project

 I was a few years younger than this audience when I first heard about the institution which is now the European Union. I was on a school trip to Germany and the German boy, who was my host, asked “Have you heard about our Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft? It will guarantee our living standard”.

Neither his English nor my German was up to translating the word, so an explanation had to wait until we got home. When I mentioned it, several other boys said that their hosts had asked exactly the same question. So it was obviously something they had been taught in school. It was 1958.

Our teacher explained that the word meant “economic community” and it had been created the previous year by a treaty between Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries. We talked about it for a while and thought it was a great idea that these former enemy countries were getting together to co-operate with each other and improve their lives. Most boys had fathers or uncles who had been in the war and it seemed a hopeful sign of future peace but we didn’t think of it as something we in Britain would be joining.

“But remember” said our teacher “This shows a big difference between the traditions of England and Germany. You would not be taught a political opinion as fact like that in a British school”.

Of course, when we came to our conclusion that the EU (then the EEC) was a good thing, we did so in total ignorance. We didn’t know what the treaty contained, what institutions (if any) it set up and what its political objectives were. For many years people called it “The Common Market” and thought it was a co-operative trade agreement between sovereign countries.

When I went to work in the Sixties I studied calf rearing and animal feed production techniques with a Dutch company with which our firm made a technology sharing agreement. The Dutch are quite like us and so were their farming and feed production but all their prices for foods were very much higher than ours – things like wheat, beef and milk powder. As an industrial country, Britain had a free trade policy for food with the whole world. The Dutch were in “The Common Market” and their prices were driven up by the high levies and customs duties imposed on food coming from outside Europe. This was the Common Agricultural Policy.

We started to pay these needlessly high prices from 1973 when we joined the “The Common Market”. In 1993 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said “an average family of four in Britain pays approximately and extra £940 a year as a result of artificially high agricultural prices. It will be more today. Just think how much that has come to over your lifetime. Your parents might well have been able to get you through university without a student loan, if they had been able to keep the money in their pockets.

It was this wicked waste of resources – the grain, butter and beef mountains caused by guaranteed high EU prices which first started me questioning the European project.

Those food mountains were dumped on the world market at well below the cost of production, putting many Third World farmers out of business and thus increasing the likelihood of famine as their countries were less able to feed themselves. The cost of that evil has also been borne by your parents’ taxes. Britain’s fishing fleet was destroyed at the same time and is now a shadow of its former self.

So what was the political programme driving this strange policy? It certainly was not merely establishing a “Common Market” – not even one with the rules of a lunatic asylum. I now quote from Jean Monnet who has been called “The Father of Europe”. Addressing the Washington Press Club on April 30 1952 he spoke of the European Coal and Steel Community, the fore-runner of the all-embracing “Common Market”. He said “In this challenging time we are naturally encountering difficulties. THEY ARE THE BIRTH PANGS ATTENDING THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE”.

A German politician expressed his view rather more robustly in 1951. Dr. Seebohm, Minister of Commerce in Dr. Adenauer’s government said “Will free Europe join Germany? Germany is the heart of Europe and the limbs must adjust to the heart, not the heart to the limbs”. Germany has continued to be very successful in making the nascent European state to serve its requirements ever since.

“The Common Market”, freer trade between member states and so on were all part of a gradual step-by-step process – abolishing the national democracies of Europe and making them into mere provinces under a single European government with no pretence of democratic accountability. Or consent. That was, is and ever more shall be the aim of the continuing process of European integration as the unelected Commission in Brussels and other institutions gather ever more power to themselves.

As early as 1947 Peter Thorneycroft, later Chancellor of the Exchequer and chairman of the Conservative party wrote in “Design for Europe”

“No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan must involve. The British people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences…..They must not be asked”.

And that is how the EU project has always progressed, running away by stealth from democratic responsibility to the people, to undemocratic institutions in Europe which remain in power whoever you vote for.

Here is a time line of deceit and arrogance by Edward Heath, the prime minister who took us in

1970 THE LIE DIRECT “There will be no blueprint for a federal Europe”

1971 “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”.

1975 “There is no danger of a single currency”.

Yet on 1 November 1991 in an interview with Peter Sissons

Sissons: “The single currency, the United States of Europe: was that on your mind when you took Britain in?”

Heath: “Of course, yes

The deceitfulness of politicians is not uniquely Conservative . Whose election manifesto do you think I am quoting here?

“We’ll protect British industry against unfair foreign competition”

“We’ll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs”. That was Tony Blair’s manifesto in 1983. Gordon Brown’s was the same.

The EU has destroyed British jobs. The cumulative adverse balance of trade amounts to some £300 billion – so our most successful export to the EU has been British jobs – mostly skilled, hi tech, well-paid British jobs. In exchange we have got shelf stacking and spanner and screwdriver work. This is why your job prospects are so poor today. .

The majority of laws passed by our Parliament today are required by the EU. The EU tells the government what laws it must make and the government whips its MPs to vote for them. So it looks democratic but it isn’t. We and our interests do not come into it at all. No wonder the main parties all ratted on their promise of a referendum on the EU constitution, renamed the Lisbon treaty! Parliament is a marionette. We can vote to change who sits there but whilst we remain in the EU, it is not we the people but Brussels which pulls their strings.

Mark Leonard, a convinced Europhile explained the process very well under the heading “How the EU deceives its way to power”

“Like an invisible hand, the EU operates through existing political structures… There are no European courts, legislatures or business regulations on display in London. The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still there but they uphold and implement European law. By creating common standards that are implemented through national institutions, the EU can envelope countries without becoming a target for hostility

Does it matter? Mr. van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, Senhor Barroso and the EU Commissioners are our real government for many of the major policies which affect us all – from world trade and climate change to the way our dustbins are collected and the permitted curvature of our cucumbers.

They may be the kindest, wisest people with only our best interests at heart. But if they or their successors are not endowed with wisdom and good judgement and they do not have Britain’s best interests at heart, what then? They were not appointed democratically and we cannot get rid of them democratically – whoever we send to Parliament, whoever lives in No 10 Downing Street – not as long as we remain locked inside the structures of the EU. So, if you have a form of government and policies which you cannot alter by voting, what have you got? Senhor Barroso calls it an “empire” and we are in one of its provinces.

He should know. He’s president of the EU Commission.

In exchange for giving up any real democracy by imperceptible stages , they promised us economic growth and stability. We haven’t got it, have we? Ask the people of Ireland and the people of Greece. We would be suffering as bad a fate as theirs – destruction of public services and unemployment on a scale far greater than anything we have here, if we too were shackled to the euro currency with an exchange rate and interest rate which did not suit our economy.

When the euro was founded, it was claimed it would be as sound as the Deutsche Mark and no country would be responsible for another country’s debt. Look at it now! We knew then that Greece and the other “Club Med” countries had lied about their finances to get in. So did the EU authorities. This tragedy for these countries is seen as an opportunity by the EU to bring in a single, Europe-wide economic and fiscal government which will be even more anti democratic. The present crisis was foreseen and intended. It is what the EU calls a “beneficial crisis” – for the advance of EU power, that is.

The countries of Europe, however they organise their relationships, amongst each other will always be important trading partners for Britain.

We can be on perfectly good, neighbourly terms with them without being part of a European state. We do not have to become a state of the union to trade with America, nor a province of China to trade with China. It is a big, wide world out there with economies offering far greater prospects than the sclerotic, over regulated economy of the EU, distorted and tortured by the political imposition of an unworkable currency union. Even the EU commission admits that the cost of its regulation is over 5% of EU GDP whilst the claimed economic stimulus of the Single Market is said to be around 1-2%. So, even by its own figure the EU is a drag on all the economies of Europe, equivalent to the whole production of the economy of the Netherlands.

Exports to the countries of the EU account for about 10% of our GNP (although it is declining) and a roughly similar amount goes to the rest of the world (although that is increasing). The remaining 80% is purely domestic and internal. So we are bearing the huge dead weight of EU regulation on 90% of our economy quite needlessly for the sake of what we send to Europe.

The great selling point of the EU was security, prosperity and stability. That has proved to be an illusion. It hasn’t worked, it doesn’t work, it can’t work.

For a timid, obscure, offshore province of an inward-looking, economically declining European Empire, the future is decidedly bleak. Benjamin Franklin wisely remarked that a country which tried to trade freedom for wealth would end up possessing neither and deservedly so.

There is a great, wide world out there, full of opportunity for a confident, free country, trading with the vibrant, rising economies of the developing world and renewing its links with the Commonwealth countries which were so shamefully treated when we joined the EU.

As we have seen, the EU will not bail us out. We are expected to bail it out.

Back around 1983 when Tony Blair committed himself to getting us out of the EU, Ken Clarke remarked “The great thing about Europe is that it makes most of Labour’s policies illegal”. That was Old Labour, of course. It is often forgotten that the principle of market competition is built into the EU, into everything. That is why we have ruinous Private Finance Initiative in the NHS and elsewhere. According to the EU, the NHS is part of an EU market for health services, geared to the interests of corporate business. So is the Post Office and every other public institution.

Even that bastion of the free market, the United States does not have that written into its constitution. So Labour or any other government has no choice but to go along with privatisation. There is an unholy alliance between government and corporate capital, enforced by the EU. New Labour was the EU’s obedient slave. As long as it was wedded to the EU it really had no choice but its enthusiasm for the corporate trough was decidedly unseemly.

This alliance of the power of the state (in this case the EU super state) to that of big business has a name – corporatism. It was how Mussolini defined fascism. Henry Wallace, the 33rd Vice President of the United States knew it well and described its aims thus in the 1940s

“Their final objective, towards which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection”.

Before we throw away more money (which we haven’t got) into the insatiable, unappeasable maw of a nasty authoritarian state and crucifying currency system, we need to renew our own institutions, especially our Parliament as truly sovereign, responsible to us alone and worthy of respect. Then we can take our place in the world as a moderately sized, decent, independent democracy on good terms with everybody and at ease with ourselves.