The sequence of politicians who have broken their oath

This letter from our Chairman, Edward Spalton, appeared in the Derby Telegraph on 21st August 2015

I agree with correspondent MC Haines that the EU provides well-paid and lavishly pensioned second careers for politicians who have passed their sell-by date at home “EU is just a retirement club for politicians” (August 14).

Not only that – their salaries, pensions and perks are free of UK income tax but they still feel free to condemn the moral turpitude of tax avoidance by less favoured mortals!

If that was all the EU was about, it would be a nice little earner for them but relatively harmless.

Back in 1961 when the British government, under American pressure, was desperately trying to get in on the racket, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir advised what it was really about.

“It is clear … that the (European) Council of Ministers could … make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would, in fact, become for us part of the law of the land. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons … we should have therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments … we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on legislative proposals put before it.”

This advice remained a secret, kept from Parliament and people until long after Parliament was duped in 1972 by clever procedural business to vote by a narrow majority for a treaty which no MPs – apart from the ministers involved in the surrender – had ever had a chance to scrutinise. MPs signed a blank cheque for what was not their’s to give away: larger and larger surrenders of our right to democratic self-government have been made at every subsequent EU treaty.

Whilst we still have the pageantry of the state opening of Parliament and all the appearances of ancient, responsible, parliamentary government, it has been hollowed out: our institutions of state, evolved over centuries, will remain a complete fraud for as long as we remain subjects of the European Union.

And it has all been done over generations by ministers who had taken a solemn, binding oath to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown on behalf of the nation against all foreign powers and potentates.

Edward Spalton

Declare your interest!

THE PRESS OFFICE OF                                                           

The Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)  

News Release

25th  August 2015

Peer challenges unions and think tanks receiving EU funding to ‘come clean and declare an interest’

Following recent revelations that the European Commission is secretly funding trades unions and think-tanks to promote pro-EU messages on both sides of the Atlantic, in the run up to the referendum on EU membership, the independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has called on all such organisations to make it clear that they are being funded by the EU.

Lord Stoddart said:  “We are in the disgraceful situation where taxpayers’ money is being given by the EU to organisations openly campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU.  What they are not so open about is the fact that they are being under-written by the EU itself.  They should make that clear in all their pronouncements on this topic.

“I do not absolve individuals from declaring an interest either, most notably  politicians who are in receipt of pensions from the EU, which are conditional upon not being critical of Brussels. In the interests of a fair referendum, it is time for these organisations and individuals to come clean and declare an interest.”

The European Commission has a £500 million per annum promotional budget and spends at least £200,000 a year funding think tanks and unions in the UK alone.


The CIA agents with a conscience

One of our supporters, Mr Peter Farrell, has recently sent us a link to a most interesting article, which first appeared in the EU Observer magazine in 2001. Although this is now 14 years ago, few people are aware, even now. of the degree to which the US intelligence agency played its part in clandestinely supporting the European Movement, which in its turn played a key part both in securing the UK’s accession to the EEC (As it was) in 1973 and ensuring we didn’t regain our independence in the 1975 referendum. The piece quotes extensively from CIB’s former vice-president Sir Richard (Dick) Body MP. At least a couple of CIA agents appeared to have been most uncomfortable about the CIA’s covert operation. Sadly, since the inception of the EEC, they have been very much the exception rather than the norm as far as the US government and its intelligence services are concerned.  Given President Obama’s recent utterances in support of the UK remaining in the EU, it is hard to have any degree of confidence that US intelligence agencies will keep their nose out of the forthcoming referendum.

Here is the article:-

It has long been rumoured that the CIA played an important role in the campaign to “keep Britain in Europe”, which the Yes side ran up to the 1975 referendum about Britisk EU membership. But now, irrefutable documents are available to the public, according to Sir Richard Body, who gives his version of the facts in his recent book, “England for the English”.
“After I became joint chairman of the Get Britain Out Council two Americans came to see me in 1975 with a large bundle of papers. They were, they claimed, CIA agents who deplored their country’s methods in interfering in the affairs of a good ally. What they had brought were copies of documents which showed that a dedicated federalist, Cord Meyer, jnr. was to become head of a CIA station in London for the duration of the Referendum “to do what it takes” to secure a “Yes” vote in favour of Britain remaining in the EEC. The papers showed that the CIA had already given the European Movement considerable sums of money, but now multinational corporations which had been assisted by the CIA were to be persuaded to fund the “Yes” campaign through indirect channels.


I hoped that at least one newspaper would agree to take up the story, but they were all strongly in favour of the EEC, and each one refused. Eventually, in the last few days of the campaign, Time Out agreed to publish the story. But it was then a mere fledgling with a small circulation, som only a few hundred Londoners would have read it.
Other people treated my account of the interview with disbelief, and I gave up speaking of the episode. However, the original documents are now filed in Georgetown University. Dr. Richard J. Aldrich, an academic of Nottingham University, has examined them and written a research paper about the CIA in Britain based upon the originals as well as a book”.
Documentation can be found in: OSS, CIA and European Unity in Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol. 8 no 1, March 1997 andRichard J. Adrich, The Hidden Hand; John Murray, 2001.

Photo by theglobalpanorama

Expat worries are mistaken

The pro-independence movement is excited by the prospect of withdrawal. However, to secure that all-important “out” vote, it will be necessary to win over a good many people for whom the terms of the debate so far has made them anything but excited about the thought of “Brexit”. One such group is the expatriate community. Some of our compatriots living abroad are very concerned indeed.

The root of the problem is the strong language that has been used in the debate about immigration. For a number of voters, a desire to limit the number of people coming to the UK is the most important reason they would give for supporting withdrawal from the EU. Some of these people may have genuine concerns, such as suffering an increase in waiting times at their local GP’s surgery due to large numbers of migrants, or finding themselves undercut by Eastern European tradesmen willing to work for a pittance. Others may be xenophobes in the worst sense. For all the variety of reasons different people may give for their concerns, the net result is that there is considerable political capital to be made in talking tough on immigration, whether from the EU or elsewhere.

However, this cuts both ways. A substantial number of UK citizens live abroad – some 8% of our population, in fact. Most countries boasting large numbers of expatriate Brits are, unsurprisingly, Anglophone nations such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, but the prospect of a retirement in the sunnier climate of the Mediterranean has attracted large numbers of our fellow-countrymen too. Estimates vary, but it is possible that as many as 700,000 UK citizens are resident in Spain and 200-400,000 in France. Also growing in popularity is Bulgaria, which boasts a pleasant climate, incredibly cheap housing and, at least in the villages, a strong community spirit. At least 50,000 of our countrymen have chosen to relocate to this country whose own citizens are not exactly popular when they come over here. It’s not just retired people who have moved abroad. Berlin, hardly renowned for sea, sand and sunshine, was home to over 14,000 Brits at the end of 2012 – many of them young people attracted by a city that has developed a trendy image in recent years.

If freedom of movement of people were curtailed when we leave the EU, what would become of these people? As has already been pointed out on this website, misinformation stating that they would become “illegal immigrants” has been put about by no less an individual than Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General. As we pointed out, people who have acquired rights of residence will still have those rights whatever form of exit might ensue. They simply can’t be booted out. However, our blog isn’t reaching the areas it should, for a recent report suggests that a number of expats are so concerned about withdrawal thay they looking at acquiring dual citizenship to ensure they won’t end up stateless. Likewise, as the Guardian reported recently a number of EU citizens resident in the UK are considering similar action.

It would be a tragedy for the “out” campaign if immigration was to become the most dominant issue. It would mean that we would lose, point blank, and the blame lying with wishful thinking. Given that the most seamless exit route from the EU is via the EEA and EFTA, whatever some people might desire, we would still initially remain subject to all four freedoms of the Single Market, including free movement of people, so compulsory repatriation of EU residents just isn’t going to happen. Within the EEA, we need not allow the dependents of migrant workers from the EU to join them and if we feel we are struggling to cope with the number of EU citizens arriving here, there is the possibility of applying a temporary brake, as Liechtenstein has done. That is all. Furthermore, any long-term arrangement replacing the EEA agreement would inevitably want to ensure the preservation of vested rights – a fundamental principle of international law – allowing long-term residents to remain where they are. It is, of course, possible that independence may well result in substantial numbers of people voluntarily returning to their own country. Some expats, disillusioned with recent politics in the UK, may feel that independence offers a chance to put the country right and come home. Some EU citizens currently resident in the UK may decide that they do not wish to reside outside of the EU, even if they would not be treated any differently in an independent UK. However, we cannot be sure what will happen. Others clearly like it here and will want to stay, come what may. It is therefore better for them and for our own expatriate community if ALL supporters of withdrawal keep the focus on what really counts – the re-establishment of UK sovereignty – rather than allowing free movement of people to dominate the forthcoming campaign. Those who are uncomfortable with the current level of immigration will vote to leave regardless. Their votes are already in the bag. We need to focus on winning the votes of people who have other concerns and alienating our expat community for no sensible reason will do our cause no good.

For further comment on the Guardian Article, we recommend the latest article in the EU Referendum blog.

Comic Relief?

It’s not difficult for a good tradesman to find work. I’ve come across some that don’t even need to advertise. Likewise, if you invent something of immense benefit to mankind, you don’t need to spend millions telling everyone how good your invention is; it soon becomes self-evident. Ask Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the internet. How much of his hard-earned cash has been spent on promotional material praising his clever idea to all and sundry?

Not as much as the EU spends on promoting itself, that’s for sure. A recent article in the Daily Mail claims that Brussels has spent over half a billion pounds on propaganda, with the UK’s contribution (the sum total of our money being frittered away in other words) amounting to £357 million.

It is quite clear that the EU is engaged in a desperate no-holds-barred battle to shore up its failing credibility as it targets the UK’s schools. The Mail reproduces quotes extracted from Dennis-the Menace-style cartoons which are both biased and banal. Unfortunately, badly-written and sickening as this claptrap is, circumstantial evidence suggests that it is having its desired effect and poisoning our children’s minds. Anyone questioning the EU project is depicted as narrow-minded. Edward Spalton, CIB’s President and a veteran of school debates on the EU, used to win every debate. A couple of years back, he found himself on the losing side and it was nothing to do with his performance. Other speakers have also found the going much tougher.

As the article points out, this garbage is not getting into our classrooms behind the backs of the UK government, but with its full connivance. It suggests that Tory MPs supportive of withdrawal may well use the recently-published report from which the above statistics were taken to put pressure on the government to ensure a level playing field in the period immediately before the referendum and not to use public funds to promote the EU.

While CIB is grateful that papers like the Daily Mail publish these EU-critical articles, we are greatly saddened that the paper shrinks back from the obvious conclusion that should be drawn from them – namely that we should leave the EU. On 26th October 2011, it stated quite specifically “This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe.” and the editor at the time, Paul Dacre, remains in the post today. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, when the referendum campaign gets under way, that we will find ourselves with few, if any allies in the media. Still, with friends like your average press baron and the all too many ill-informed journalists who cover EU matters, who needs enemies?

The UK’s financial vulnerabilities as an EU member state


We are often asked for the full presentation of all the financial aspects of the UK’s relationship with the EU and the EU referendum.

While trading arrangements are important,they have not been as decisive as balance sheet destabilisations throughout history.

This latest analysis by Futurus considers the diminution in UK assets because of its budgetary contributions and the UK’s increased liabilities and contingent liabilities due to EU membership.

Its conclusion points out that “While EEA states have no risk exposure to EU liabilities, the UK has enormous exposure. Moreover, it is, in part, one-sided with no corresponding EU risk exposure to the Bank of England. It is likely that further collapse in the finances of eurozone governments and banks will not attract open-ended EU entity support as in the period 2009-13 and resort will be made to bail-ins and haircuts on bondholders. However, prudent finance would be for the UK to leave the political and monetary structure of the EU and move to EEA status urgently.

To read the full report, click here