Witness to History

LORD WALSINGHAM (now aged 92) was a Third Secretary in the German Department of the British Foreign Office in 1950, when the foundations were being laid for the first stage of what is now the EU. It was then called the European Coal & Steel Community. He was Secretary of the tripartite study group (The UK, USA and France) which  cancelled all denazification to rebuild Germany against communist Russia for the Cold War.

This link is to a youtube video where he recounts his experience (approx 35 minutes)

Whilst the project was ostensibly about securing peace in Europe, British intelligence was well aware that there were secret additional  agreements in the Coal & Steel Treaty between Germany and France to weaken British heavy industry, eventually to undermine Britain’s defence capability so that the European project  would dominate Europe unchallenged in the long term.

Britain did not join the Coal & Steel Community but neither did it make public the ulterior, anti-British intentions of the “Fathers of Europe”. At the time Britain was  heavily indebted to the USA which was backing the EU project and funding the European Movement through the CIA.

The European Coal & Steel Community was intended to lead to a united Franco/German European army but the French National Assembly voted that down. Jean Monnet, Schuman and colleagues decided that they needed to proceed more gradually as the nations of Europe were not then ready to assent to their  dissolution in a single European polity. The European Economic Community was founded on this principle of small, repeated inexorable steps towards “ever closer union”. The process was called “Engrenage” – like a ratchet, it was irreversible. The Treaty of Rome set this up in 1957.

The name “European Economic Community” is highly significant. As a businessman, Monnet well knew the importance of brand loyalty. Every politically aware German of the Nazi era would recognise the  “Europaeische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft”,  set up to build integration between the countries of Europe after the Nazi victory of 1940 and widely publicised in a collection of papers of the same name, published in Berlin in 1942. Translations of the introduction and main paper are available here. Apart from some descriptions of contemporary events, there is nothing in them which has not come out of the EEC and the EU in the last sixty years. The mindset and geopolitical world outlook are virtually identical.

The post war EU’s biggest project by far, the Common Agricultural Policy, was decided in 1962 but it was based on the clear guidelines, laid down twenty years before in Nazi Berlin (link here).  Now, of course, the Nazi EEC turned out to be mostly propaganda because the pressures of war overtook and destroyed it – but many of its intentions, including dominance over central Europe have been carried into effect under the EU flag , since the fall of the Berlin wall.

The Nazis were adapters rather than inventors of the project, which had been on official German minds for generations. On 9 September 1914, the Imperial Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg wrote:- “Russia must be pushed back as far as possible from Germany’s Eastern frontier and her domination over non-Russian vassal people broken… We must create a Central European Economic Association through common customs treaties to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary and perhaps Italy, Sweden and Norway. This association will not have any common constitutional supreme authority and all members will be formally equal but in practice under German leadership and must stabilise Germany’s dominance over central Europe”.

Monnet, Schuman and colleagues added the “common constitutional supreme authority” in the form of the European Commission but the project is still highly congruent with the remarkably stable, long term objectives of Germany’s political class since the 19th century.

In late 2016 the German government allocated 4 million Euros to an investigation into the influence  of Nazi personalities and policies in the post war era.

Virtue Signalling & Democracy versus Populism

One of the most nauseating features of the post referendum period is the effortless assumption of superiority by those who lost the vote. They are, they maintain, the educated people, the successful people, the outward-looking liberal people, the idealistic young and the truly compassionate. The European Union, they believe, is an institution which affirms all those values and reinforces their already exceedingly good opinion of themselves.

They are, of course, in favour of democracy – after all, the EU has its own elected parliament where the peoples’ voices are heard! But when the people vote against this wonderful European construct, that decision is not democracy but populism. Then the voice of the people must either be disregarded completely or they must be made to vote again until they come to their senses and conform to the pattern of the benevolent EU project.

After all, the voters of France, the Netherlands and Ireland have all had this sort of treatment and quietly resumed happy fulfilled lives within the great harmonious European polity. This has not been done by any external force or coercion but by powerful people within each member state who have given their first loyalty and duty to the European Union above that which ordinary people owe to their own country. One of their most vigorous advocates is a Mr. Westerman who writes to papers all over the place from his home in Wales. On October 28, I responded to a letter of his in the Derby Telegraph where he had made such assertions.

C.N. Westerman brackets Nigel Farage with the late British fascist leader, Sir Oswald Mosley. (“Populism in politics can arrest critical thinking” October 24).

This is most misleading as Sir Oswald was a keen advocate of European union, which Nigel Farage certainly is not.

Euro-fanatic Kenneth Clarke twice invited Sir Oswald to address the Cambridge University Conservatives while another then student, Michael Howard, resigned in protest. Perhaps we should not read too much into the genial Clarke’s youthful enthusiasm.

While the European project drew on many ideological sources, including Christian Democracy (Konrad Adenauer), Socialism (Paul Henri Spaak) and Communism (Altiero Spinelli), there is no doubt of the transfer of Nazi principles and personalities to the post war era.

For years I puzzled over the origin of the EU’s biggest project, the Common Agricultural Policy. It was so grotesquely bureaucratic and alien to the common sense system we had before, I just could not place the ideology behind it.

It was not until 2002 when someone sent me a German book, “European Economic Community”, that I knew beyond reasonable doubt. It was a collection of papers by senior figures in government, industry, diplomacy and academia, published in Berlin in 1942.

I translated the lead paper * by Walther Funk, Reichsminister for the Economy and President of the Reichsbank. Apart from uncomplimentary references to Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt, there is hardly anything in it which has not come out of the European Commission and European Movement in the last fifty years. The similarities are just too many to be merely coincidental.

The first President of the European Commission, Dr. Hallstein, was previously member of the “National Socialist League of Protectors of the Law” and addressed a Nazi rally in early 1939 on unifying the legal system in territories under German control. Much of his post war activity was spent in “harmonising” the legal systems of EU member states.

Perhaps one reason people think politicians of the main parties are “all the same” arises from their leaders, until recently, all being enthusiasts in the common cause of subjection to the EU – effectively a one-party state with a deceptive choice of flavours.”

So the “nice” people don’t look quite so nice now, do they? Kenneth Clarke was fascinated by Mosley and fascism as a young man and certainly retains Mosley’s euro-fanaticism. Clarke hoped to see the day when Parliament was reduced to a mere “council chamber in Europe” – and he could have become Prime Minister. Just imagine the fuss, if somebody of his background had been prominent in the independence movement!

The Nazis, of course, were heirs to earlier German plans for domination of Europe. On 9th September 1914 the First World War was over a month old and the Imperial German Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, thought he had better get some war aims. Here is an excerpt from his memo.

Russia must be thrust back as far as possible from Germany’s Eastern frontier and her domination over non-Russian vassal peoples broken…..We must create a Central European Economic Association through common customs treaties to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary and perhaps Italy, Sweden and Norway.

The association will not have any common constitutional supreme authority and all members will be formally equal but in practice under German leadership and must stabilise Germany’s economic dominance over central Europe”.

The unique thing about the EU is the addition of that “common constitutional supreme authority” –  the EU Commission – the true legacy of Monnet, Schuman & Co. It has not prevented the continuing “Drang nach Osten” – the process of EU enlargement to the East in the interests of German economic domination. The proxy wars in former Yugoslavia in the Nineties and in the Ukraine today testify to that and also give the lie to the EU’s myth of uniquely peaceful intent. Few people realise that British soldiers are already stationed in the Ukraine – effectively to defend Germany’s sphere of influence.

The peace of Europe would be much better secured if the German ruling class forgot expansionism – even if it is wrapped in an EU flag- and recalled Bismarck’s great dictum on foreign policy. “First make a good treaty with Russia”.

* To get the full translation Google “The European Union’s Evil Pedigree” . This is on the website www.freenations.net .

No summer holiday for the Government as Lord Stoddart keeps the pressure on

Parliament goes into recess this week but Lord Stoddart of Swindon is keeping the pressure on the Government in regard to its agenda for dealing with the EU, by submitting the written questions below.  We are not sure when the answers will be supplied as the recess means that they are not answered on a daily basis and will appear in a weekly round-up.  We will keep you posted.  Alternatively, you can keep up with the many written questions Lord Stoddart puts to the Government at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers

You might be interested to know that Lord Stoddart was named by the Freedom Association as Parliamentarian of the Week on 3rd July.  Read more about it here.

Written question HL1436: Lord Stoddart of Swindon 14-07-2015

Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Asked on: 14 July 2015

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Lords

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to challenge the imposition of a £642 million fine on the United Kingdom relating to the administration of Common Agricultural Policy farm payments; and whether in their negotiations for a return of powers to the United Kingdom they will include the removal of European Union powers to impose financial penalties on Member States.

Written question HL1437: Lord Stoddart of Swindon 14-07-2015

Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Asked on: 14 July 2015

Department for Education

Lords

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 16 June (HL521) concerning schools’ compliance with sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, whether they are aware of campaigns by the European Commission to promote the European Union in primary and secondary schools; and how those educational establishments will provide a balanced treatment of the issue of United Kingdom membership of the European Union.