A letter from our Chairman – the “Ever closer union” juggernaut.

This letter from our Chairman, Edward Spalton, was printed in the Derby Telegraph on 28th April.


Over decades, the way in which the EU project works has become apparent for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. It never stands still and moves inexorably on its way to “ever closer union” between the states of Europe. It is an authoritarian political project with economic effects, moving inexorably to a single country called Europe. It was set up in this way from the start so that nothing so vulgar as democracy could stop it. When democracy becomes a hindrance, it is called “populism”.

Senhor Barroso, President of the EU Commission, said the EU was “an Empire”. That puts all EU peoples in the position of colonials with ever diminishing power over how their own countries are to be run.

So anyone who wants to “stay in the EU” is volunteering not for today’s EU but for membership of an ever increasingly centralised country, foreign to all its member states and responsible to none.

Apart from avoiding them completely whenever it can , the EU has two responses to unfavourable votes and referendum results. One is to demand that people vote again and again until they get the “right” result. Whilst “wrong” votes against the EU are counted as non-binding and temporary, “right” votes in favour are final and permanent.

The other method is to ignore the results altogether. When he was prime minister of Luxembourg, M. Juncker was asked his opinion on the forthcoming referendums in France and the Netherlands on the proposed European constitution. “If it’s a Yes” he said “We say “On we go”. If it’s a No, we say “We continue””, he replied.

When these two founder EU countries voted “No”, the EU simply ignored the result and changed the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty which included around 98% of the same provisions. This, they said, was only a “reform treaty” , so no referendums were necessary!

Neither General De Gaulle nor Mrs. Thatcher, two of the strongest political personalities in Europe, were able to stop the progress of this political juggernaut – although they slowed it for a while. So, for anyone who values any sort of responsible, democratic government at all, the only way is out. The others – the Remainers – prefer Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” “ in which the all-powerful political bosses… control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude”.

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Adam HileyReply

    unless May is got rid of things will only get worse there must be a movement against the Corrupt LibLabCon populistpartyuk.blogspot.uk

  2. StevenReply

    The globalist open-border liberals of the severely misnamed Conservative Party have absolutely no intention of letting us leave the EU. That is why Mrs May became PM in a ‘coronation’ without having her party’s members allowed to vote on the matter and why even if she does face a leadership challenge measures will be put into place to prevent someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg from becoming their leader. She will stagger on until such time as a vote of confidence is held in the government (which will be lost) and then a Labour-led minority government comes to power and subjects ‘Brexit’ to either further cuts to the point it becomes totally meaningless and a ‘BRino’ (Brexit in Name Only) or is quietly ditched. I am afraid expecting the political Establishment in this country to discard a fundamental part of their globalist vision for this country ie EU membership overnight by merely allowing the plebs to vote against it in a referendum was always asking for too much.

    As Britain has an archaic electoral system which is fundamentally undemocratic and produces results out of line with how people actually vote then voting for pro-sovereignty parties isn’t of much use either.

  3. Gordon WebsterReply

    Only the European Acts give Brussels any power over our country, and those Unconstitutional Acts we entirely illegal, especially since Maastricht when Major knowingly and willingly surrendered our Sovereign Rights as a People without first seeking our permission – quite well off he is now I believe. Being a naturally born cynical sceptic I cannot accept that this has happened without collusion between the three main parties, that see the European Superstate as a means of ending Democracy and Voter Control over their employment – Mr Cameron did say they were all in it together – which seriously irritates them.
    In his book Menticide, Suicide of The Mind, Dr Joost Meerloo states that for betrayal to happen self betrayal must come first. So for Partisan Party Politics, or The Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance (Festinger), at least since Maastricht, our elected employees have betrayed themselves, their country, and their whole upbringing for perceived personal gain or out of fear of job loss from their party Dr Meerloo also makes the point in his book, that it it is easier to subvert a country by first subverting the minds of its leaders – Brussels is very good at that. We now have a political class of unthinking, pre-programmed automatons devoid of original thought and self worth.
    If anything good has come out of this, then The Referendum has woken the British People up to this betrayal and, if Social Media is a guide to Populist Opinion, a groundswell of anger against the three main parties is growing stronger by the day, as alternative news would suggest is happening throughout Europe. Parties like the Veterans and Democrats, The Affinity Party, plus UKIP may be small now, but could this anger against The Commons and Lords be the catalyst for destroying the grip of LibLabCon? I hope so, and hope it happens before it is too late to save our sovereign rights as a People. Since FCO 30/1048 was published our eyes have been opened to what can only be described as COLLUSION by Labour, The Tories and The LIberals. Democracy they say is from the Greek Demos and Cratus – the strength of the people through its chosen (operative word) representatives. Only they now think they rule us, and not represent us as chosen Trustees of our Property and Wealth – Great Britain. We have a duty to our children and their children to take it back, and to do that the Party make up of Westminster, Commons and Lords, must be swept away.
    Only my opinion, but not without thought and research.

  4. Petrina HoldsworthReply

    A very good letter Edward.
    I am still at a loss to understand why anyone with a logical brain and a resonable understanding of the world would want to be part of what is essentially a totalitarian regime.
    I can only conclude that these people must be suffering from some sort of mental health problem which to date has not been fully researched! Perhaps someone can ask the EU for a research grant to do so.

  5. Phil JonesReply

    Well put, Edward.

    As you say, the Lisbon (Reform) Treaty matches about 98% of what was in d’Estaing’s rejected 2004 European Constitution. When the Brown’s Gov’t introduced the Reform Treaty I sat down over a series of evenings and compared Article for Article the 2004 European Constitution with the Reform Treaty (renamed as the Lisbon Treaty). Virtually every Article matched. It was bringing in the European Constitution via the back door. Tony Blair told us that we would get a referendum on the European Constitution. I don’t know if he would have kept his word if France and the Netherlands had not voted it down before it had a chance to reach our shores. (He probably would have weaseled out of a referendum on it, in my view.) But Brown said from its introduction that the British people would not get a referendum on the Lisbon (Reform) Treaty. Such massive hypocrisy. For those without legal training the enormity of the hypocrisy went right by them — though many realized it and pointed it out. The sycophant media (apart from the Telegraph and Daily Express put out very little information on just what was the Reform (Lisbon) Treaty. The BBC was silent.

    I give Valery d’Estaing full credit for his attempt to bring in a European Constitution. He could see the nonsense of trying to bring in things through the back door and so faced up to presenting to the European peoples a full-blown constitution through the front door. At the time some thought it might have had a chance of passage. If it had we would all now be living in a United States of Europe — which the European Union would have quickly become with its passage.

    What most people also don’t realize about the Lisbon Treaty is that one of its Articles (46?) is only one line long and states: “The European Union shall have legal personality.” The effect of that was to settle whether the EU was in fact a separate legal entity from its provinces (read: Member States) able to make legal agreements on its own behalf OR was an agent of the Member States empowered by those states to sign on their behalf. That point had previously not been settled and you can read a number of ECJ decisions on the point. Legal scholars argued over it. The importance of gaining legal personality is that the EU federal government could act on its own behalf in dealing with other countries (‘third countries’ if you consider the Member States to still be countries — something I don’t). The US, Canadian, Australian, Brazilian, Russian Gov’ts have ‘legal personality’. US, Canada, Australia are federal countries where the federal government of each has legal personality, as do the provinces/states of each. One journalist writing on 1 January 2009 (the date the Lisbon Treaty came into effect) stated that the European Union today became a country — and how very true that statement was. Just one journalist and only a few paragraphs!

    What I fully expected when voting on 23 June 2016 was that I was voting for the UK to return to being a self-governing independent country, nothing less. Not some affiliated relationship with the EU, such as EFTA or EFTA/EEA. And not some vassal state tied permanently to the EU. At this point I’m not sure where Mrs. May is headed, but am still giving her the benefit of the doubt. But we shall know shortly if she is trying to weasel out of a full Brexit. And if she should try that, I believe you will see a mass uprising, with Jacob Rees-Mogg taking over in short order. We’ll just have to wait and see.

  6. Edward SpaltonReply


    You have my admiration for ploughing through all that EU verbiage. I find that much more than half an hour of it begins to sap the will to live.

    Both Gordon and Petrina have hinted at a mental malaise amongst our political leaders – believing two contradictory things at the same time – that we are simultaneously a parliamentary democracy and a willing subject of the EU form of bureaucratic dictatorship. I believe this state of mind is called cognitive dissonance and it produces grave mental discomfort. People suffering from it try to reduce the discomfort by avoiding social situations or contradictory information likely to increase their awareness of the contradiction or dissonance. This is one reasons why Europhiles have to regard themselves as literally “higher beings” than those “deplorables” of the independence movement. By staying away from discussion, they reduce the discomfort of the dissonance they feel.

    There are, of course, different views of the means of extricating ourselves and it has become obvious that the complexity is so great that it will have to be a stepwise process if economic disruption is to be avoided. I included that point in my speech at our rally (see video) .As far as I know, nobody advocates the EEA/EFTA agreement as anything other than such a step along the way. . If anyone knows a better one, perhaps they could get us out of this conundrum – .

    Rolls Royce recently announced that it is moving its regulatory compliance unit to mainland EU because no British certification of aircraft safety will be valid if we “just walk away”as a “third Country”, which Mrs. May demanded we should be, in her Lancaster House speech. . Our Civil Aviation authority is so run down (the UK having outsourced its main functions to EASA) that it estimates it would take 5 – 10 years to come up to the recognised, acceptable international standard for the global market. . So Rolls Royce is preparing to move its compliance function to the EU where safety certifications by EASA will continue to be internationally recognised and the firm will be able to go on selling its aero engines worldwide . It is not relying on Mrs May’s vague hope of something “deep and special” turning up or on David Davis who, last year, said of his job “I don’t have to know very much”.

    If the government did decide to “just walk away” there is plenty of information for businesses in the sixty Notices to Stakeholders which the EU has issued on the consequences of Third Country status(on which Mrs May insisted). Forward-looking businesses are beginning to take note. This is not a “punishment” but simply a result of the government’s own policy, if there is no additional agreement – and there are hundreds of things of this sort to be dealt with. So far, the government has made no significant preparations at all. Even the Dutch have started to recruit and train the extra border inspection teams which will be required. Dealing with the UK outside the EU will be the same as dealing with Morocco, they say. Of course, businesses can adapt but they need the information to do so – and the government certainly isn’t giving it.

Leave a comment