Hitler's on the Verge of Victory
by Nigel Nelson

Hitler's Dream is about to come true - with the Treaty of Berlin next year. Britain and other EU countries will be tied to a single constitution if German Chancellor Angela Merkel has her way. And the treaty will come into force on the 75th anniversary of Hitler coming to power.

The power-crazed EU plan was scuppered two years ago by voters in France and Holland. But now Frau Merkel wants to use Germany's six-month EU presidency to push it through at a summit in Berlin on March 25 - without asking voters.

UK Independence Party leader, Nigel Farage said: "They are not bothered about what the voters think."
The People, 26th November 2006

Segolene Will Tell Britain to Choose
Between Europe and America
by David Rennie

Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, wants Britain to choose between being a "vassal" of the United States, and embracing a French-led drive for European integration, her adviser on Europe has revealed.

Throughout Miss Royal's spectacularly successful campaign to sew up the Socialist nomination, she kept the details of her EU policy under wraps for fear of reopening deep splits within her party.

However, in the hours after her victory on Thursday, Gilles Savary, a French MEP and her spokesman and foreign affairs adviser, spoke exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, revealing her EU policies in detail.

He set out a vision of an ambitious new EU treaty, replacing the EU constitution which has been in limbo since French and Dutch voters voted against it last summer.

Britain would be asked to sign up to the new treaty, but if it rejected calls for increased protectionism, an EU foreign minister, convergence on tax rates and moves to create a European army, then France and her allies would agree a treaty among themselves, he said.

Tony Blair's successor as prime minister, whether Gordon Brown or David Cameron, now faces an inevitable crisis over Europe after France chooses its next leader in April.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the centre-Right favourite for the presidency, recently set out his own plans for reviving Europe after the failed constitution, involving a "mini-treaty", extracting elements from the defunct text. Miss Royal, who has no foreign policy experience and has only ever held junior ministerial posts, will seek the immediate support of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for her plans, and believes Spain and Italy can also be signed up.

Although Miss Royal "does not want a two-speed Europe," Mr Savary said, he admitted her plans could lead to a "quartet" of nations leading the way, with others scrambling to catch up. He complained that Britain currently led an "ultra-Atlanticist" bloc within the EU.

"Great Britain is absolutely indispensable to the European Union. It is great nation, a global power. But the question the English have to answer is - do the English consider the English Channel to be wider than the Atlantic? We on the continent have the right to deplore the fact that Great Britain appears to consider the Channel is wider," he said.

Miss Royal was confident that "Europe can be relaunched with Germany, Italy and Spain. It is perfectly possible to have treaties within the treaty, among four nations," he said. "If other nations want to sign up, that's good. But we cannot have a Europe where one part goes to war in Iraq, another part does not, and we all end up paying the bill."

He demanded efforts to integrate foreign policy and cast that struggle in searingly anti-American tones. Mr Savary said: "The question that needs to be asked is - do we want to be vassals of the United States, do we want to be a 51st state?"

Miss Royal's vision was for a new treaty that would address citizens' demands for more protectionism in the face of competition from globalisation. "She believes, like all the French, that Europe should be more protective and should defend itself better," Mr Savary said.

Miss Royal saw the difficulty of achieving unanimous agreement among 25 EU nations, soon to rise to 27 next year, which was why she would first seek support from a hard core of countries. Mr Savary said the goals should include convergence of tax and social security systems and talks on a "European army" that would not replace national armies.

He said: "The discussion needs to be about what we can do together. What do we want to do? If Great Britain says no, it does not wish to do more together, then we will be obliged to open a dialogue with a group of countries."
The Daily Telegraph, 20th November 2006

Why Britain Does Not Belong to Europe
by Phillip Day

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." - Jean Monnet, one of the EU's founders

* Britain was the first maritime power, so historically she has always traded globally, especially with her erstwhile colonies and international allies, while her trade with Europe has been secondary. For this reason, Britain's economy is more in step with those of America, Canada and her other allies than it is with Europe. For example, Britain conducts more trade with the USA than she does with France and Germany combined.

* The intention to bring Britain's monetary economy fully under control of Brussels and somehow 'harmonise it' with those of the Continent will be a disastrous move for us and, as we shall see, is a strategy deliberately designed to break the United Kingdom as a historical, economic, world power. The priceless spoils of Britain's wealth will go, indeed are already going to other European nations under control of Brussels as a result of the EU's huge building programs in these regions.

"But Britain is a part of Europe geographically! So why wouldn't we want to be a part of Europe politically in order to keep the peace?"

* Peace has been kept in Europe for the past fifty years, not through attempts at creating a unified Europe, but through the willingness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to act as a universal European military watchdog. NATO is a military alliance of nations dominated by the two leading powers formerly comprising 'the Allies' during World War 2 - the United States of America and Great Britain.

* The Americans spend more on the defence of Europe than all the Eurozone nations put together.

* The European Union is planning a new European army capable of taking strategic action independently of NATO. This new European army will threaten the balance and stability NATO has given to the continent and hand over military jurisdiction in Europe once again to the two nations who have historically abused it and gone to war for their own economic interests.

* France has twice had to suffer the embarrassment of Britain and her allies baling her out of trouble in two previous world wars, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of British, Commonwealth and American troops. After both wars, the Allies withdrew and allowed France to regain her sovereignty. Today, French politicians scorn Britain and America, and seem willing to jeopardise the balance and stability of Europe by sanctioning the pan-European re-arming of the Continent, with a newly unified Germany as the most dominant power - for the third time in a century.

* Wars chiefly happen over issues of economics. By creating a single currency throughout Europe and hamstringing less fortunate member states to join at unfavourable exchange rates, the EU is creating an alarming new climate of inflexibility and impending European instability. The expected problems of the weak new single currency - the euro - are already becoming apparent.

* Britain is an economic powerhouse, is the fourth largest economy in the world by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has the greatest financial trading centre in the world centred in London. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that Britain somehow needs the European Union to survive.

* Britain is the European Union's biggest customer.

* * * * *

The terminal power-play for Britain
Is the real agenda being worked out against Britain by Brussels designed to dismantle the UK, plunder her of her historic wealth and resources, and then politically chain her so she can never again be free to operate in her traditional role as a world trading power?

This is a harsh but necessary question in view of the EU's consistently high-profile and politically brutal behaviour towards the United Kingdom, all the while allowing her other nation states, such as France and Spain, consistently to flaunt a variety of EU laws and regulations at their whim. Many Britons, even those in support of Britain's continued EU membership, are perplexed and embarrassed at this tyrannical behaviour, even if they are hard pressed to explain it.

There are a number of reasons, in the eyes of those running the EU, why Britain must cease to be a major world player and be dismantled for the future good of Europe. Today, every effort by the EU towards Britain is undertaken with this eventual goal in mind. From the destruction of the UK's once proud fishing industry to the victimisation of her farming communities to render the UK dependent on EU food, the pressure is on for European bureaucrats and politicians to expedite this baleful agenda before the British people fully awaken to what is happening.

So why is it happening?
* History reveals that continental politics have always spelled trouble for Britain. We have always had a different destiny from the rest of our neighbours for one simple and straightforward reason. We were the nation which became the first industrial and maritime world power.

* Britain was the first to develop and used her huge merchant and military navies to annex foreign territories and open trade with them around the world.

* While nations in Europe still pursued parochial trade with their immediate neighbours, the cutters of the British East India Company carved their wake through the oceans, bringing all manner of exotic materials to British shores (yes, and sugar and opium).

* Britain extended her Anglo-Saxon heritage into the Americas, Canada, India, South Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, as well as built strategic military bastions in Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other areas to protect her interests. During the 18th and 19th centuries, her economic and military influence grew exponentially.

Other differences mark the British way of life as irrevocably different to that of the rest of Europe:

* Magna Carta (1215) and subsequently the Declaration of Rights (1689) recognised our rights and freedoms and are contracts between the sovereign and the people which cannot be abrogated even by an elected parliament.

* In Britain, we have enjoyed the freedom to engage in any activity so long as it isn't prohibited by law. In Europe, a citizen is only allowed to do those things expressly permitted by the state. Hence the need for a blizzard of directives to tell the citizen what he can and cannot do. The Human Rights Act, on the other hand, prompted by Brussels legislation, has been an unmitigated disaster for Britain.

* The EU is protectionist. The British, on the other hand, positively encourage free enterprise, sensible risk-taking, and actively nurture individual spontaneity and entrepreneurial endeavour. These are 'freedom' traits, which reaped the Empire and her citizens an enormous collective wealth in their day, and which even still entice a huge amount of inward investment capital and foreign corporate action today. The famous British eccentricity, celebrated and loved in countless movies, is the hallmark of this individuality.

* Foreign companies love the freedom of doing business in Britain, though these freedoms are rapidly dwindling.

Britain - an economic
threat to the Continent?
Nazi economist Professor Horst Jecht, of Berlin University, firmly believed that Britain was the single greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe economically and militarily. Jecht puts his case in his 1942 essay, "Developments towards the European Economic Community":

"The foundation for this remarkable development of England was laid back in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries where maritime superiority was gained and a global, colonial empire acquired. By the end of this period, countries outside Europe accounted for 40% of England's export trade. This development continued until World War 1. In 1913, these countries accounted for 56% and 65% of her imports and exports respectively. Foreign capital investment levels in these countries also started to grow significantly.

Since modern times, England's economy has developed more and more away from Europe and not only during the period of English free trade. It became even more pronounced when there was protection and closer economic and political union with the nations of the Empire, particularly at the time of the Ottawa agreements of 1932. British trade became even more concentrated overseas and, like the figure of 1913, in 1937 British exports outside Europe reached 64%.

…Let us look, above all, at the effect of this preferential treatment given to the nations of her Empire regarding supplies of raw materials and foodstuffs.… England's re-orientation to overseas is significant, and not just because it led to an increasing estrangement from the European continent…. Appearing to represent so-called general human principles of the free economy concealed England's real ambition, which was to prevent any coalition in Europe. The aim was to ensure Europe's economic and political fragmentation and to keep its individual nations dependent on essential goods imported [by Britain] from overseas….

To prevent itself from being pushed off the Continent and into the sea, England's interests lay in keeping this area [Europe] as weak as possible."

In his essay and subsequent address to the Berlin economic conference during the Second World War, Dr Jecht concludes by explaining that Germany's true role is to lead the future new economic order of Europe after the Second World War hostilities end. Germany's eventual defeat in 1945 however changed her immediate destiny, but not her post-World War 2 desire eventually to dominate Europe, a role she is well on the way to achieving today.