By - NORRIS McWHIRTER, CBE
Chairman, The Freedom Association
from "Freedom Today"- Feb/Mar, 1999
YOUTHFULNESS AND LEFT-WINGEDNESS were the prime attributes for the membership of the government's numerous Focus Groups when Labour was in opposition. lt is only now beginning to dawn on many in the electorate what menace these groups generate. They do not merely mean to make Great Britain unrecognisable in 10 (preferably five) years' time, but irreversibly so.
A THIRD CHARACTERISTIC is their strong antipathy to evolved national institutions. Such concepts as the sovereign state, constitutional monarchy, national defence, a revising upper chamber, or even that centrepiece of democracy, the requirement that the demoscan dismiss its rulers, are to be purged. Only the new and untried are exciting enough for Britain's 'Cultural Revolution'.
MANY OF THE RED GUARD, some of whom intend to stand at the next general election, doubtless in 2001, believe that New Labour's victory was really their victory. Their belief that high taxation is more moral than low is tempered only by the knowledge that the former is less popular among the majority of the electorate who are still (inconveniently) important to their ambitions, however crass the revolutionaries consider their values.
QUITE WHY A MAJORITY are opposed to Britain being a region of the looming United States of Europe is a puzzle to them. Such is their contempt for Britishness that they are unable to grasp how offensive European federalism is to those with typically British standards and integrity.
THEIR AGENDA FOR THE REVOLUTION effortlessly rationalises preferences of - at best - doubtful merit:
If the 'progress' made in each of these 15 arenas is reviewed, one might wonder why the Focus Groups are not in a state of permanent celebration. The answer is because, having attained power in May 1997, they are now preoccupied with in-fighting and competitive career-building - almost entirely, of course, at public expense.
Freedom Todaygives priority to self-governance and opposition to federalism. This is for a simple reason.
A nation without democratic control over its financial and social policy ceases to be more than a broken-backed apology for a state. In a federation, its general elections are reduced to the status of local government elections. This is the route to civil disorder. It is serious.
Accordingly, we are not concerned with what is 'cool', 'new' or 'exciting' and federalist. We are concerned with what is wise, humane and democratic - and in accordance with the meanings of our laws.
We have been stridently, though not authoritatively, informed by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that there is "no constitutional bar" to surrendering sterling. This is pure assertion. There are two legal challenges which have yet to be made. One is that our last eight administrations since 1970 have all relied upon the doctrine of implied repeal in sweeping aside any constitutional statute, however venerable, in the way of their 'progress' towards 'ever-closer union'. The contention that all statutes can be overtaken by new statutes has never been contested before the judiciary.
The second assumption has been that, provided they follow Cabinet policy, ministers can do virtually anything to advance that policy. The 71 Privy Counsellors who have engineered the whole federal enterprise over the 41 years 1959 to '99 are in breach of their life-long oaths to defend the Crown's jurisdiction (see Freedom Today April 1998 pp 20-21 for the names). You cannot breach an oath by implication. To breach life-long oaths, particularly oaths which have been administered in the presence of the monarch, is an offence known as Misfeasance in Public Office. Yet charges have still to be sought.
Our judiciary has been subjugated to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg since 1973. If the Lords of Appeal dared to declare that, for instance, the unrepeaIed Magna Carta, in force as a statute from 1297, can only be repealed expressly as opposed to impliedly, and/or that the allegiance of Her Majesty's Privy Counsellors can be owed solely to the Crown, the 14 Luxembourg judges could, and doubtless would, over-rule them.
It is vital that our judiciary is at least given the chance to consider these and other undebated great issues, if only that the media and the electorate become better informed about the game plan in the stealthy, irreversible revolution now so far advanced.
THE AIM OF FEDERALISTS IS SIMPLE. IT IS TO DESTROY THE UNITED KINGDOM AS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. The EU now has its own Parliament, its own commission or cabinet, its own flag, its own anthem, its own central bank, its own currency, and it is seeking to abolish its internal borders and have a single system of law, with its own police force, common foreign policy and a Pan-European defence force.
Yet our politicians, unlike many on the Continent, are not honest and open about their aim.
It is vital for the future of the British people that we do not wait until we are powerless before we react to the giant European scam.
On 10 June next, we will have a non-recurring opportunity. We will be able to refuse to elect MEPs in their new regions, to either the Party of European Socialists (Labour) or the European People's Party (Conservative).
Both of those parties are federalist, and therefore working to extinguish our nationality. We should vote only for candidates who are pledged to stay right out of the Brussels' conspiracy and work ceaselessly for the British people and our nation state, to restore our freedom to govern ourselves, trade with whomsoever we please and keep our own laws.
Thank you. You are visitor number since 5Sep99.
For comments on this page, please contact Briame Gerdan.
For further reading at this site, please return to Briame Gerdan's "Public" Home Page.