Last evening in Dorchester I witnessed the next stage in the thirty-five year process of the destruction of Britain's sovereignty and democracy by the nation's own political rulers.
The event was a debate on the EU Constitution organised by the Bruges Group and the Democracy Movement, two organisations supposedly and reputedly dedicated to the fight against the erosions of our statehood by the EU. Those attending last night's procedures would be well justified to now have doubts on both those counts.
The main speaker was Oliver Letwin MP for West Dorset, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only recently resigned from the London Merchant Bank whose history and family connections could themselves be considered an almost perfect template for the secretive, elitist and corporatist European Union itself. In support was the President of the 'real' Liberal Party Councillor Steve Radford and Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement, which organisation's regional press spokesman chaired the meeting.
The essence of the arguments presented was that the referendum on the EU Constitution expected for May 2006 should be fought solely on the drawbacks of that document and under no circumstances should debate be allowed to stray onto the question of the country's continued membership of the EU. This, it was repeatedly suggested, would be to play into the hands of the euro federalists and Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and New Labour in particular.
Oliver Letwin set out three factors to be considered in the coming debate. First by stressing what was in the document, second by describing why it was a threat (he cited the 'new?' primacy of EU Law) and thirdly why the referendum represented an opportunity. On the latter point the thrust of his argument was that if the British people voted NO a mandate would then exist for a complete re-negotiation of the terms of British membership.
Such an argument completely ignores the obvious fact that if the NO campaign focuses solely on those elements, the assertion that a mandate for EU withdrawal has been given by the British electorate becomes entirely false - for that debate will have been prevented by the very politicians and political movements pretending to be opposed to the sovereign and democratic encroachments of the EU most already entirely legal, already experienced and clearly foreseen and envisioned under the existing treaties.
This fact became impossible to bring out, as by ignoring my repeatedly upraised arm, the chairman of the meeting managed to restrict the subsequent debate (with the honourable exception of two astute ladies, the best of whom had crossed the border from Devon to make a telling point on patriotism) to safe and largely irrelevant questioning from those who appeared to have been known to him.
Little mention was made of the more immediate general election contest expected by many for May 2005; rather we were urged to get campaigning for the hardly burning matter of a possible referendum in May 2006. The nonsense of the platform's case became clear when one moment we were regaled with the horrors of the recent Peter Tilleck and Marta Andreasen cases, while the next we were cautioned to refrain from the use of terms such as 'totalitarian' or 'police state'. Democracy through the Westminster Parliament might not ever have existed for this panel of speakers; perhaps a subconscious admission of the soon to be completed reality that indeed it soon will not.
With EU opponents such as these supposedly fighting the EU, no wonder Britain is now so almost entirely ensnared. The next general election, perhaps only two months away, will clearly be the last chance to fight off the EU. Small Euro-sceptic parties should now be combining to fight the big three large and united euro-committed political establishment of Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.
Rather than that, however, I fear what appears to be on the cards in the coming General Election contest is Euro-sceptic candidates fighting one another and not the devious, untruthful, non-democratic, globalist, corporatist and therefore effectively corrupted candidates from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have together delivered their country and their countrymen into the hands and clearly non-existent mercies of others.
Oliver Letwin won his seat at the last election with a small majority on a platform that demanded a renegotiation of the EU Nice Treaty. From his words last night he now seems quite content with that document and all its federalist and anti-democratic provisions. No doubt if he were to be re-elected (even if the EU Constitution is resoundingly turned down in Britain's referendum and a watered down version is then accepted as would be the inevitable next step under either Labour or the Conservatives), he would then declare himself content with that outcome. It is by this kind of gradualism that we have now reached today's situation where we cannot select our own real government in the coming general election.
Only by consigning Oliver Letwin and his likes to electoral defeat can we ever hope to regain our country!
The debate on Britain's future will only ever be resolved by a full, frank and honest discussion of the reality and the alternatives. Some in the UKIP leadership seemed to recognise this fact when the referendum on the EU Constitution was first announced. They then seemed to be thwarted and subsequent references seemed to follow the line set out last night - namely that the debate once again be obscured and confused. Veritas was formed and founded with a clear commitment to EU withdrawal. That is an argument and debate which I believe can be won. If not, so be it, I for one will happily abide by the democratic decision of the British people provided they make their decision in the full knowledge of all the facts.
The closet EU supporters shy away from such a democratic process, fearful and aware that they will most likely lose - thus we appear condemned to yet more decades of deceit!
Only Veritas offers voters the chance to bring all the facts before the electorate, both during the election campaign and in the EU Constitutional debate that looks likely to follow.
