by Richard Greaves

To get us to support EU membership initially, we were told it was just a free trade bloc entailing no loss of sovereignty... now, rapidly, we are being confronted with political union leading to a single federal state, with a mass of regulations and directives impinging on every aspect of our lives, emanating from unelected bodies.

The sudden imposition of a gigantic totalitarian police state, would never be accepted by the people. The key has been a gradual step-by-step stealth approach so that when people finally realise the game, it is too late.

COMPLEXITY OF TREATIES
The Maastricht Treaty is complex, and has to be read in conjunction with the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act in order to make sense. The Amsterdam Treaty also has to be read in conjunction with the Maastricht Treaty. There is almost no possibility that most MPs or even government ministers in any member state will have read them - they simply wouldn't have the time! How many of them really know what they entail?

What information was given to our MPs when they were debated in Parliament? The Acts of Parliament incorporating them into our law simply refer to the treaties as a whole, and are only two pages long.

Let's look at the EU more closely. First, the major institutions:

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
This meets behind closed doors and is the policy maCommittee of Permanent Representatives - a body of appointed paid civilking institution of the EU, backed by the powerful servants. The make up of the Council depends on what is being discussed - foreign ministers discuss foreign policy, agriculture ministers farming, and so on. Decisions are made unanimously, or by "qualified majority", which is being extended by each successive treaty. Its individual members are generally, as in the case of Britain, elected members of national parliaments. It is not answerable to any elected institution.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
This also meets in secret. Presently 20 appointed members, 1 to 2 per state. It alone initiates legislation by turning the policy decisions of the Council of Ministers into legislative "proposals" which eventually become "Community acts" in the form of directives and regulations binding on member states, whose elected national parliaments must implement them forthwith.

Commissioners are forbidden by the Treaty of Rome to represent their national interests - they must promote and represent the interests of the Union - whatever they may be - possibly their own and those of big business, perhaps, which in practice has easy access to the Commission; something not readily granted to anyone else.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The only elected institution in the EU. In reality, it is no more than an assembly - it cannot initiate legislation, it can only "ask" the Commission to do so, and it has no control over money supply, or taxation. It often just gives opinions. It only has the right to be "consulted". Even where its approval is required for legislative proposals, it faces a complex procedure, involving strict time limits, which favours legislative proposals going through unchallenged.

In practice the parliament is a farce - the number of legislative proposals in the form of regulations and directives is so enormous that MEPs have to vote on large numbers of them at a time with little or no knowledge as to what the proposals involve.

Debate is virtually non-existent - with strict time limits of just a few minutes imposed on how long an individual MEP can speak. It barely even qualifies as a talking shop! And because it sits in Strasbourg, it is hopelessly inaccessible for the electors.

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
The ECB is run by appointees, who are completely "independent". They do not take any instructions from people such as members of the European Parliament, who have been elected, or any other EU institution or member state government, none of whom are permitted to attempt to influence it.

They come from private banking interests and meet behind closed doors with complete control over the direction of European economic and monetary policy and interest rates, and are able, on their own, to issue regulations and directives carrying the same force as those issued through the community legislative procedures. These people answer to no-one.

This is where the real power lies. For those states that sign up to the single currency, the ECB will have total and independent control over the amount of money and credit in circulation, and thus the general level of economic activity, at any given time throughout those member states. It also fixes interest rates.

What it decides will determine levels of direct and indirect taxation, spending in every area of economic and social activity, wage deals, government borrowing, and the budgets to be allocated to the newly created regional assemblies.

National Central Banks become an integral part of the European System of Central Banks and must act in accordance with its instructions. It therefore controls cycles of "boom" and "bust".

Its regulations and directives do not require the approval or consent of any of the other institutions, which are obliged to recognise its "independence", by not seeking to influence it.

The only control is a judicial one exercised by the European Court of Justice which is limited to deciding whether or not it has acted in accordance with its very wide powers.

The granting of independence to set interest rates to the Bank of England by the Labour Government immediately after it was elected in 1997, was to prepare for the handing over of power to the ECB and the incorporation of the Bank of England into the European System of Central Banks.

The single currency is fundamental to the continuing creation of the single federal state - our government, despite what it may say publicly, is totally committed to getting us in. The so-called economic criteria that have to be met are just a smoke screen to play for time. The Government will avoid calling a referendum on the issue until it is satisfied it will get a yes vote.

The protocol that permitted Britain to remain outside the single currency is largely a sham, because we are already committed to manage our economic and monetary policy for the benefit of the community as a whole, and with a view to entry into full monetary union, no matter how far in the future.

What is the difference between running policy in readiness for going in and actually being in? It certainly means public spending, taxation, public sector borrowing and public sector wage deals are being tightly controlled to comply with the so called "convergence criteria" for joining the Euro.

On the economic front, the shots are called by big business and multinational corporations, through organisations such as the European Round Table of Industrialists whose founder Etienne Davignon has recently taken over the chairmanship of the Bilderberg Group. So many new regulations seem designed to force small business people right out of business.

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
This is not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights which is separate and not an EU institution - yet. Its job is to interpret the rules of the treaties and all community legislative acts, regulations and directives made under them. Since the only law it applies is that contained in the treaties which are designed to further European integration, it is essentially a political court whose decisions and interpretations are intended to make sure member states give effect to that process.

There are other general features that need examination:

EUROPOL
A Europe wide police force known as Europol is being created. It has very wide powers but is not answerable to any elected body. It reports to a special committee appointed by the Council of Ministers. It exists ostensibly to fight crime, but it has a much wider function. Not only will it collect and store information on known and suspected criminals, but also on anyone's political and religious beliefs and activities. The building up of large monitoring databases is specifically provided for under the Maastricht Treaty.

CORPUS JURIS
The European Commission and the European Parliament are pressing for the imposition of a uniform legal system throughout the EU known as Corpus Juris. If fully implemented in Britain all criminal prosecutions would be heard solely by judges or other professional paid officials appointed by the state. Trial by jury would be phased out, to be replaced by a single judge sitting alone.

Jack Straw's recent attempts to get legislation through Parliament reducing those cases where an accused can demand trial by jury, should be seen as the start of this process.

In addition, a Home Office report has recommended that lay magistrates should be replaced by stipendiary (ie professional paid) magistrates, another measure that clearly fits in with the Corpus Juris plan. In both cases the government claims the measures are simply in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

The involvement of ordinary people in the judicial process as magistrates and jurors is fundamental to the system of justice employed through much of the English speaking world, and goes back hundreds of years - it is designed to protect the citizen against the risk of arbitrary or malicious prosecution, and is a healthy feature in any democracy.

Corpus Juns would also introduce detention without trial, since under this continental system, a person suspected of an offence can be arrested and held in custody for a period of six months or more, pending such further investigations and enquiries as the public prosecutor sees fit, before being brought before a court.

This is radically different from our own system of Habeas Corpus (which has its origins as far back as Magna Carta of 1215), whereby an accused person must be brought before a court within a very short period from arrest, and evidence against the arrested person produced.

A European public prosecutor has already been appointed and will have authority in Britain and throughout the EU, initially only in respect of cases involving fraud against the EU budget (eg people who make dishonest claims for EU grants and subsidies) but this is just the start.

EUROPEAN ARMY
Under the new Nice treaty, an old European defence pact known as Western European Union is to be incorporated into the European Union itself. It will lay the start for a "European Army" hailed by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as another pillar in the process of European unification.

The first steps to create the European army were taken at the Helsinki summit in December 1999, where agreement was reached to set up a so called "rapid reaction force" of 60,000 soldiers complete with command, planning and intelligence bases. Initially this is likely to have an offensive role rather like NATO has recently adopted. More significantly, French PM Lionel Jospin has stated that "by pooling its armies, Europe will be able to maintain internal security as well as prevent conflicts throughout the world."

BANNING POLITICAL PARTIES?
In April 2000 the European Parliament approved the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen Report. Article 6 of this report makes provision for the setting up of EU-wide political parties. However, this is subject to the proviso that "parties that do not respect human rights and democratic principles as set out in the Treaty of Rome shall be the subject of suspension proceedings in the European Court of Justice". Despite the rhetoric in its preamble, the Treaty of Rome is not based on democratic principles but rather on European integration.

Is the framework being created whereby any party which is opposed to the EU could be subjected to such proceedings?

The banning of political parties characterised the Soviet Union. They never abolished elections. The ruling Communist party simply outlawed all other parties as "fascist" or "counter revolutionary" and thereby maintained itself in power!

EU CONSTITUTION
Plans exist for a written constitution for the EU, incorporating the existing treaties. The Nice Treaty declares that this will be presented to the next intergovernmental conference in 2004.

The last intergovernmental conference, that produced the Nice Treaty, laid the foundations for this under the guise of a charter of fundamental rights - this may sound good until one appreciates that the only rights you get are the ones mentioned in the charter - and that under article 51 all rights can be suspended if "the interests of the Union" so require. This, along with the possible future replacement of the Council of Ministers by a president with power to appoint a cabinet, would ensure that member states' governments would no longer have any involvement in EU policy making or be able to amend the treaties, or a future EU constitution.

DEVOLUTION
The devolution plan is fundamental to the ongoing creation of the European mega-state, which may explain why our government launched such massive campaigns in favour of a "yes" vote in the referenda for Scottish and Welsh devolution. The 1998 "Good Friday" agreement was also a vital part of the same plan, because, crucially, it set up an assembly for Northern Ireland.

Under the umbrella of the Committee of the Regions (set up by the Maastricht Treaty) the EU is divided into 111 regions of which Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are each a region.

England is divided into 9 regions. Regional assemblies for England would complete the EU pattern. Their forerunners, the regional development agencies, have already been set up.

The first English assembly (Greater London) is already in place. These assemblies will play no part in the EU legislative process - they simply decide how a budget allocated to them will be spent in limited areas such as health and education. Their voice in the EU will be confined to 2 members each appointed to the Committee of the Regions which is only consulted by the other institutions in very limited areas of legislation.

With major constitutional and law making powers being transferred to the federal institutions of the EU, and limited spending powers being devolved to the regions, elected national parliaments are already becoming just "clearing houses" for passing EU-made policy, rules and regulations - part of major global moves intended to deprive democratic structures of any real power and substance.

Some people defend the EU saying without it we would all end up at war. However, modern communications, television and travel have brought us together in ways that were impossible 50 years ago, thereby making it highly unlikely that we would ever fight each other again as in the past.

They also ignore the fact that most wars in the world today are being fought within states with totalitarian regimes. If there is conflict in Europe it is more likely to be the grass roots rising up against the undemocratic, centralised control of the EU.

Mass protests are already starting to take place throughout the EU as more and more people see their livelihoods being sacrificed on the altar of what is becoming a banker corporate dictatorship.