The EU Constitution

• 'A tidying up exercise'
• A Constitution for an enlarged EU
• How the EU Constitution compares to other treaties

EU Membership

• The Economic Costs
• The Political Costs
• The EU and Democracy
• The EU Superstate

The Alternatives

• Options for Britain

The euro

• The Economics of the euro
• The Five Economic Tests
• The euro and Inevitability
• The euro's Success

The EU Constitution

'A tidying up exercise':
Surely, the EU Constitution just codifies the rules as to how the EU operates?

Wrong. The EU Constitution does not define the limitations and extent of EU power, in fact it cedes control over 40 areas of decision making to the EU. But is not just another power grab. It also enables the EU to further expand its power to unprecedented and virtually limitless proportions. In short, the EU Constitution will accelerate the EU's legislative imperialism.

Even Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP who helped draw up the EU Constitution said that, "the suggestion that the EU Constitution was just 'tidying up' is a silly phrase best forgotten. Read on...

A Constitution for an enlarged EU:
With the EU being enlarged to 25 member-states surely there is a need to clearly set out the rules of the club?

Wrong. The truth is that the quest for a constitution predates even the EEC and its predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community. It was a dream of Coudenhove Kalergi, in 1931, when he wrote his book the United States of Europe, and it was a central part of Altiero Spinelli's 'Ventotene Manifesto', written in 1941 under the title Towards a Free and United Europe.

Perversely, the constitution - if it happens - will not resolve the institutional stresses brought about by the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 nations. The core problems of trying to manage disparate nations, each with their own agendas, remain. But that is hardly surprising. The constitution was never intended to achieve this. Read on...

How the EU Constitution compares to other treaties:
Were not more powers given away to Brussels by the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty?

Wrong. The number of vetoes given away in the European Constitution is more than twice the number given away at Maastricht and five times more the number needed for the creation of the Single market. Read on...

EU Membership

The Economic Costs:
Surely, Britain benefits from membership of the European Union?

Wrong. The direct cost of our EU membership, net of the funds we get back from the EU, amounts to around £3 billion a year. But this is only a fraction of the story. The Institute of Directors has recently published a report EU Membership: What's the Bottom Line?. The conclusion of their economists is that when we add in the additional costs of the CAP and regulation, membership is costing between 15 and 25 billion per year. That's roughly £1000 for every family in the country.

The Political Costs:
Will not Britain have more influence in the world if we are further integrated within the EU?

Wrong. The UK is global power. Through membership of international bodies such as the UN Security Council, the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, NATO and the Commonwealth Britain is a major player in world affairs. We do not need to join a European Superstate.

Worryingly, however, under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy Britain has lost its right to steer its own course in world affairs. Javier Solano the EU High Commissioner, responsible for Foreign Affairs, has responsibility in this area. Britain is also all ready being pushed to give up our permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

As a result of the European Commission setting the trade policy for the whole of the EU, Britain, the fourth largest economy in the world, has no influence over the World Trade Organisation. If we can only negotiate for ourselves Britain can obtain better trade agreements perhaps even become founder members of a global free trade association.

What is more, the EU's influence over Britain's own external relations is set to increase.

The EU and Democracy:
Europe does not threaten our democracy?

Wrong. We increasing have little influence over what happens in our own country. The European Union is an emerging Superstate. The unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission make 62% of our laws. This figure will increase to 79% if we join the EU Constitution. What is more, these laws have supremacy over laws made by our own democratically elected Parliament.

Do not just take my word for it: "This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union ... as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law." - Judge Bruce Morgan, judgement in Sunderland metrication case April 9, 2001

Next will be a European army, harmonised taxation and fiscal policy across the EU. Our legal system will be abolished along with the traditional rights that guarantee our liberty. A single European Superstate will then be established through the EU Constitution and Charter of Fundamental Rights. All this is inevitable with European integration. Read on...

The EU Superstate:
Aren't the arguments that the European Union is leading to a single Superstate just scare stories?

Wrong. It is scary but it is also true. Read on...

The Alternatives

Options for Britain
Britain has no alternative to EU membership?

Wrong. Britain is the fourth largest economy in the world; we do not need to be part of a European Superstate. Besides there are positive alternatives for Britain with no detrimental effects to our democracy and ability to govern ourselves that should be vigorously pursued. Read on...

The euro

The Economics of the euro:
The Government claims that Britain's economy will benefit from replacing the Pound with the euro. Surely this is correct?

Wrong. Arguments used in favour of EMU have always tended to express issues in broad terms, with very few specifics. They are based on idealism and economic ignorance, using lightweight arguments to mask what is really a purely political project. They are easily countered. Read on...

The Five Economic Tests:
Gordon Brown has the five economic tests by which he will judge whether replacing the Pound with the euro is in Britain's interests. Surely this means that he will make the best decision for this country?

Wrong. The only test that the Government is relying upon is whether they can win a referendum or not. The Chancellor's so-called five-tests are spurious indicators as to whether or not Britain is suited to scrapping the Pound. Read on...

The euro and Inevitability:
Surely, it is inevitable that the Pound will be replaced by the euro?

Wrong. The Government will have to ask the people in a referendum. Which means that this cannot be done without your consent.

The people of Denmark, a country that is much smaller than Britain and more dependent on trade with the eurozone, rejected replacing the Krona with the euro and this is despite much undue influence from their own Government and a biased media in their referendum. And the Danes are doing well outside. If they can keep their independence so can we.

Britain has a choice and does not have to accept ever-closer Union, the choice is for the British people and our Parliament. The judgement in the Metric Martyrs case confirmed that Britain could even leave the EU if it passed an Act expressly repealing the Treaty of Rome.

The euro's Success:
Has not the introduction of the euro been a success?

Wrong. Despite the promises made on its behalf Economic and Monetary Union since 1st January 1999 has failed to produce any improvement in unemployment or growth in the eurozone countries. The United Kingdom and Denmark, who are outside of the euro, have on the contrary continued to do much better in both these respects.

Britain should count its lucky stars it is not in the euro. The euro has not lived up to its billing: Read on...