Main Menu

Is the EU the new USSR?



As in the Soviet Union, in the European Union the nation state is subordinate to the Union. If the USSR was an ‘evil empire’, then what is the EU?

Cameron was in Brussels for the recent summit.

For better of worse, this is the man the British people believe directs their government. And he was in Brussels to ask the EU if he could do some governing.

The answer – in short – was no.

So why stay in the EU?

To hear those the mainstream media refers to as our leaders talk about the EU one would think that leaving it implied national suicide. Cameron himself is hyperbolic on the question of the need for Britain’s inclusion.

The numbers do not agree.

The Daily Mail ran a piece recently on Norway which it described as: “prosperous, happy and free. Its countryside is neat and well husbanded, its towns and cities orderly and comfortable. Its people shame much of Europe by their command of foreign languages, and it runs its own affairs, trading cheerfully with the EU.

In the 30 years from 1971 to 2001, its gross domestic product rose by 177 per cent. Denmark, which has been in the EU for much of that period, increased its GDP by 75 per cent and the UK, which has been in the EU almost the whole period, saw an increase of 98 per cent.

This suggests, at least, that non-membership has not held Norway back.”

Switzerland, likewise, is safe, stable and rich. And, like Norway, it is not an EU member.

The fact is that countries can do very nicely outside the EU.

What is less clear is how well they can do within it.

A project forced through by stealth

The EU is a lesson in deceit.

Like joining a cult or a pyramid scheme, the true nature and cost of the abusive system one is entering are hidden until after the ink has dried on the contract; and having joined, one will not be privy to the agenda guiding what one is now paying to support.

The New York Times puts the underhand nature of the incremental creation of a European bloc into perspective, almost in passing.

Looking at Cameron’s recent Brussels visit, the paper notes: “The departure of Britain from the bloc would throw into reverse for the first time the so-called European project, a program of integration that began with six countries with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and that has since expanded to 28 nations, with several others eager to join.”

That’s right, this entity which tells the Prime Minister of Britain what he can and cannot do began life as a coal and steel agreement.

In hindsight, it is clear that this 1951 treaty was simply a purchase point needed leverage in what was to follow.

The agreement itself expired and was abandoned in 2002 and one is left wondering at what undeclared future milestones existing agreements are, in fact, directed.


The man who in 1973 took the UK into what was then called the European Economic Community or Common Market was Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath.

In October 2011, Conservative Member of Parliament, Mark Reckless, said during a debate on an EU referendum that Ted Heath had promised the British public that “they would have the veto over any important issues.”

He continued: “Yet those same people are now told that what they were then told was a common market, has become a political union in which we can be outvoted whether we like it or not.”

This, then, was a clear case of bait-and-switch.

Heath controlled by outside forces?

Since his death in 2005, Heath has been implicated in child molestation cases.

The Guardian reports: “An alleged victim, a woman, was interviewed by Clive Driscoll[…] He retired last year having reached the rank of detective chief inspector.

Driscoll told the Guardian the woman he interviewed said she had been abused as a child by a group of people, including Heath on multiple occasions: “The person was 100% sure they were talking about Ted Heath. She totally believed what she was saying and that’s where the investigation starts, not where it stops.”

The woman claimed the abuse happened at a time after Heath had served as prime minister. Driscoll said others made similar abuse allegations, but he was not asked to take statements from them.”

Whether the Establishment will close ranks on this case as it has on that pertaining to EU Commissioner Leon Brittan remains to be seen.

If the allegations against Heath are true, it is unlikely that such an abhorrent feature of his sexual character surfaced only when he was out of office. And that being the case, he would have been entirely controlled by whatever person or agency had the dirt on him while he was Prime Minister.

My point is this: the history of the development of the EU project bears witness to a clear and pre-existing agenda – one which has remained hidden from the view of both the public and non-senior Members of Parliament.

And as regards the UK, susceptibility to blackmail by outside forces in the case of the primary actor in the legislative process which resulted in membership must be considered a genuine possibility.