Page 8 - BV20

8 Sovereign Britain

“No gov ern ment de pend ent upon a dem o cratic vote could pos si bly agree in ad vance to the
sac ri fice which any ad e quate plan must in volve. The peo ple must be led slowly and un -
con sciously into the aban don ment of their tra di tional eco nomic de fenses, not asked, in
ad vance of hav ing re ceived any of the ben e fits which will ac crue to them from the plan, to
make changes of which they may not at first rec og nize the ad van tage to them selves as well
as to the rest of the world.” (Ed i tor’s em pha sis).

Another pillar of the EU is Berhardt of the Netherlands, who was a Nazi.

A great sup porter of the Eu ro pean Un ion – a man whose foot steps have been fol lowed by
the par ties at pres ent en sconced in the House of Com mons, was Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the
Brit ish Un ion of Fas cists.

The ques tion all Brit ish peo ple must ask is this: “Why have our great par lia men tary par ties
be come sub ject to to tal i tar ian in flu ences?” The an swer may be very sim ple. Greed for power can be
un bri dled if there is no fur ther need to con sult the peo ple via the pro cesses of de moc racy. In di vid ual
free dom is a com pli ca tion, which hin ders the per sonal ob jec tives of a pro spec tive dic ta tor.

All in Brit ain can see the pre sump tu ous and im pe ri ous man ner by which the Eu ro pean Un -
ion at tempts to usurp the rights and se cu ri ties of the Brit ish peo ple, and yet, de spite the ob vi ous, in
1967, the Lord High Chan cel lor said:

“There is no rea son to think that the im pact of com mu nity law would weaken or de stroy any
of the ba sic rights and lib er ties of in di vid u als un der the law in the United King dom”.

In 1971, the White Pa per on join ing the Com mon Mar ket put out by Heath’s gov ern ment,
said:

“…no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty was entailed”.

Furthermore, Mr Geoffrey Rippon (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) said:

“The House as a whole may there fore be re as sured that there is no ques tion of this Bill (The
Eu ro pean Com mu nities Bill 1972) mak ing a thou sand years of Brit ish Law sub ser vi ent to
the Code Na po leon" (Hansard. 15 Feb 1972, Pg. 270).

Writ ing in sup port of the “Yes” cam paign in the 1975 ref er en dum, Roy Jenkins was equally
mis lead ing:

“The position of the Queen is not affected. English Common Law is not affected”.

What Heath, Rippon and Jenkins said with re gard to our na tional Sov er eignty is en tirely
false.

In Brit ain, the con sti tu tion, as we have dem on strated, has de vel oped as an im par tial se cu rity
for the in di vid ual. The wide sense of free dom en sures a lack of in ter fer ence by an over bear ing au -

The Berean Voice