As I made clear at the time, I was surprised and dismayed by your
speech and policy statement at the Democracy Movement meeting
at York last Saturday. In particular I was shocked by your claim
that not only BfS but also the IoD and FSB, believe that Britain
should stay in the EU. How can you seriously believe that there
can have a credible British Pound Sterling when, as Mr. Prodi and
many others have recently confirmed, there will no longer be a
Britain, but 12 subservient Regions of the EU?

In my view such a statement shows failure to recognise the issues
and the reality of the choices we face. It seems that, like too many
other organisations, you are allowing yourself to be led by the nose
by polls and focus groups into following uninformed and facile
opinion instead of leading the debate with informed and logical
analysis. Your policy seesm to be that you are prepared to trade
British freedom and self-determination for perceived (but unreal)
economic advantage (a choice you could make for yourself by
emigrating, but which you have no right to make for me or anyone
else.) In all conscience, you have no right to make public
pronouncements about whether Britain should be in or out of the
EU, without any reference whatever to the Constitutional issues
that are overwhelmingly important. You have no right to assist in
the destruction of this country.

As I set out on what will clearly be a long letter, I should state my
position. I retired two years ago from an electronics company I
started and ran for more than 30 years, the last 15 years of which
involved exporting 85% of my output. I have been a supporter of
BfS and ERG since their inception and a member of the IoD for
four years, largely to support its robust and analytical approach
to EMU. I am also in frequent contact with the FSB. I spend what
should now be a leisurely retirement fighting the EU every step of
the way, in every way I can. Speaking for no one but myself, and
responsible to no one but myself, I am free to say and write what
I think, as you will see. (Though I recently became number four
in the UKIP list for Wales in the June EU elections, I do not speak
for UKIP).
   
1/ What Should BfS say about staying in the EU or getting out?

I understand (though do not necessarily agree with) the argument
that in the interests of winning a Referendum on EMU we need to
keep on board those opposed to EMU but in favour of the EU, and
must therefore avoid a formal policy that Britain should leave
the EU. But it is a long way from that position to having a formal
policy that we should stay in the EU. Do you not see that the only
policy acceptable to both sides is to say neither? If BfS continue
to advocate long-term membership of the EU I will have no
alternative but to withdraw my support and instead fight and
argue against you, for all the reasons set out below. I do not
suppose for one moment that my opposition alone would worry
you - but I doubt that I would be alone.

2/ Anomalies in Your Speech and Bus For £ Documents

What astonished me throughout your speech was that you seemed
unaware that most of the measures you railed against as being
inappropriate or counterproductive for Britain's economy are
nothing whatever to do with Britain being in EMU (which you reject)
but everything to do with being in the EU (which you advocate). To
take only a few examples from your speech and literature:

Withholding Tax: This threat is already all too real, years before
we could enter EMU. If you oppose this and similar threats,
including "harmonised" taxation, you should oppose EU membership,
not just EMU. (Don't think we will be able to rely on the veto - after
Amsterdam comes into effect on May 1st, the veto will be lost for
almost all areas of EU legislation.)

Working Time Directive: This is already in effect without EMU, as
many of your members know to their cost. John Major is on record
as saying that he was given a water-tight exemption by Delors,
without which he would not have signed Maastricht - yet before
the ink was dry the EU re-routed the legislation through Health
and Safety to avoid the exemption. Already business are closing
down because they can no longer make a profit - others will never
get off the ground, as I know all too well, having started from
nothing and worked 70/80 hour week to build my business.
Already the exemptions and opt-outs are being removed, making
thousands or millions of jobs unsustainable. And next comes the
35 hour week:

Perhaps you are unaware that Padraig Flynn (acting) EU Health
and Safety Commissioner, plans to impose the 35-hour week
across the entire EU - fining heavily those who have the audacity
to work too hard! That Flynn is (a) considered by many to be
clinically insane (b) under suspicion of fraud over the
disappearance of £50,000 in Ireland (c) one of the Commissioners
forced to resign over joint responsibility for EU fraud of £3bn p.a.,
will not change the plan. Is this what those who voted in your poll
to stay in the EU really want - or do they just not understand that
this is what they would get? What chance would Britain have,
working a 35-hour week? In 30 years I never came across a small
business that could start or survive by working 35 hours a week -
these days that would be barely long enough to deal with all the
regulations!

On Tuesday 28th April after a speech to the Bruges Group Lord
Tebbit recalled how, when he was Trade Minister, he faced and
vetoed frequent EU calls for the Working Time Directive to be
agreed. When he pointed out that Britain's refusal did not stop
the other countries implementing it for themselves, they replied
"But that would leave you at a competitive advantage!" When he
pointed out that they had been arguing all morning for the
Directive to improve competitiveness they could not answer
- because they knew perfectly well that what they had sought
(and have since achieved) was to hamstring Britain's economy
with restrictive, unfair and quite mad rules which we would
obey but they would ignore.

Those who still dream of an EU Nirvana but never wake up to
the reality of what has happened (and what will continue to
happen as long as we stay in) should be made aware. The EU
is, and is determined to remain, a Soviet-style command
economy with high taxation and State spending. There is
nothing they can do to prevent economic failure under such
a system, or to disguise the success of economies like that
of the USA based on free competition and the supremacy of
the market. But they desperately can not afford Britain to
succeed and prosper on this detested Anglo-Saxon model
only twenty miles from their shore. This is why almost every
significant measure they imposed, from the CFP and CAP
through nitrate levels in lettuce to taxation of the art, old
car and Bond market is designed to be uniquely harmful to
Britain.


"Advantages of the City are low and fair regulation."
(Your words). How much longer will they survive within the EU,
in or out of EMU? You can not be serious! Low and fair
regulation never was, is not and will never be an EU objective.
Nothing would please them more than to see the City destroyed,
and with it a large slice of the UK economy and balance of
payments. Over-regulation will destroy what is left of
manufacturing industry. Nothing would please the EU more
than to see UK unemployment 110,000 higher, embarrassingly
low as it is now compared to their own. Do you think they
would be bringing in this tax if all these jobs were in Frankfurt
not London?

Fishing and Farming: Both industries have been virtually
destroyed by EU membership, and are incapable of recover as
long as we remain in the insane CFP and CAP, in or out of EMU.
Outside the EU we would have a 200-mile fishing limit, work not
only for fishermen but shipbuilders, and extra billions of GDP.
Inside the EU nothing but the dole queue awaits everyone
involved. Outside the EU, our farmers have a future - inside it
they will be sacrificed to Poland and other Eastern low-cost
agricultural areas, which the EU clearly sees as their
bread-basket while Britain becomes a tourist park, begging
for subsidies from Brussels. Is that what these Europhile
businessmen want? That is what they will get, inside the EU..

Avalanche of Rules, Regulations and Directives. These have been
flowing through for years, staying out of EMU will not stop them.
A recent survey (perhaps by the IoD) showed that 55|% of
owner-managers in Britain would not now start another business
in Britain, largely because of over-regulation, bureaucracy and
the threat of writs from every direction for "unfair" this or
"politically-incorrect" that. I certainly would not start a business
again here now - I would leave for a free country where I could
work the hours I choose, and would not put the entire enterprise
at risk to the first aggrieved employee seeking £50,000 for a few
days work and a fancied insult or discrimination.

In short: This country has already been crucified by the EU - a
trade deficit of £150bn since we went in, let alone the membership
fees and costs to industry of over-regulation. EMU could only make
things worse - but staying out of EMU will not make things better.
Staying out is a necessary condition for our prosperity - but not
sufficient.

Corpus Juris. You made no mention of this at York, though I did
during questions. If you and BfS claim to understand our
relationship with the EU, and to campaign and make
recommendations on the basis of that understanding, do you
not think it relevant that the EU has planned for years (and
indeed voted through in their "Parliament" only 5 days before
the York meeting) this plan for an EU-wide legal system that
abolishes habeas corpus, trial by jury, the separation of the
State from the judiciary and re-imposes double jeopardy after
400 years? Do you and your pro-EU members and supporters
really think that the economic advantages (as they apparently
see them) of membership outweigh the possibility (rather,
probability) of British people being extradited by a European
Public Prosecutor, without prime facie evidence, to be
imprisoned anywhere in the EU for up to 6 months, renewable
for 3 months at a time ad infinitum without trial, not only for
crimes they have or might have comnitted, but for crimes they
might commit? What economic benefits have ever been
identified that could conceivably justify throwing away British
Common Law, the hard-won freedom of our peoples - and
indeed the right of self-determination guaranteed by the
United Nations?

Or perhaps you simply did not know about it. Why not? It has
been covered in Hansard several times, there is a Lords Select
Committee of Enquiry at present, the Telegraph and Times
have covered it. My experience of EU enthusiasts is that
showing them hard evidence is like showing a crucifix to
vampires - they shy away, arms over faces, denying the
existence of anything that conflicts with their dream. But
BfS has no such excuse. It is your responsibility to know
about such matters before making recommendations. You
have no right to advocate continued EU membership without
first understanding the Constitutional issues, and that we are
heading for a Police State.



To this end I enclose a two-page list of documentation I hold
on Corpus Juris. I would be happy to copy any item to anyone.
No, this is not fiction or scare-mongering, or (as John Gummer
tried to claim) "a conspiracy theory". This is real, this is now,
this is fully documented by EU and other bodies, and I have
the documents.

2/ Dangerous Tactics:

As I said on Saturday, I consider the policy you are following
to be extremely dangerous. They might arguably help win the
anti-Euro battle but could lose the anti-EU war. If the price
Europhiles demand for support in the anti-EMU fight is that
BfS campaign on a policy of staying in the EU long-term, it is
too high a price, because:

a/ You dilute what could and should be a clear and simple
message.

b/ You end up, as you indeed did on Saturday, sending mixed
and confusing signals, by railing against things which are
nothing to do with EMU but everything to do with being in the
EU.

c/ If you advocate continued membership, you rule out from
discussion many, if not most, of the best rational, quantifiable
reasons for fighting both EMU and the EU, including not just
economic issues but other factors like Corpus Juris and
personal freedom.

d/ Many people see no prospect of Britain remaining outside
EMU but within the EU - we believe that it is an option that is
simply not available, and the more Prodi, Schoeder et al tell
us of their determination of forming a single EU State, the
less credible this option becomes. Thus you are advocating a
policy that many if not most people simply will not believe.

e/ If you help make people believe that "Business is in favour
of the EU" (which I do not believe), those who do not accept
that it is possible to be in the EU but not in EMU will be
persuaded by you that EMU also is inevitable and that
therefore they might as well get it over and done with.
This suits very well the Europhiles, who would probably
prefer both to neither - but this is hardly likely to advance
the cause of those who prefer neither to either or both. A
very dangerous tactic, in my belief, because the central
plank of policy, "in EU but not EMU" is no more credible to
the average man than "In Europe but not ruled by Europe.
" Oxymorons flourish these days, because of sloppy thinking
and lack of rational analysis.

I for one would not be part of such a campaign - I believe in
arguing the very positive case for being outside the
self-inflicted wounds of the collapsing EU economy, and a
free man into the bargain. An option no one should refuse
for himself, and most certainly an option no one has the
right to refuse others..

3/ So why did your Poll show that "business wishes to
stay in the EU"?

The charitable view is that most businessmen are so busy
running their businesses that they do not have time to study
and analyse what the EU has done and will continue to do
to them and their country. When the Sunday Times and
TSB/Lloyds ran an Euro Supplement some months ago,
presenting examples of businessmen in favour of EMU
(with none against) I telephone them all, Without exception,
even amongst those running companies turning over £10m
- £50m, they simply had no understanding of the real issues,
but thought of the Euro in the most simplistic and naïve terms
of not having to cope with varying exchange rates. I suspect
they were also grateful for a free advertisement. Two or three
had the grace to confirm their concern after I had sent them
copies of the ERG book "The Euro - Bad for Business", but this
experience showed how little impact this debate has had on
those too busy or too a-political to listen.


In other words, despite all that has been said, written and
done, businessmen on the whole remain woefully ignorant of
not only the economic but also the constitutional issues. If
BfS is foolish enough to base its policies on the misconceptions
of those who have never seriously considered these issues, then
this country is in far deeper trouble that even I had realised.

Fortunately, the common man has more common sense. As
Rodney Leach said at a recent Cirencester debate, your own
polls shows that while many can recite the so-called advantages
of the Euro claimed by the brain-washing, taxpayer-funded
zealots of the EU Commission and European Movement, they
are unable to identify economic reasons to keep the £. Instead
they say they wish to keep the £ for reasons like "Freedom",
"Independence" and "Running our own affairs" - and it is on this
basis that all polls show a large majority in favour of the £.
(Many polls, as you may know, show majorities of 85%, 91% and
96% in favour of the £). It is therefore just as well that, if there
ever were a referendum, the man in the street would have the
same vote as Lord Haskins - not to mention rather more inherent
loyalty to Britain and our laws and historic freedoms.

What on earth can those you polled be thinking of, to fail to
realise that the (so-called) advantages of the "Single Market"
are available inside the EU only as a package deal including
crucifying legislation and control., but from outside the EU
with none of those disadvantages? We can indeed more easily
obtain all the advantages of the "Single Market" just as
Switzerland and Finland have done - by being outside the EU
and negotiating free trade from the position of strength we hold
by reason of our trade deficit with them (see below)..

4/ Will there ever be a Referendum?

In a word - NO. There is no realistic prospect of the polls being
turned around - a "mole" at a recent European Movement meeting
confirmed that they are tearing their hair in frustration at steady
upward movement from an already high lever in favour of the £.
Mr. Blair is not now wondering when to hold a referendum, but
how to avoid one. As Paul Sykes confirmed when pressed at York,
whatever promise he made, Mr. Blair is not going to hold a
referendum he knows he will lose. So there will almost certainly
never be one, not least because the longer the Euro exists, the
worse it and the EU economy will prove to be, and Blair and Brown
will have to choose between their Euro fantasy and their credibility
and careers. Guess which?

Thus, in terms of the Euro Referendum, BfS and similar
organisations may already be redundant - the Euro battle has
already been won amongst ordinary people, more by gut feeling
than rational economic debate, now more by experience than by
triumph, and it is time to move on. No rayional analysis could
possibly conclude that, even on economic terms alone, Britain's
future should lie within the EU as we now know it to be. Not just
because the EU is (and always was) intended to be a single State,
with its own anthem, flag, laws, police and armed forces, foreign,
defence and financial policies, not just because this inevitably
means that Britain would cease to exist (look at the EU maps if
you doubt that), but quite simply because the EU plans to be a
centrally-controlled, over-regulated, bureaucratic,
anti-democratic, anti-Anglo-Saxon Soviet State - every aspect
of which is the antithesis of what Britain has always stood for,
and which the great majority of our people prefer.

Thus I see no reason to support BfS or any other organisation
to win an EMU Referendum we can not lose, if that means
supporting continued membership of the EU, which we dare
not concede.

5/ By the Way - the Constitution.

Almost two hundred years ago, long enough, one would have
thought, for word to have reached Westminster, President
Thomas Jefferson said that any nation which gives up its
freedom for economic advantage deserves to lose both. The
freedom and independence of this county is no more in the
gift of BfS, CBI, IoD, FsB than it is in the gift of Blair and
Brown. The freedom of this country belongs to the people
of this country - and not even they have the right to give it
away. Our Constitution determines that the power to govern
this country resides in the people, who lend that power for
a maximum of five years to their elected representatives at
Westminster. But these people are not just those alive at any
given moment, but all the generations past and yet to be born..
It follows that no such representative, Minister or Prime
Minister, has the right to give away that power to any one
else. It follows also that no Government can bind its successor
- and thus that no Minister or Government has the right to
sign any "irrevocable" treaty or other such agreement. That
is why the official position remains that we, the people,
through our representatives, have the right at any time to
abrogate any and all Treaties. If were not so, the signatories
would have committed High Treason by signing them. (This
could be one reason why Norman Lamont, to his credit,
refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty.)

It follows also that not even the people, by referendum, however
"fair" or "democratic", have any right to make irrevocable
Treaties (such as membership of EMU) for to do so would not only
be High Treason, by way of giving away to other countries the
power to control our economy and currency, but would infringe
the Constitution that guarantees future generations their
birthright of freedom and self-determination. In other words, any
such Referendum, about an irrevocable hand-over of power
inherently unconstitutional. This is not our country to give away
- we are merely custodians for those who follow us. I defy you to
continue to advocate the abolition of my country.

6/ The Chimera of "In Europe but Not Ruled by Europe" or
"The Single Marker".

Only devious or simple minds could chant these mantras - the
age-old problem of telling the charlatan from the fool. There is
only one EU on offer - one size fits all, and not just currencies.
The entire EU edifice is built on uniformity, central control,
anti-democratic and anti-choice principles. The difference
between Britain and Continental countries has always been
that in Britain the State exists to serve the people, whereas on
the Continent the people exist to serve the State. There is no
halfway house, except while the traps are still baited with
promises of cheap cars or lower travel costs - but the triggered
trap is one of total conformity backed by authoritarian rule, as
already defined by Corpus Juris..

How many of those polled who said they wished to stay in the
EU knew of Corpus Juris? Would you not do better to tell people
what sort of EU we face, rather than take as Gospel the poll
responses of people who, by and large, know little or nothing of
the issues? Our only choice is whether we commit national suicide
and remain in the EU, ruled by an incompetent, corrupt, unelected
group of self-seeking shysters and bureaucrats, or we get out and
govern ourselves - in English, when at least me have a chance of
judging when our politicians are lying to us. The choice is whether
to become a vassal region of the EU Superstate, or return to being
what we have been for 800 years, a free and Sovereign nation. It is
time to stand up and tell the truth about what has been done to
this country over 40 years, and to tell the truth about what the EU
holds in store. A Police State by any definition (read Corpus Juris).
A crumbling economy. Mass unemployment. Civil unrest, then worse,
as even Douglas Hurd predicts. If we get out now we can save
ourselves, and give others the inspiration, the motive and the
opportunity to save themselves.

Can We Leave? Should We Leave? How Do We Leave?

Let this be crystal clear. YES. Whatever Brussels may have said or
written about "irrevocable" or "ever closer union", the Constitutional
position is that Parliament can pass legislation in an afternoon to
abrogate all these accursed Treaties, and return Britain to the
Sovereign status it has held for centuries. We can leave, We must
leave, I do not care how amicable the divorce, as long as it is quick
- and soon.



It is time to stop pussy-footing around, and saying "Oh, well, the
polls show that businessmen want the benefits of the single market
so we must be in the EU" and start pointing out that all of these
"benefits" are illusory, and to the extent they are available at all, are
in reality available only outside the EU, where we have negotiating
strengths, not inside the EU where we have none.

Does anyone seriously imagine that Britain would be unable to
negotiate from outside trade terms at least as good as those won by
other non-EU countries? Does anyone seriously doubt that we could
be more efficient and prosperous without these insane EU rules?
The quickest or best, and arguably the only way we can have a free
market with the EU (as we have with the rest of the World), without
being crucified every day and night by its regulations and economic
dyslexia, and be free to run our businesses efficiently, freely,
competitively and prosperously, is as follows;

The telephone rings in Brussels. A voice says "Hello - is that
Mr. Prodi? This is 10 Downing Street. Look, old boy, these
Treaties are unconstitutional. We have torn them up. We have left.
Today__.Finish. Kaput. Finito.

Don't send any Directives - they would be returned marked "Gone Away".
Don't expect any more cheques - we will not be sending any. Our
Currency Reserves have been locked away. As of this afternoon, we
have re-imposed our 200-mile fishing limit, and started to build a
new fishing fleet. Until it is complete, we will sell you fishing quotas
on a diminishing basis, to give you time to find other fishing grounds
to plunder and destroy. Milk quotas have been ended, budget for our
self-sufficiency.

Now - about trade. As you know, we have a severe trade deficit with
you, but never mind, we believe in free trade. So here's the deal:
Whatever duties or tariffs you impose on us, we will impose on you.
Our opening offer is Nil. Zero. Zilch. Take a day or two, and tell us
what you want, of course within the 3.8% GATT average. Whatever
you choose, we will match. And by the way, you can keep Brittan
and the Kinnocks, we don't need them. But you can pay their pensions.

In fairness, you should know that our Parliament will now embark
on a 3 year programme, not of legislation but of removal of legislation.
We will set our people and our businesses free. Free to compete, to
work, or organise and arrange their lives as they see fit. Free to use
their initiative and inventiveness. Free to compete and win against
the best in the world, as we know we can. We think it only fair that
you should know, because you will have to compete against us, and
you will need to get your act together and, set your own people free,
or go to the wall. Your choice.

We have shown you the way. On our way out we left open the prison
gates, for those of like mind. to follow where we lead. Soon the EU
prison will be empty, and the EU will be in the dustbin of history,
where it belongs, alongside its predecessor and model, the USSR"

End of message. Over and Out. Particularly Out..

This is what we can, must and will do. No doubt you will let me know
in due course whether you will abandon your policy of advocating
continued EU membership, so that I may decide whether to end or renew
my support.

Sincerely,
Idris R. Francis           
TOP