The looming spectre of a Federal Europe has several strings - spreading tentacles. This is reaching out progressively to ensnare the former Soviet Russian satellites of Eastern Europe, and to centralise government in all its legislative and bureaucratic dimensions. It is attempting to extend economic enslavement as part of the debt-usury treadmill of the global economy, manifested in the case of Europe by the Common Currency; the "Euro". Leaching away in the opposite direction are national sovereignty and any meaningful democratic Power in the hands of the people themselves; not least, the freedom to decide their own destinies in opposing integration in a Federal European "State". Politicians come and go; almost without exception faithful to the party-political Westminster system; generally ill-briefed, win or lose. Open public debate is to a large extent muzzled by the Media. A classic case of this is the attempt to introduce Regional Assemblies - in the longer term the break-up of the United Kingdom; in other words, Government from Brussels - by stealth and deceit.

In the 1st & 15th June, 2002, edition of On Target, we dealt with the urgency of generating full and continuous public debate through the local press, and how this could be achieved(2). We used the example of one particular provincial newspaper, the widely read daily, Shropshire Star. We showed how one man, Bob Wydell, was successfully carrying the vital battle against the centralisation of Power to the readership. Bob Wydell does write alone, but he has established a following, and, he ensures that he is master of his subject. Whilst he is not the only correspondent, he has become an essential continuity factor to get people thinking and talking; however acerbic on occasions, the exchanges are stimulating. We continue here with a further selection of letters from the Shropshire Star, mainly but not exclusively from Bob Wydell. We have taken extracts and run paragraphs together for reasons of space. We have also added emphasis and our own notes where appropriate:

"Economy of facts" (Bob Wydell, 24th May, 2002) The official announcement of the creation of regional assemblies may have been something which John Prescott had dreamed about for three decades but it is Federal Europe's baby, not his or New Labour's. The announcement was, like any involving Federal Europe, economical with the facts and ambiguous throughout. We are told that these R.D.A.s, Regional Development Assemblies, will not be imposed upon us and that we will have a referendum. It seems however that when one region has said yes in a referendum, legislation will be implemented to enable assemblies to be set up. Does this mean the remainder do not get a referendum? Will the government condone half of the country wanting a regional assembly and the other half preferring the status quo? We are told that it is all part of devolution, about bringing power closer to the people, but will Westminster devolve any real power to these assemblies or the cash to exercise that power?

"The world is really a lot bigger than that" (Jonathan C. Carr, 27th May, 2002) In reply to Richard Long (20th May, 2002), it may surprise him that I too deal with European companies in my business with excellent relations, but also deal with American and even Australian companies who don't deal in euros. The world is a far bigger place than the E.U.! We work in metric or imperial measures for the benefit of customers who prefer either. Indeed I am so hopelessly isolationist and xenophobic that I even voted for the Common Market, because I was told that it was just a free trade association of sovereign nations. Unfortunately we were lied to and deceived by Conservative and Labour politicians alike, and this deceit continues even today The point is, Mr Long, that the E.U. is a "forced" convergence of nation states just like the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia. Using secrecy, deceit and avoiding democratic processes at every stage, the political ruling elite now dictate every detail of how we must run our lives, including whether or not we are free to buy vegetables in pounds and ounces, if we so wish. It will all end in tears! Even the E.U. admits there is a "democratic deficit"; I say there is nothing democratic at all about E.U. institutions or its philosophy. I joined the United Kingdom Independence Party because they are moderate and sensible, but above all because they give people a democratic vote on the E.U. issue denied by all others, quite deliberately. If you care to find out Mr Long, U.K.I.P. believes in global trade and deregulation. That is not isolationism and not xenophobia. That is just propaganda by the Goebelmeisters to promote yet another lie!

"Insulting, bombastic nonsense" (Bob Wydell, 28th May, 2002) We have heard this xenophobia nonsense a thousand times before Mr Long, not in such an arrogantly bombastic and insulting manner I agree, but it takes all sorts. I do not recall myself or Mr Carr of Shrewsbury advocating the return of the Imperial system of measurement, teaching our children hatred of Europe or wanting millions out of work - it is pro federal manure and you know it. Are we to consider the people of Switzerland and Norway raging xenophobes because they declined to join Federal Europe? Can we be sure that the 11 countries in euroland would be there had they been given a democratic choice? Choice and democracy are rare commodities in Mr Long's Utopia and he will be pleased to know that they have taken steps to contain my endless letters. As you read Brussels is framing federal laws to make any criticism of its institutions an offence reinforced by powers for its federal police to cross national borders, arrest the culprit and transport them to any corner of the federation without reference to a judge, you will probably find that your federal friend, David Lake, has already nominated me for this honour and provided incriminating press cuttings to boot! Mr Long is obviously a federalist, I have no problem with that, it is his democratic choice and I respect it; why is it unacceptable for others to hold a different point of view?

"Blair's big movement on Europe" (Bob Wydell, 29th May, 2002) The 29 year old Anthony Charles Lynton Blair stood for Parliament in a by-election at Beaconsfield in 1982. His stance on Europe at that time was concise and unequivocal, he proposed, "withdrawal from the E.E.C. unless the most fundamental changes are effected". Twenty years on it is patently obvious to all that no such fundamental changes have been made. Indeed, the prime movers of Federal Europe, Germany and France have hardened their attitude against such changes. Has anything else in the alliance changed? - for the good, no. The name has changed more often than a pantomime dame. Its sphere of influence has increased a hundred fold, the cost of membership has gone through the roof, but the level of democratic debate in its parliament and the level of democracy offered to its people remains at an unacceptable low. Countries in Europe have survived and prospered outside the federation. Denmark has shown that monetary union is not inevitable. NATO has been responsible for half a century of peace in Europe, not federal Europe. Other than self promotion there is no logical reason for Mr Blair's U-turn on his subject.

"Farce is not funny" (Bob Wydell, 1st June, 2002) A Brussels farce: "Now then, Sir Edward, what brings you to Brussels?" "Well it's your Market actually, but I find it a bit Common, haven't you got anything better? "I can do you a nice Federal Superstate Ted, but it will cost you" "Money's no object, throw in half a dozen treaties and a pound of, sorry shipmate, half a kilo of vetoes and you have a deal" "Just a tad under £28 billion that comes to, guv!" "No problem, do you take territorial waters?" Exit stage left.

"Bored by the euro sceptics" (Richard Long, 4th June, 2002) I was fascinated to find that my comments have ruffled so many feathers amidst the euro sceptics. I was even more fascinated to find out that the soap box critics become very sensitive when criticism is levelled back in their direction. The use of eloquent words, staggering statistics and an endless bombardment of xenophobic letters has become the Shropshire Star's No. 1 yawn, but it probably serves its purpose of distortion and half truths. However, I am comforted by the recent comments of John Edwards, General secretary of the G.M.B.[General, Municipal, Boilermakers] Union, whose interest lies with his members and has no political axe to grind [This certainly does not follow! - Ed.]. In his comments he pressed the government for an early referendum on the euro to prevent a further catastrophic decline in manufacturing and massive job losses [see letter from Denis Brooks, 31st May, 2002 - Ed.]. So who do we believe, Mr Wydell? Those of us who live and work in manufacturing, the largest union in the U.K., or your goodself who is happy to rubbish everyone's concerns other than your own. Sorry Mr Wydell - xenophobia is bad enough, but endless repetitive xenophobia is boring beyond belief!

"EU U-turn" (Dorothy Wells, 10th June, 2002) Re Bob Wydell's letter. The sole reason for Tony Blair's U-turn is he no longer has any interest in this country, he is using it to become President of the E.U. He has spent our money and given our country away and all our rights with it.

"Drowning in a sea of euro rules" (Bob Wydell, 11th June, 2002) It has taken over 30 years but at last the bureaucrats in Brussels have realised that business and commerce throughout the federation is up to its neck in paperwork and drowning in a sea of gormless rules and regulations. It will, in future, make legislation simpler to minimize red tape, in europspeak that is "Simplifying and improving the aquis communautaire". It is long overdue, the rule in Brussels has always been why use two words when twenty are available - The Lord's Prayer speaks volumes in 59 words, the Gettysburg Address embraced the constitution of the U.S.A. in 300 words - the E.U. directive on the export of duck eggs runs to an astounding 26,991! Do not expect any great improvement. "The new rules are open to suggestions and amendments", a spokesman said, and, "of course the consultation standards will be subject to consultation".

"Changing to euros will make costs rise" (John Barnes, 13th June, 2002) People interested in witnessing the cost of the euro upon "ordinary" people should take a holiday in Germany, which along with Britain is the E.E.C.'s major financial contributor. Having just returned from Berlin I can without hesitation or cynicism vouch that any subsequent introduction of the euro to Britain will cause havoc to the already limited budgets of pensioners and the low and middle wage earners. The Bild newspaper offices in Berlin are receiving over 1,000 e-mails and letters per day in regards to the blatant increases and profiteering since the introduction of the euro. Basics like bread, cake and coffee have risen by over 20 per cent in five months. On June 4th their Krankenkasse (German N.H.S.), announced that the medicine bill had risen by 160 million euros (£110 million), in just five months. It was announced that pensions would rise 2.5 per cent but this rise has already been absorbed. Teuer which in German means "expensive" has lent itself to a new word - the euro itself is now known throughout Germany as the teuro. People in their millions are now cutting back on their buying of basic foods. On the evidence that I have seen no ordinary pensioner and low or middle wage earners in Britain should even contemplate acceptance of the euro unless pensions and salaries of the groups mentioned are raised on the same percentage basis that our M.P.s deliberately raised theirs over the past five years to absorb any devaluation of the pound and the expected price hikes on possible entrance to the euro. Remember what Robin Cook told M.P.s when they voted for their latest massive salary, pension and expenses increase - "do not sell yourselves short in voting for an increase".

"Problem is that of a weak euro" (Philip Bushill-Matthews, M.E.P., 14th June, 2002) Last Monday you published a letter of mine with a key line missing. What it should have said was "Under the present Government there has been more red tape piled on U.K. business in the past two years than in the previous twenty years put together." May I use this opportunity to correct one further myth, from David Lake in his letter two days later. He states that the damage inflicted on our vital exporting industry by having such a high pound could have been avoided if we had joined the single currency at the start. If it were that simple all exporters would have been clamouring to join in. The problem for exporters is not a strong pound but a weak euro. The euro remains weak because a one-size-fits-all currency doesn't fit any country very well. Meanwhile our economy is the strongest in the E.U., as it has been ever since we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism (E.R.M.), some ten years ago; then our currency was locked together with other E.U. countries and we were in a downward spiral until we broke free. We need to stay free.

"Points on E.U. often less than subjective" (Jimmy Gates, 14th June, 2002) I read in your letters page another person zealously supporting the E.U. and all that it stands for. Surely other Shropshire Star readers cannot fail to have noticed that many of these people are writing in with less than subjective arguments and they often make it very clear that they have a personal interest, frequently financial, in joining a common currency etc. A recent example came from Steve Bourne of Oswestry who casts spiteful missiles of rhetoric in an attempt to affect public opinion and then admits to being a councillor. Far be it from me to suggest that public servant plus increased levels of bureaucracy equals vested interest. Another contributor, Richard Long, bombarded the letters page for many months before revealing that he and his family stood to directly gain from closer ties to the European Union. Those people who keep knocking anyone who questions the logic of a bureaucratic steamroller offering jobs for the boys and often unaccountable grants and subsidies that come from our taxes, an organisation whose auditors have been unable to balance the accounts year after year, do not come across as representing the interests of this country. I thought the criteria for joining the euro revolved around doing so when it was in the country's interest. It seems that this is interpreted by some Shropshire people as being when it is in their own personal best interest. As for Councillor Bourne's assertion that those who have doubts about the E.U. are in favour of privatising the N.H.S. [National Health Service], where have you been lately Mr Bourne? We have given up over 11 billion pounds from the sale of gold reserves to prop up the euro and our government's own estimate for converting from sterling to euros is another 11 billion - and we all know how accurate government estimates can be. How many hospitals could have benefited from this money?

"Cheers for Mr Wydell, I reckon" (Ron Jones, 15th June, 2002) Three cheers for Bob Wydell, say I. Fancy saying he's boring and bracketing him with Daniel K from Hereford. I know he's always going on about Federal Europe but he's got a great sense of humour, he's quite entertaining. Although he's funny, the fact is that his subject is of immense importance to every one of us. He is trying his best to wake us up to the fact that we are in danger of losing control of our own destiny. I'm glad to see that there are some really weighty letters now in support of his view that the European Union has been bad for Britain and probably for the rest of Europe as well in the long term. We have been the losers from the beginning. I'm not an admirer of Mrs Thatcher, but she realised what it was doing to us and would have taken us out of it given time. I suppose as long as we are reasonably affluent in the country people will be complacent about it, but we are well off in spite of the E.U. not because of it and the way it's going this bureaucratic monster will strangle the life out of us. Bob should have a regular column. It really is serious stuff, almost as important as the football. I'm going to join the U.K.I.P. [United Kingdom Independence Party].

"People are proud to be British" (Bob Wydell, 17th June, 2002) The scenes in the Mall last week will have shocked and surprised this government and the pro-feds, the public apathy upon which their federal aims so passionately depend disappeared and was replaced by national fervour we all thought had gone forever. It was a truly British celebration with a strong sense of the Commonwealth but not a trace of anything remotely European. The overwhelming sensation was of a million people happy and proud to be British, such national enthusiasm is usually interpreted "xenophobic" by the pro-feds but does this apply when so many people are involved? - of course not, it is reserved as a convenient label to stick on to any one whose opinions differ from their own!

"I will be so happy if proved to be wrong" (Bob Wydell, 21st June, 2002) Again I am accused of scaremongering over Federal Europe, of twisting facts, language and the meaning of words; well, I suppose that from "Common Market" to "Federal Europe" is a bit of a linguistic leap, but I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that it is more "federal" than it is "common" - I will be extemely happy to be proved wrong by events. When it is clear that "F.E." will not be dropping the name England I will be ecstatic! When I am proved to be crying wolf regarding the federal police force's lawful ability to cross borders in the federation, and detain any person without reference to a judge, my joy will be unconfined. If this police force eventually disappears unprotected from immunity from prosecution, I will be delighted! When F.E. hands over all law making and legislation to the elected parliament, declares the C.A.P. [Common Agricultural Policy] to be unfair and unworkable, the two venues wasteful and the eleven working languages farcical I will be terminally ruptured with rapture.

"Excellent Points on this page" (T. Astley, 22nd June, 2002) You have a very interesting letter page in your paper, and today, (Saturday 15th June), two excellent ones. One from Ron Jones about your esteemed correspondent Bob Wydell. . . . Yes, Bob is trying to wake us all up to the danger posed in Brussels. If the politicians were honest about the euro and also the large-scale corruption they know our chances of a "yes" in the referendum would be nil, but there is the crunch, they are not honest. See the mess Germany has got herself in with unemployment and the people starting to yell for and indeed use the mark once more. That should warn us of trouble in store. Leave well alone and stay out of the euro, and well clear of more jiggery-pokery, we have had our fair share already.

TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE PEOPLE

We have been told endless lies about moves that have been, and continue to be made in the direction of integration in an European "Superstate" whilst the people are being diverted by relentless diet of foot-ball, entertainment and sleaze. It is in any case impossible to see, either, any definitive case for one of the final nails in the coffin of integration - the Common Currency. There are far too many variables such that the answer to this has to be "how long is a piece of string?" Positions on this vital issue are being determined either way largely on the basis of self-interest, whilst the kidology being peddled for public consumption is the superficial convenience of a standard coinage for trips abroad to European cvountries. This further series of correspondence shows how the message about the threat of integration in this European "Superstate" can be taken to the people. It shows how interest and concern can be generated. Political integrity is largely a lost commodity. The fight has to be spread, in the hands of people like Bob Wydell, across the country. Ordinary people - us - must bring their elected representatives to account, to answer for their actions and positions on Europe, and to reflect the wishes of the people; not the vested interests of a Super Elite in the Corridors of Power.

*************************

BOOK REVIEW by "Kitz"
The United Nations Exposed - The Internationalist Conspiracy to Rule the World by William F. Jasper. The John Birch Society, 2001. 354pp. Available from the Stock Price List in paperback; £16.95. The message in this book is frank and uncompromising. America should get out of the United Nations as quickly as possible, that the rest of the world would then have to follow so that the plans of a global elite and their associated agencies would be thwarted. This review could very well end here for so clear is Jasper's message, but in arriving at this conclusion he has assembled such as mass of well-documented information that it cannot be left there. Also, he is admirably equipped to analyse such information since he is a convert from Marxism to all that democratic, capitalist America stands for and as such is wary of those within both who aim at achieving global control.
This global elite working through and alongside the U.N. are, if I interpret Jasper correctly, both ruthless, patient and opportunistic and have long histories of power broking. From the early globalism of Cecil Rhodes, his Rhodes' scholars through the British [later, Royal] Institute of International Affairs (R.I.I.A.), the American Council on Foreign Relations (C.F.R.), the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission on the one hand to the obvious commitment to global rule by the Communists on the other. Both have combined sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly but always with the same aim - to rule the world using the U.N. itself and when not, using the multitude of Non-Governmental Organisation (N.G.O.s), set up by it. Jasper succinctly terms the alliance the Insider-Communist alliance.
The chapters that follow argues Jasper, supply us with ample evidence of how this alliance works. If it is the environment, then any environmental crisis, actual or supposed, is regarded as an opportunity to blow the global trumpet, often with calculated cynicism as, for example, when the then Vice-President Al Gore used the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in his fervent pleas of support for the global warming treaty - the so-called Rio Treaty and as always with C.F.R. backing. Ironically, this did little to help him in his pursuit of the presidency. But Jasper also brings to our notice that in such issues and crises national boundaries can conveniently be set aside.
Jasper also sees the U.N.'s hand at work in such fundamental issues as the principle and right of property ownership, enthusiastically supported by its communist associates. With great clarity, Jasper exposes this hidden menace, for once an individual's interest in property ownership is removed, he becomes less interested in the state as a protector of his property rights - the insidious means of Globalists gaining control of both states and, of course, individuals within them.
Unapologetically, Jasper then considers another fundamental issue - the Globalist-U.N. case denying the right of citizens to bear arms, enshrined in America in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. He is convinced that the U.N. with C.F.R. support and Soviet connivance if this were to be brought about , it could render states defenceless against the U.N. agents of global power. In this, he cites what happened in Lumumba's Congo (Katanga), and Ruanda where citizens lost their ability to withstand the injustices imposed upon them by the U.N. blue berets.
Once again in creating yet another body concerning global criminality, Jasper derides the U.N. for its recent creation. The International Criminal Court, ratified by over 60 nations, but not yet by the U.S. Senate prompted him to quote Professor Dye's book Who's Running America. Its implications are clear in the U.N. quest for global control for in theory, if not in practice, any person from whatever state can be placed under its jurisdiction and conceivably make America's role as the world's leading global policeman almost impossible.
Unsurprisingly, Jasper turns a bleak, uncompromising eye upon the U.N.'s attempt to break down existing national state boundaries and having them replaced by regions, first through trade and then into political unions prior to global control. He observes that Western Europe is already well advanced in this process and is already a "European Union", whilst America risks being subsumed into an equivalent organisation (N.A.F.T.A.), and later through the projected Western Hemisphere Free Trade Association (W.H.F.T.A.). This, alongside the U.N.'s advocacy of the Rockefeller, R.I.I.A., C.F.R. and T.C. conspiracy aimed at the creation of regional central banks controlling the issuance of money is but a step away from a global central bank leading to global control of the world's populations.
And so the book proceeds with Jasper's coldly analysed assessment of the U.N.'s role in its attempts to dominate the internal affairs of nation states, involving the rolling back of traditional religions and the substitution of Christianity by a multi-faceted global religion to be worshipped by all. A similar global curriculum, according to Jasper would be designed for its children through U.N.E.S.C.O..
In his final chapter "What Must Be Done", Jasper, with years of experience researching issues for the John Birch Society, does not appear to think that the task of destroying the U.N., even at this late stage, is hopeless. Education must play an important part in this process but in the interim pressure must be put upon Congress to pull out of the U.N., perhaps preceded by its refusal to make financial contributions to it. Whatever Jasper may propose, this is going to be difficult and inevitably in a shrinking world the question of its replacement would arise. An interesting, challenging book highlighting some of the important issues facing mankind in whatever part of the world one finds oneself.

REFERENCES
(1) The Euro: A Political Project With Profound Economic Implications. The Institute of Directors, February, 2002.
(2) On Target, Vol. 31, Nos. 24 & 25, 1st & 15th June, 2002.
Further material may be found in the Bloomfield Books Stock Price List (S.P.L.). This is available from the address below.

Prices for all material include postage in the United Kingdom. Overseas orders add 20% for surface mail (Europe add 20% for automatic air mail) or 55% for airmail. (U.S. readers should add 55% after adding postage to the U.K. prices, and send payment in U.S. dollars with a cheque drawn on a bank in the U.S.A. made payable to "Donald A. Martin"). All from Donald A. Martin, Bloomfield Books at: 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 2TD.

EXTRA COPIES: As a service to our readers, extra copies and back numbers of On Target are available at £2 for a single copy, £1.50 each for 2 - 10 copies, 75p each for 11 - 50 copies, and over 50 copies at 50p each. (quantity prices only apply per issue).

ON TARGET INDEXES. These are available from Bloomfield Books, currently for Volumes 22-29. The price is 50 pence per copy, per volume (all 8 volumes - £3.50). See address below. On Target is printed and published by Intelligence Publications (U.K.) 26 Meadow Lane, SUDBURY, Suffolk, ENGLAND CO10 2TD. By private subscription only at the following rates: U.K. - £20 per annum U.S.A. - Surface Mail U.S.$45 per annum- Air Mail U.S.$50 per annum Elsewhere overseas - Surface Mail £25 per annum - Air Mail £30 per annum

Reproduction, without prior agreement, of the contents of this publication is subject to the acknowledgment of the source, together with the address and subscription rates, and provided a copy of any reproduction is sent immediately to the publisher. Editor and Publisher: Donald A. Martin Copyright © D.A. Martin Deputy Editor and Research Department: Barry S. Turner