THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE
AND THE WORLD PLOT

by Mary H. Gray

The New Times
January 17, 1958. Vol.24 No.1

As the Grand Plan for a United. States of Europe nears fulfilment there is much activity of conferences in London, Paris, Rome and elsewhere and hurrying to and fro. There is also less humbug; the real objectives. of the network of organisations that have sprung up since the war are no longer camouflaged. The cat had to come out of the bag sometime, but not before Britain, the main catch, was secured.

Great Britain, always elusive, is now all but committed to the European Free Trade Area by her Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary; once inside the gates of a "United Europe" there will be no returning.

The Free Trade Area is the lure; it is the honey on the flypaper from which we shall find it impossible to extricate ourselves. A nation can withdraw from an agreement; a treaty can be annulled; but once a people have discarded their nationhood and merged their identity in a cosmopolitan crowd, they are no longer a nation. And that is just what is planned for the British people.

Last September a booklet, Designs for Europe was issued by Political and Economic Planning (P.E.P.). It is the blueprint for an "Integrated Europe", all ready to put into effect when the, various treaties are signed. This quasi-official body was conspicuous before the war for always knowing beforehand what was being planned for this country. It has its nose into everything and apparently gets funds without trouble.

Its astonishingly accurate outline of the Grand Design for Europe so far developed gives also a short history of the "European Idea" (towards integration) so all-knowing that one suspects P.E.P. to be; if not the originators at least the hatchery of the cunning plot to filch the independence of the sovereign nations.

Among organisations mentioned as constantly urging governments to take action to bring about integration are M. Monnet's Action Committee for the United States of Europe, the European Movement (with its U.K. Council), the European Atlantic Group and our old antagonist, Federal Union.

The devastation and dislocatien of the war, says P.E.P., created the need for co-operation between European and North American countries in the political, economic, military, social and cultural fields. (We recall how "America" co-operated for a start by cutting off Lend-Lease to Britain.)

There is now no secrecy about the aims of the multitudes of bodies created in Europe in the last twelve years; each and all of them are bound for the same goal though by different routes. P.E.P. makes no bones about it; in its own words, they are working for "European integration requiring a transfer of national sovereignty to a supra-national authority".

The first of the "bewildering array of institutions" was the Economic Commission for Europe, created in 1947. It was, as one might expect, the offspring of UNESCO; its purpose economic reconstruction in Europe, and it probably did do some work. But its emergence, followed by others, so soon after U.N.O. itself was established, suggests the underlying purpose of the United Nations, which is not to keep the peace of the world but to cover it with a web of organisations under its control, to promote internationalism and centralise power in the hands of a small junto.

What else is the meaning of the multiplicity of what an Australian M.P. once called "Alphabetical Monstrosities"? Some of them are direct offshoots of U.N.O.; others seen to be self-appointed - as the Council of Europe. Once established, they call upon the "free" nations for recognition.and support. Later, they assume powers. and' functions that properly belong to the sovereign nations and constitute themselves advisers, directors - even dictators - of national policies.. (Witness the impertinence of the Council of Europe in criticising British policy in Cyprus.)

The Organisation for European Ecoriornic Co-operation (O.E.E.C) was formed in 1948, specifically at that time to distribute Marshall Aid through a joint European Recovery Programme. Owing to this, the U.S. and Canada became associate members and have remained so.

Western European Union, set up in 1948, grew from the Brussels Treaty Organisation. Its functions are wide and include military, but the latter have been taken over by N.A.T.O.

The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, requires an article to itself. The European Coal and Steel Community, designed to pool the coal and steel of France and Germany, was extended to include the other four countries that will, with the former, form the Common Market of the six. The E.C.S.C. is a "supra-national" organisation. (Supra-national, according to P.E.P., means not controlled by the member governments, but by an independent body to which member states cede certain of their sovereign powers, including the making of decisions.)

The Common Market of the six - France, West Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, of which M. Spaak is the moving spirit, is that Customs Union which Britain, because of her Commonwealth and colonial ties, could not join; for while the six enrich themselves, by selling to each other without tariffs, they exclude outsiders by imposing tariffs on outside goods.

Someone invented the Free Trade Area as the next best thing for Britain, whereby she could participate in the "advantages" of the Common Market while retaining freedom of trade with the Commonwealth and control of agricultural products. This is not yet conceded, as some of the other countries strongly object. Either Britain is all-in or all-out, they say, and all-in means that she will no longer be mistress in her own house.

The Common Market is but one aspect of the overall design for the United States of Europe, and those who are working for integration, says P.E.P., "are prepared to lose their separate national identities, to give up independent national policies and become 'Europeans'." Are Britons willing thus to commit national suicide?

The foregoing institutions, each with its own staff, Council and Assembly, have various ramifications. Some overlap, which provides an excuse for rationalisation, to combine them as far as possible with joint secretariats. Hence Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's "Grand Design" to create a single European Assembly, consisting of five commissions to deal with political, economic, sócal and cultural, legal and administrative, and defence affairs. One Secretariat to serve all and - believe it or not - membership to be open to any country!

Mr. Ormsby Core of the Foreign Office emphasised at Strasbourg that European Unity must be part of the wider Atlantic Community; so, if we go on like this, a United Europe will soon be world-wide!

But of course that is the idea. The integration of Europe - with goodness knows who else is the first stage in the greater plan for a World Government. Centralise in small groups; then in larger groups: then join the groups together and you have One World! At the pace things are moving the plot is nearing its consummation, and our leaders, whether they know it or not, are going to deliver us right into the Enemy's hands.

One small but vital matter I have omitted to mention. (It is also tactfully omitted by P.E.P.) "There must", said M. Gaillard, when Finance Minister of France, "in the Common Market scheme be a unity of monetary policies. Otherwise the tariff reductions will be of little value." At that rate, once involved in a United Europe, what hope of monetary reform or any other reform in this country? We should have to ask permission of the ruling clique, and as International Finance would still rule the roost - well!

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed in April, 1949, as a Western political and military defensive alliance. Its membership included Canada and the United States as well as the European States. The supreme body is the Council which meets at international level two or three times a year, but it also has permanent representatives, assissted by national delegations.

The Chairman and Secretary-General has wide powers; may initiate policy and is responsible for carrying out the Council's policy. He also directs the Secretariat in Paris, about 600 strong. At present he is M. Spaak of Belgium, a man whose past conduct is not above reproach.

It may be recalled how, when the last war was ended, the Belgian King wished to return to his throne. The Belgian Parliament and a special plebiscite of the people declared overwhelmingly in favour of his return, but M. Spank thought otherwise. He threatened the country with revolution if the King returned, so, rather than cause trouble to his people, the King abdicated.

This, then, is the man in command of N.A.T.O. and the motive power in the implementation of the "United States of Europe". What can we expect from one who betrays his own people? It is a sign of the warped values of our time that Paul Henri Spaak was last June awarded the Charlemagne prize by the town of Aachen in West Germany - for his services to "European Unity" !

On that occasion he stated that "their aim should be to create an integrated Europe in the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" !

There is the declaration of "Common Purpose"; (we took for granted that every treaty had a common purpose) ; there is the "concept of Inter-dependence" and the "pooling of ideas" - generalisations as fluffy as a cirrus cloud unless brought down to earth.

About Inter-dependence the Editor of the Glasgow Herald enlightens us: "To be a genuinely constructive element in Western policy it must entail actual sacri- fices of independence or sovereignty, both foreign and domestic".

M. Spaak obliges by explaining the pooling busi- ness: "We must pool our resources to achieve higher standards of living and increased military effectiveness."
"All NATO countries", asserts M. Spaak, "must also have a world policy to avoid such crises as occurred over Suez last year." He, of course, drags in the Sputniks to reinforce his argument. (Query: Was the advent of the Sputniks neatly timed to happen before the big NATO Conference?)

But M. Spaak reached the top note of his address with this:-"Once we establish inter-dependence between all the partners of the Atlantic Alliance, there will be no problems, scientific, military, economic or political that we cannot solve." My, My! Let's have inter-dependence straight away!

Nevertheless, behind all this high-flown talk there is something quite sinister. Mr. Eisenhower is reported to have a new policy for NATO. It appears to be an inter-continental defence system, with exchange of troops between Europe and America. The U.S. will station intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of 1,500 miles in NATO countries, with the probability that some missiles with nuclear war- heads will be given to those allies.

Mr. Dulles "wants to give them a sense of participation in their use" - but the allies would not decide when they were to be used. That momentous decision rests solely with the United States, who wish to retain a veto over the use of nuclear weapons, says the "New York Herald Tribune".

Before Britain is pushed into the Free Trade Area there is likely to be a tussle. Chief stumbling-blocks to her entry are the Government's "firm policy" on agriculture, horticulture and Imperial Preference. But the Prime Minister and his henchmen have shown such agility in leaping hurdles when the whip is cracked that I am doubtful whether they will hold out against Spaak and his co-ordinators.

The two main sections of opinion - the manufacturers and exporters on the one hand and "Labour" on the other, are not opposed on the issue. They are all for it, except a minority of the former - those likely to suffer - and they are strongly opposed. The industrialists (some at least) see opportunities galore for expanding trade; "Labour" sees the glorious promise of "full employment"; neither sees the trap for the bait.

Yet most are agreed that Imperial Preference must be retained. We shall see. Britain's relations with the Commonwealth are not discussed in the P.E.P. pamphlet. Canada is spoken of, rather as paired with the U.S.A.; Australia and New Zealand are not mentioned. Probably P.E.P. has cast them in the role of satellites of a Greater America!

I mentioned Federal Union earlier as calling for European Integration. For the benefit of the uninformed, Federal Union is an ideological disease that came out in spots about 20 years ago simultaneously in various parts of the world. Its earnest desire is the subordination of the nations to a higher Authority and the surrender of their right to self-government in everything that matters.

It is, in fact, working for a World Government, and in that aim it has the backing of 115 members of the House of Commons and a fair following of other soggy-brained sentimentalists who do not see that their demand is treasonable (perhaps some of them do). The United Nations Association has the same objective.

I have wandered somewhat from P.E.P., but in truth these movements and P.E.P. have a common origin. They are the fruits of Fabian Socialism, which in turn is linked with Marxism and internationalism.

P.E.P. claims to be an independent research body, financed from private resources. Founded in 1931, it is recognised as a charitable trust (!) for educational purposes, therefore PAYS NO TAXES and as a "scientific society" PAYS NO RATES!

The triumphal progress of the nation-destoyers bears out the boast of Dr. Arnold Toynbee (who recently completed his much-vaunted World History) when, as Secretary of the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Copenhagen in 1931, proclaimed that "We" are working feverishly "but with all our might" to wrest their sovereignty from the nations.

There are two questions to which it is imperative we find the answers ere we are lost forever as a nation.
(1) Who precisely are Arnold Toynbee's "We"?
(2) What sort of paralysis has gripped our political leaders - of whatever party - that their patriotism is of so poor a quality?
Are they under some dire compulsion to barter our priceless heritage of tradition, culture and independence? And for what? A trade deal! Are they in a hypnotic trance, under some evil spell that constrains them?

There is an answer, and those who know it must work "with all their might" to spread the knowledge, for it reveals a cunningly laid plot.

Please take particular note of the date of this article .. it was written in January 1958... over fifty years ago... don't try and tell me there has not been a plot to enslave the world!