By Stephen Bailey.

Perhaps the most salient point during the national debate on whether the U.K. should leave the European Union was that of national sovereignty.

Or to be more precise, the question of where it really resides – with the national parliaments of the member states or with the organs and institutions of the bloc.

Those that wanted to leave the E.U. (the Leavers) consistently asserted that it had always been the bloc’s agenda to create a federal superstate with all, or most, power over political and economic matters stripped away from the national parliaments and centred under its control.

The Europhiles (those that wanted the U.K. to remain in the E.U.) denied this was the case. However, new evidence has emerged to buttress the arguments of the Leavers.

In November 1956, just before he became Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan assessed the U.K.’s possible membership of the then E.E.C.’s Custom Union in the following dismissive terms:

‘If the United Kingdom would be swept aside and replaced by this single common tariff that would mean that goods, coming into the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth, including the Colonies, would have to pay duty at the same rate as goods coming from any other country not a Member of the Customs Union, while goods from the Customs Union would enter free. Judged only by the most limited United Kingdom interests, such an arrangement would be wholly disadvantageous.’

In October 1962, Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell made a now forgotten speech in which he pointed out the flaws in the argument for joining the E.E.C. that a report conducted by Sir Donald McDougall had determined after he had conducted a ‘close examination of the facts.’

McDougall concluded:

‘There is no really compelling economic argument for Britain’s joining unless it is thought that, without being exposed to the blast of competition from the Continent, she will never put her house in order.’

McDougall was an Oxford educated top Government economic advisor with a career that spanned over four decades from Churchill’s wartime Coalition Government to Edward Heath’s administration in the 1970s, and his conclusion on the benefits of E.E.C. membership to the U.K. was (to recap):

‘There is no really compelling economic argument for Britain’s joining [the E.E.C.].’

Gaitskell also noted that in 1961, 16.7% of Britain’s exports went to the Common Market countries, 13.1% to the European Free Trade Association (E.F.T.A.) countries and a staggering 43% to the countries of the Commonwealth Preference System.

So it was reported the U.K. would benefit little from trade with the E.E.C., compared to that with the Commonwealth.

In fact it had been well established by economists and other experts as early as 1962 that there was no compelling economic case for U.K. membership of the E.E.C.

Despite this, from the start of the European Project, Europhiles have utilised deceptions and distortions in order to advance their agenda. It has now also been well established that Ted Heath had been briefed comprehensively by a top Civil Servant before applying to join the E.E.C. that membership would entail the complete loss of the U.K.’s national sovereignty as the ultimate aim of the block was to create a political superstate (the United States of Europe) with all power centralised in Brussels (this was revealed in April 1971, just before the U.K.’s entry, in Foreign and Commonwealth Office document F.C.O. 30/ 1048).

In 1971, just before Edward Heath took the U.K. into the E.E.C. without consulting either the electorate (in the first instance) or allowing Parliament full proper scrutiny, a senior civil servant presented him with a dossier labelled ‘F.C.O. 30/ 1048’.

It expressly and unambiguously set out to Heath that the then European Economic Community (the E.E.C became the E.U. in November 1993) had the ultimate goal of economic, monetary and fiscal union, as well as a common foreign and defence policy, all of which constituted the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since the Norman Conquest of 1066.

It also went on to say ‘Community Law’ (i.e., the laws and regulations made by the bloc and adjudicated solely by the European Court of Justice) would take precedence over the U.K.’s and that ever more power would pass away from the U.K. Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels.

The dossier even accurately asserted the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a ‘popular feeling of alienation from Government’ (i.e. that the British public would resent being ruled from Brussels and that this would lead to ill-feeling towards the British Government).

The biggest revelation was that the dossier also completely unambiguously stated that political union – the complete loss of the U.K.’s national sovereignty to a European superstate with all political and financial power centred in Brussels – was clearly the bloc’s ultimate aim.

The dossier was classified and kept secret from the U.K. public for thirty years, thus hiding Heath and his circle’s unethical duplicitous deceit.

More alarmingly and damningly, the dossier repeatedly actively welcomed the U.K.’s decline and Europe’s predominance. It acknowledged that the U.K. would in time become little more than a subservient puppet territory of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling E.U. superstate.

However, instead of sounding alarm bells and making the public aware of these important facts in order to help inform their decision making as they should have, the authors of the dossier warned ministers to hide the truth from the public.

Added to this, damningly for Heath, and all those who kept quiet about F.C.O. 30/ 1048’s contents in the early 70s, the dossier was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost three decades.

The language employed in F.C.O. 30/ 1048 suggests repeatedly that the citizens of the U.K. were to stupid to grasp the implications of joining the E.E.C. and that, what’s more, this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it.

Again and again, they assert that Britain’s Parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, the E.E.C. will become a federal superstate, the United States of Europe, with a single currency and all, or most, power over national political and economic matters stripped away from the member states and centred entirely under Brussels’ control.

So, why did Heath take us in to the bloc, against the mountain of evidence he was aware of at that time, re: sovereignty, economics, et al, on its highly dangerous potential to strip the U.K. of her sovereignty?

An extremely salient and intriguing question.

The U.K. was forced into the E.U. against clear evidence that it wasn’t in her best interests (politically, sovereignty or economically) by a pro-European elite, without consulting the electorate (initially) or allowing Parliament full scrutiny of this matter.

Forty-nine years later the disastrous effects predicted in F.C.O. 30/ 1048 have materialised and the case for leaving has been shown to be watertight.

Further confirmation of the E.U.’s federalist agenda has emerged on 30th April/ 1st May 2022, when the E.U. Commission held the ‘Conference on the future of Europe’ in Strasbourg.

The conference has decided that the E.U. will adopt the following policies:

  • 1. The end of unanimity and abolition of national vetoes.
    At present, there are many areas of policy where the E.U. still requires unanimous voting by the member states at the Council of Ministers. Under these new measures this will end altogether, with the effect that no member state will have the power to protect their own national interests in these areas.
  • 2. Launch of ‘Joint Armed Forces of the Union’ (i.e. the E.U. Army).
    This confirms a process that has been in operation for some time – the creation of a unified military capability and command structure controlled entirely by the E.U. It will mean a single E.U. Army, Navy and Air Force with no vetoes for countries to withdraw, a very real problem for neutral Ireland.
  • 3. Transnational political parties – national parliaments will become more like local councils.
    A further measure which was approved was ‘Transnational Lists’. This means elections to the E.U. Parliament will have candidates and conduct campaigns on an E.U. – wide basis, establishing E. U. party groupings and ultimately trans – E.U. parties, like the Democrats and Republicans in America. Therefore, the political groupings (parties) of the member states will cease to exist. The national politics of the European nations will become a backwater, with emasculated national parliaments effectively becoming just local councils. The E.U. Parliament will become the national parliament of the United States of Europe and have supreme political power over all the member states (who will become mere vassal territories) invested in it.
  • 4. The European Parliament to have the right to propose legislation.
    The E.U. Parliament will, in future, be able to propose legislation rather than have it passed down from the E.U. Commission and Council of Ministers. Taken together with the absence of national vetoes, it would mean the ability of a majority of M.E.P.’s to pass legislation that whole countries – such as Poland or Denmark – might object to.
  • 5. More spending on climate change policies.
    The U.K. clearly made the right choice in the 2016 referendum and in doing so also made the right choice to safeguard the U.K.’s national sovereignty.

For more from Stephen Bailey please visit:

© 2022 Stephen Bailey


  1. 3. Transnational political parties – national parliaments will become more like local councils.

    This was quite interesting. I read an “old” article about a top level adviser to the government (former Navy man ) liasing with the EU at the time who told the government that the EU would remove all councillors in the UK as part of this process


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here