Stephen Bailey: Building the European superstate – The EU’s covert programme to create a country called the United States of Europe (Part 3)


BStephen BaileySerialisation – Part 3 of 3.

If you missed Part 1 click here or if you missed Part 2 click here.

Hermann Abs, post-war Germany’s most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich.

Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest bank, in 1937. He was one of the most important figures in Germany’s post-war reconstruction. It was largely due to him that, just as the ‘Red House Report’ sets out, a strong post war Germany was built, one which could go on to form the European Union over which she could dominate.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid reconstruction funds to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany’s economic recovery. Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Cooperation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market as a precursor to a political and economic European union. Its members included key industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar to those of the E.U. today on matters such as monetary integration (i.e. the Euro) and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

In 1957, the six members of the E.C.S.C. signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

The Germans and French, abetted by other European countries that had been drawn into their scheme based on spurious economic cooperation arguments, then continued to build their European superstate that they both wanted in the years that followed the Treaty of Rome, as envisaged by both the Nazi elite and their French counterparts like Monnet.

The basic plan they followed echoed that of Monnet’s idea, as laid out in the quote at the top of this article [in Part 1]. Each step of the process of building the European superstate, controlled centrally in Brussels, with the Germans the real power behind the throne, was presented as merely sensible economic cooperation, not an attempt at economic or political union. In this way, the member states were persuaded to give up their national sovereignty to the putative new superstate in a slow, piecemeal fashion.

This plan worked well in the decades following the Treaty of Rome in 1957, with small steps towards political and economic integration taking place at certain intervals leading up the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 when the European Economic Community formally became the European Union.

The United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community in 1973. Our membership was confirmed in a referendum two years later. The Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson (the U.K. had been taken into the E.E.C. by Ted Heath without consulting either the electorate or Parliament in 1973) presented the case for membership as a simple case of joining an economic bloc that held the prospect of offering the U.K. many economic benefits. That was all. The E.E.C. was just a trading bloc and nothing else. In reality the entire case for joining the E.E.C. was based on a massive deception by the Wilson  government. He had deliberately completely misled the public of the U.K. over the real nature and future intensions of the bloc.

Before the U.K. had joined, Heath had been presented with a dossier, F.C.O. 30/ 1048, on the E.E.C. that explicitly and unambiguously laid out the full implications of membership. This included several ominous and very concerning implications of membership, including the admission that the ultimate aim of the bloc was full political union with the resulting total loss of national sovereignty by the member states, creating a federal country called the United States of Europe with all power centralised in Brussels.

With this knowledge in mind, Heath deliberately misled and deceived the electorate and Parliament by publicly stating that the E.E.C. was purely a trading bloc with no implications for our national sovereignty. Wilson also kept up this deception in the 1975 referendum campaign. Based on this substantial misrepresentation, the public voted to stay in the bloc in the referendum held to confirm our membership in 1975.

This deception continued in subsequent decades with politicians of all parties and political shades willingly and eagerly signing the U.K. up to various stages of integration into the E.U. and so therefore helping the bloc build the superstate.

The Premiership of Margaret Thatcher (1979 – 1990) was largely notable for her resistance to the federalist agenda of the E.E.C. She negotiated a rebate for the U.K. on its financial contributions to the E.E.C. (as it still was at that time) and generally resisted moves by European politicians to centralise power in Brussels.

In 1988 there came the ‘Bruges speech’, often known by the alternative epithet of the ‘No, No, No’ speech after a line taken from it. In this speech she asserted:

‘We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.’

It pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party but dismayed the Europhiles.

However, even she was guilty of occasionally aiding European integration. She signed the Single European Act (1986), a treaty between twelve members of the E.E.C. and which revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for the foundation of the Single Market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation Agreement, the precursor of the E.U.’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.

This came against a backdrop of a government split over whether to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which harmonised the exchange rate between the currencies of Europe and was supposed to be a precursor to the establishment of the single currency, the Euro, which Thatcher eventually agreed to do in October 1990.

Whilst nominally a Eurosceptic, Thatcher’s successor John Major (Prime Minister 1990 – 1997) displayed an increasingly pro-European tendency as his Premiership progressed. He signed the U.K. up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, after which the E.E.C, often abbreviated to just E.C. (the European Community) officially became the European Union.

The New Labour period of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997 – 2010) witnessed a massive transfer of various powers from the E.U. to Brussels as the cravenly pro-E.U. Labour elite sought to aid the creation of a European superstate.

They signed over great swathes of the U.K.’s sovereignty to Brussels in treaties such as those of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007). They were extremely enthusiastic about the single currency, the Euro, but didn’t get round to completing that before losing power to David Cameron in 2010.

Cameron’s (and Theresa May’s from 2016) Premiership (2010 – 16) saw the continuation of New Labour’s extremely Europhile approach to relations with the E.U. (and indeed a continuation of New Labour’s left-liberal policies generally). Cameron continued to keep the U.K. tied closely to the E.U., and he handed over substantial amounts of the U.K.’s sovereignty to Brussels, before agreeing to a referendum on our membership of the E.U. after having failed to re-negotiate the terms of our membership with the bloc. He backed staying in the E.U., but the country backed leaving the bloc and he resigned as Prime Minister to be succeeded by Theresa May in 2016.

May was just as much an arch Europhile as Cameron and indeed was probably parachuted into the Premiership by Europhiles in the Conservative Party in order to attempt sabotaging the U.K.’s exit from the E.U. (she did a fairly good job of doing that).

This country’s public, which has expressed its desire for the U.K. to remain a sovereign nation on several occasions, most notably in the 2016 referendum, has been lied to and covertly forced into the E.U. superstate by the political and intellectual elite of all political persuasions for a very long time now.

The time for complacency is over. If we let the politicians and their allies in the intelligentsia handle matters, we will be betrayed and effectively kept in the E.U.

The democratic majority must make their voice heard and stand up for what they want – a fully sovereign U.K. (all of her, Northern Ireland included) completely free of the E.U. superstate.

That’s the history of the covert development of the E.U. superstate up until recent times. But the narrative doesn’t end there. The E.U. continues to move towards the superstate and build the United States of Europe right up until the present.

The following developments are extremely worrying and ring the alarm bell, warning against any future attempts to force the U.K. back under E.U. dominance.

European Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding crystallised ‘Hitler’s dream, Hitler’s words’ in 2016 when she called for a ‘true political union’ and a campaign for the European Union to become a ‘United States of Europe’.

In November 2018, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that European Union member states must be prepared to transfer powers (i.e. control by national Parliaments over national matters) to Brussels at a debate on the ‘tensions’ between globalisation and national sovereignty, adding:

‘Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.’ 

French President, Emmanuel Macron also stated at the same meeting:

‘Europe must be stronger…and win more sovereignty’, demanding E.U. member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over ‘foreign affairs, migration, and development’ in addition to ‘an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources’.

In May 1919 it was revealed that Guy Verhofstad, the then European Parliament’s Chief Brexit representative, had let the E.U.’s real agenda out of the bag after brazenly attacking democracy in an interview.

He intimated that the E.U. will push for a strong policy of full members being required (read ‘forced’) to unquestionably accept all laws and regulations (read ‘diktats’) promulgated by the bloc, rather than picking and choosing which to adopt. He was quoted as saying:

‘My proposal is to radically simplify, to reduce the dozens of opt – ins, opt – outs and exceptions in one clear choice: membership or an associated status. Membership means full membership: an obligation to participate in ALL policies.’

In other words, all member states will be mandatorily required to participate in every law and regulation that the E.U. produces with no exceptions. This is the start of the E.U.’s push for the centralisation of all power in Brussels and the ending of national sovereignty.

This admission, when taken in conjunction with revelations from the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz that the E.U. is looking to acquire either direct control (read ‘a veto’) or at least an oversight over member state’s domestic legislation, clearly highlights an emerging pattern and direction of travel that the E.U. is adopting – it is seriously driving for a United States of Europe (U.S.E.) in which the current member states will become provinces of a single political entity (the U.S.E.) with all power centralised in Brussels.

In June of the same year, German (read ‘European Union’) Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen layed out the E.U.’s plans for the pending European Defence  Union (read ‘European Army’). 

In essence, the E.D.U. is another huge plank in the structure coming shortly out of the European Union which marches remorselessly onwards to its real objective from the beginning – the complete unification of the member states into a single country with all power centralised in Brussels – the United States of Europe.

There can be no meaningful E.D.U. without the transfer of command of the E.U. member states’ armed forces to a central E.U. control. The U.K.’s own E.U. (over) enthusiasts know it but never mention it. The E.U. has called for ‘the ability [of the European Army] to act regardless of tiresome questions of sovereignty’. This last statement neatly encapsulates the E.U.’s attitude to national sovereignty and centralising power under E.U. control – they  don’t believe in national sovereignty and want to centralise all power under their control in Brussels.

Also off the discuss list is the final unification of the currencies into the Euro. But plans are at advanced stages to make it mandatory. The European Army (sorry, E.D.U.) is just the latest development of the European federalists’ covert plan to create a country called Europe.

The aim of the European Project has always been to create a political union, it was never simply about economic cooperation. It’s origins lie in the murky machinations of the geopolitics of the Twentieth Century and a desire by Germany to create European hegemony for itself.

It is not the benign mutual benefit organisation that’s no threat to national sovereignty that it, and its proponents, present it as. Theories about its origins in Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany to one side, the actions of the E.U. over the last seven decades have made it completely clear that political union is the real aim of the bloc – the Euro, the European Army, several centralised policy areas like the Euro, farming and fishing all bear witness to this.

What’s also clear is that this proto-country, the United States of Europe, is a disaster waiting to happen.

The Eurozone is falling apart as its economy fails and its member states become increasingly more fractious. Anti – E.U. feeling is rising in Italy, France, the Czech Republic and other states are showing signs of discontent with the bloc. Anti – E. U. parties have either won serious power, or are very popular with the public in several Continental countries, Italy, France and Poland being three prominent examples.

Everywhere in Europe there is a growing tide of anger and sense of disenfranchisement being directed at the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels.

The electorates of Europe have woken up to the real aims of E.U. and they don’t like it. In the U.K., the public has also seen through the false promises of the bloc and voted to leave the bloc in 2016.

Considering what we now know about the origins and current intentions of the E.U. it isn’t at all surprising.


Rodney Atkinson: ‘Europe’s full circle: Corporate elites and the new fascism’. Compuprint, 1998.

‘Fascist Europe rising: The repression and resurgence of democratic nationhood’. Compuprint, 2001.

For more from Stephen Bailey please visit:

© 2021 Stephen Bailey


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here