Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
How Great Britain fell for a confidence trick
Two decades earlier, in the 1960s, when Great Britain twice sought entry into then the EEC/EC, the historian Sir Arthur Bryant had issued an unheeded warning:
“Once in the common market, we shall be a minority in an organization in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years but theoretically for all time.”
Sir Arthur Bryant could not have chosen a more apt word than “bind”. Although Great Britain was twice saved from her own folly by the French President Ch. de Gaulle in the 1960s, however, in 1973 she not so much joined as bound herself to the common market, and agreed to be bound by the 1957 Treaty of Rome.[i] Even at that time, the founders of the common market knew – but apparently Great Britain did not – that the common market (today the European Single Market) was not a club to join or a free trade area (the EFTA) with which to associate, but a superstate in the making. Its founders were in no doubt about this, even if the British politicians were unaware of – or unwilling to face up to – the ultimate goal of the founders. Robert Schuman, while preparing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, had said:
“These proposals will build the first concrete foundation of the European Federation”.
Article 189 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome is quite clear about what was involved:
“Regulations […] shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable […].” “Directives shall bind any Member State […].” “Decisions shall be binding in every respect […].”[ii]
Unfortunately, no more people read the 1957 Treaty of Rome than had read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf before WWII (after the war it was too late), and many who should have known better-accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC. Looking back, we can just regret that they did not know better about the issue. After a quarter of a century, during which the EEC became transformed firstly into the EC and then the EU, experience ought to have taught us what the anti-marketers failed to teach.[iii]
We can read, for instance:
“Initially I thought like everybody else, that we had joined a common market, and what could be nicer and more friendly and sensible and economically wised to do, but since then in 1975 when we had the vote to remain in that, so we were told, it has become something more than a common market, it than became, a few years later, a European Economic Community than a European Community, it’s now the European Union, with all kinds of controls and restrictions, regulations and we are faster approaching by this new Constitution, something that the French have already named potentially the United States of Europe and I am not at all sure that that’s what I and many others voted to join back in 1975” [Delphine Gray-Fisk, retired airline pilot, a British citizen].
“We have lost one hundred percent control over our environment including health and safety regulations, we have lost near enough hundred percent control over our fishing, we have lost hundred percent control over our farming and we have lost hundred percent control over our trade policy and that last is of particular significance when you consider that Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world and we do more trade than any other country in the world, by far” [Linsday Jenkins, author].
“So, what are the MEPs [Member of the European Parliament] for? Well, I will tell you, the MEP’s are here to vote and to vote often and to vote regularly, sometimes we vote up to 450 times in the space of 80 minutes. Now I have to confess, I do not know what is going on half of the time, I have not either read all of the documents, so massive, are they. Now it can be, that my fellow MEP’s down there are all Albert Einsteins and all absolutely understand what is going on, but I suspect that is not the case, in fact, it is rather like paying monkeys – because what happens is the civil servants draw up the lists and if it is vote No. 58 and the piece of paper say VOTE, YES you VOTE YES and if it is No. 59 and it says to VOTE NO you VOTE NO, it is an absolute false, it is a complete masquerade democracy” [Nigel Farage, the MEP, the UK Independence Party, later the leader of the Brexit].
“We are now living under a legal order. The 1972 European Communities Act was a one-off, not an ordinary treaty, but a new way of life. These are new constitutional powers. The British Parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972. European laws have overriding force with priority over our British laws… The articles on the supremacy of the British parliament are now only historical perspective – they are non-binding” [Judge Morgan.]
The plot to destroy the sovereignty of the Member States
What is the real nature and purpose of such kind of united Europe? It can be easily claimed that behind the respectable European mask is, in fact, a plot with the ultimate aim to destroy the real sovereignty (independence) of its Member States and to re-align the whole balance of power worldwide.[iv] It should be remembered that, strategically, Europe’s unification drive began at a time when the entire Atlantic Alliance was coming to grips with the relative decline of the United States both as a world economic power and as leader of the West. The European Union (the EU, est. 1992/1993) with its central motor, the French-German axis, became a new GP in global politics. Therefore, the USA is not anymore in a position to dictate and implement global policies like at the time of the Cold War. After the creation of the EU, the US administration seeks a multilateral action with the EU in several hot-spot areas of the conflicts in Europe as, for instance, ex-Yugoslavia or Ukraine.
America’s generosity to the world has reduced her riches and necessitated a serious reassessment of her global strategic commitment. Trade frictions between the US and West Europe have long been a reality and have moved from the agricultural sector into advanced technological areas. Doubts also grew about the reliability of the US “nuclear umbrella” protecting West Europe, and a subsequent reduction of the American forces and the withdrawal of the Russian forces on the Continent followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union has been paralleled by increasing calls for a solely European self-defense capability. The European army and the European police force already exist in more than embryonic form.
It has to be noted that for centuries it has been the British most basic right to vote in one hundred percent of the members of Parliament who govern their country or vote them all out if they do not perform.
“For instance, the basic principle that you can elect a new parliament and then you can have a new law, that is the call of the democracy and this call does not exist in the EU and it does not exist in the Constitution we are building now” [Jense Peter Bonde, Danish MEP].
End of the second part
To be continued
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
Ex-University Professor
Research Fellow at Centre for Geostrategic Studies
Belgrade, Serbia
www.geostrategy.rs
vsotirovic@yahoo.com
© Vladislav B. Sotirovic 2023
References:
[i] In 1973, Great Britain together with Ireland and Denmark became Member State of the European Community.
[ii] Sir Arthur Wynne Morgan Bryant (1899–1985), was an English historian, a columnist for The Illustrated London News, and man of affairs [Wikipedia].
[iii] See more in [M. J. Artis, Frederick Nixon, The Economics of the European Union: Policy and Analysis, 2001.
[iv] A concept of sovereignty refers to a status of legal autonomy (independence) that is enjoyed by states what means in practice that the government has sole authority within its borders and enjoys the rights of the membership of the international political community. Therefore, the terms of sovereignty, autonomy, and independence can be used as synonyms.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
In part 1 of ‘A Real Face Of The European Union’ Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic brought up Jean Monnet, as one of the technocrats responsible for the creation of the EU. In 1955, Jean Monnet founded the Action Committee for the United States of Europe, which became one of the driving force behind the initiatives which laid the foundation for the European Union. But in part 2 of ‘A Real Face Of The European Union’ the author failed to mention a far more influential player who laid the foundation for the European Union over 30 years earlier. Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi… Read more »
“Unfortunately, no more people read the 1957 Treaty of Rome than had read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf before WWII (after the war it was too late)” I very much wonder if Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic ever read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, because he sound like someone who is just repeating the same old chestnut I have been hearing for years, to the point of ad nauseam. As an Ex-University Professor, Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic should be well aware that the corrupt Treaty of Versailles was the principal cause of World War 2, not Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf! Adolf Hitler was… Read more »
Excellent observation. 🙂
Keep up the “Good” work/
It is not clear which type of peace treaty with Germany had to be signed instead of “corrupted” Versailles Treaty? Btw, it can be counted that WWII started with the Munchen Agreement in 1938 or by Italian invasion of Albania in 1939 or maybe Japanese invasion of China in 1936, etc.
Regarding WW2 if it comes to Europe. It was mostly designed by Russians. It’s a really funny story since Russia wanted to copy what Prusia did in the first WW with the creation of Lennin, so they created Hitler. At the same time they wanted to do what Lennin had planned for conquering Europe. We can say Prusia created Lennin, they gave him money, support and sent him to Russia to create revolution to stop the Eastern front. With which they succeeded. Later Lennin created a plan to make Western imperialists fight between themselves and after they bleed themselves out… Read more »
Hitler was not created by Moscow but by West in order to invade USSR. Btw, after 1923 there was no Russia. It was anti-Russian USSR
The West supported him also but so did Russia so USSR, I just called it Russia. They both supported it. Western capitalists supported Hitler because they supported his eugenic policies and programs like forced sterilisation etc, which was started btw in the US. Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 because he had to. Russia was gathering offensive forces and was preparing that attack about which I was talking about before. German offensive operations in 1941 were so successful because Russia was preparing for their own offensive. So instead of bunkers and defensive lines they were building bridges and roads for logistics… Read more »
“Btw, after 1923 there was no Russia. It was anti-Russian USSR” You are obviously alluding to the Russian Civil War, where the White Army was defeated by the Red Army in 1923. Jacob Schiff financed the Jewish Bolshevik Coup d’état that was inflicted on he former Russian Empire in 1917. The Jewish name changers Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) and Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein), who were financed by Jacob Schiff, overthrew the Russian royal family in 1917. I would argue that it was anti-Russian from the 1917 Bolshevik Coup d’état. I have read Volume 1, 2 and 3 of… Read more »
Order number 7443 of the government of the German Reich to the Stockholm branch of Deutsche Rice bank dated March the 2nd 1917. We hereby inform you that you are going to receive questions from Finland concerning money transfers for pacifist propaganda in Russia. Applications will be sent to you by some of the following persons: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Summonson, Kozwowski, Kollontai, Sivers, Ormerkalim. Following our instruction number 2754, Swedish, Norwegian and Swiss branches of private banks have opened accounts for these persons. Needless to say the aim of the Kaiser’s general staff was not a worldwide revolution. Their… Read more »
“Why the Americans gave money to Trotsky is a mystery, it is really a riddle. There is no logical explanation why they would do this.” The Federal Reserve private bank was in the hands of the Jews since the passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Woodrow Wilson was blackmailed into signing into law the Federal Reserve Act, through an extramarital affair, which would have finished his political career if it had been made public. When Woodrow Wilson realised he was the man who sold the world to the Jews, he said- “I am a most unhappy man. I… Read more »
I agree but “When Woodrow Wilson realised he was the man who sold the world to the Jews” I would just replace Jews with elites. For me it’s just the elite, even if they are Jewish heritage they would gladly sacrifice a simple Jewish person for their benefit. So the fact that they are Jewish or belief in Jewish faith don’t matter to me.
Remember that when you say Jews, you mark a simple poor Jewish person who didn’t do anything and has nothing to do with it as a target. They are just elites, simple Jews don’t have anything to do with it so we should avoid using the word Jew to not make simple poor Jewish people a target.
Okay, point taken.
I obviously do not mean all Jews. Some of my first cousins on my wives side are Jewish, as were some of my work colleagues.
When I say Jews, I mean organised criminal Jews as in the Khazarian Mafia, who are obviously Satanic in nature and not even real Jews, but they still hide behind the Jewish identity.
Criminal Organised Jewry is what I mean.
In this case I suggest to use the term “Jewish gangster” in order to make a difference from ordinary Jew
The USSR officially existed from 1923
“Hitler was not created by Moscow but by West in order to invade USSR.” “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” ― Mark Twain Outrages! Are you aware that Great Britain and the United States were allies with the Soviet Union, and the British and Americans were supplying the Soviets with vast amounts of Aircrafts, Tanks, Artillery, small arms and ammunition. I think it is time for you to study the writings of the English historian David Irving, as he uncovered that Great Britain was exporting fighter planes to the… Read more »
Western quasidemocracies were not ally with the USSR but during WWII supporting Hitler. They just simulated a war with Nazi Germany as possible as.
Do you know who you sound like? David Icke and his lizard people theory.
“Unfortunately, no more people read the 1957 Treaty of Rome than had read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf before WWII (after the war it was too late)..”
Have you ever read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf? Because I have a copy of it sitting in one of my Bookcases. If you had actually read the book, I very much doubt that you would have made such a crass observation!
Are you aware Hitler was inspired by Pole Józef Piłsudski. He was inspired by Polish national propaganda and indoctrination. He created Hitler Youth based on Harcerstwo. He wanted to work with Poles but Piłsudski died and Polish Rules didn’t listen to him. Hitler had mash in Berlin to command his death. Józef Piłsudski told Polish rules just before he died that we have two huge powers on our borders and war is coming. We need to make a deal with one of them. Both German and Russian wanted to make deal with Poland and we didn’t listen, we wanted to… Read more »
Crass BTW dude. I am Polish. “Adolf Hitler was simply taking back an area the size of the Republic of Ireland, that was stolen from Germany after the Great War of 1914-1918, and illegally giving to Poland.”. They destroyed my country for over 100 years and removed it from the map. They forbid my people from using our language, they tried to destroy our culture. Of Course let’s not forget shameless and with no honor Prussians, Austrians and Russian had to group up on Poland because none of them had the balls to fight us. So they gathered as 3… Read more »
“Crass BTW dude. I am Polish.” You sound more like an American than a Pole, with your choice of language, “..BTW dude”. “They destroyed my country for over 100 years and removed it from the map.” This sounds very much like the gross exaggerations, whining and outright lies that another tribe was making against the National Socialists, with their soap bars and lampshades. Anyway, my wife was born in Czechoslovakia, and I have no problem speaking the truth to her, that much of the northern Czech republic is historically Germanic. My wives grandmother only died last year, at the age… Read more »
Truth? Since you think of lands taken by Germany in 1939 from Poland as German lands. Can you please explain to me where you think Poland land should be? Like I said before, you consider those lands as stolen from Germany because in your opinion Poland should not exist. If that’s not your position please tell me where Poland lands should be?
“Like I said before, you consider those lands as stolen from Germany because in your opinion Poland should not exist. If that’s not your position please tell me where Poland lands should be?” I obviously never said Poland should not exist, like you hysterically accused me of. I would be happy to see a revival of the old Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, as I know many Poles and Lithuanians where I live, and they are very similar people. Basically I think much of western Poland is German land, and a Polish–Lithuanian state should encompass all of Kaliningrad, all of central and eastern… Read more »
You referred before to Germans taking over Warsaw as “Adolf Hitler was simply taking back an area the size of the Republic of Ireland, that was stolen from Germany after the Great War of 1914-1918, and illegally giving to Poland.”. So it’s not hysterically accussions, it has merit based on what you said. Maybe next time mark your words. Since you literally describe German taking over Polish capital Warsaw as illegally giving to Poland. So I am not overreacting but you should think twice before you write something and maybe should say Sorry for writing such SHIT!
“So I am not overreacting but you should think twice before you write something and maybe should say Sorry such SHIT!”
Please stop acting like a snowflake. Most people here are mature adults and we don’t act on the emotional level, but with logic and reasoning.
So you are not refunding what I wrote. That you wrote something you should not. But you have a problem with my emotional reaction? Sorry but if someone describes your Capital as “illegally giving to Poland” after your country was removed by that country for over 100 years from the map you can get a little pissed off? Have you considered it?
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and I describe my own capital as a cesspool. The only reason why Ukrainians are dying by the thousands, is because their minds were brainwashed with patriotism.
I am guessing the US was supporting Nazi in Ukraine. They always support extremist groups because they are most willing to fight. They are not willing to support moderate Ukrainians because they will not want to fight for them. It’s the same as with Afghanistan when they supported the Taliban against Russia or Syria where they supported Al Qaeda against Assade. They don’t care what people do, think, or believe as long as they are willing to fight for their cause they will support them. The US is creating Afghanistan in Europe. My biggest fear is Poland trying to secure… Read more »
“My biggest fear is Poland trying to secure Lewiew or Nato doing so because when Nazi and radical Nationalist will see an army of foreign nation on their land they will not be happy.” I don’t use the weaponised slang term ‘Nazi’, but your ‘radical Nationalist’ term is accurate, as this is exactly what they are. Radical Nationalists brainwashed with patriotism, to simply turn them into cannon fodder. “I am afraid those javelins will be used on Europeans by Ukrainian National Terrorists after we will screw them.” There is a very real possibility of this happening. I expect NATO to… Read more »
“Will NATO then attack Russia in eastern Ukraine, when they suspect Russia has been sufficiently weakened in a war of attrition” this will not happen, don’t worry you are forgetting about NUKES. That’s why the West can not fight Russia directly. Russia will not use the NUKES in Ukraine; they will not use it offensively. But if NATO would attack Russia and go to Ukraine to fight Russia they can just nuke it. So I am not too afraid of that. That’s why we do proxy war and we are not hoping Ukrainians will conquer Moscow but that they will… Read more »
Also “This sounds very much like the gross exaggerations, whining and outright lies that another tribe was making against the National Socialists” So do you think Poland was not removed from the map by Prussia, Austria and Russia? Is it a lie? Did it not happen? Didn’t occupants in Prussia forbid Polish people from using Polish language? Tell me what you think is a lie? You spewing such bullshit I am getting tillet by your lack of your knowledge and stupid stuff you say. Please tell me What are lies you talk about and please again tell me where you… Read more »
Hi Crass. It appears that the reference to mein kampf has now been deleted from the first part. Perhaps your criticism stung, but it’s more likely that Alexander M’s fear of being cancelled by social/video platforms is to blame. However, I think you misquoted the author, in that he didn’t actually say that Mein Kampf caused the second world war.
“I think you misquoted the author, in that he didn’t actually say that Mein Kampf caused the second world war.”
He certainly alluded to it, with “(after the war it was too late)”.
Here is the full passage from ‘A Real Face Of The European Union (2)’ by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
“Unfortunately, no more people read the 1957 Treaty of Rome than had read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf before WWII (after the war it was too late), and many who should have known better-accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC.”
How Great Britain fell for a confidence trick
Two decades earlier, in the 1960s, when Great Britain twice sought entry into then the EEC/EC, the historian Sir Arthur Bryant had issued an unheeded warning: