European superstate in the making: over the course of half a century, the architects of the European Union's various incarnations have lied to conceal their true goal of a socialist regional superstate. (Cover Story: Regional Government).

By all counts, Steven Thoburn is not a dangerous criminal. He threw no bombs, threatened no one, harmed no one. He has no prior criminal record. He is a greengrocer in Sunderland, England, a small shopowner who sells fresh fruits and vegetables to support his family and pay his taxes. Yet, the full weight of the European Union (EU) has crashed down on him like a sledgehammer on a fruit fly. Thoburn's crime? He sold a pound of bananas. Really, that is his crime. Nothing was wrong with the bananas; Thoburn's crime was in selling them by the pound, using scales that measured in the traditional imperial units rather than the EU-mandated metric units.

Significantly, Thoburn was not accused of "shorting" his customers or of using scales that gave false readings. His customers had not complained. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. Like Thoburn and tens of thousands of other small business owners, the customers who patronize these businesses prefer the traditional imperial measurements with which they are familiar. No one is being harmed. Businesses and consumers are simply engaging in legitimate, daily, consensual transactions as they have for centuries. But to the supranational Eurocrats who run the EU, such nonconformity is criminal. Under the Orwellian "new order" being imposed from the EU headquarters in Brussels, all EU inhabitants must march in lockstep conformity. Thus the sledgehammer tactics with the greengrocer, even as Tony Blair's government ignored the pleas of British citizens to crack down on genuine threats posed by increasingly radical Islamic militants and IRA terrorists operating inside England.

Facing the EU Reality

Steven Thoburn was tried, convicted, and given a 12-month conditional discharge last year amidst widespread anger in Britain over the blatant injustice of the case and the heavy-handed tactics used by authorities. The greengrocer became the symbolic leader of the "Metric Martyrs," those shop-owners defying the EU orders to use only metric weights and measures. Faced with the prospect of bankruptcy because of court costs, Thoburn had originally intended not to appeal his conviction. However, an outpouring of public moral support as well as financial contributions for his defense effort convinced him to reconsider and appeal the decision. Unfortunately, he lost his appeal in February.

Most British citizens seem to agree, at least, with Lord Lamont, vice president of the Bruges Group, an anti-EU group, who declared that "this case was a tragic, illiberal, unnecessary and appalling waste of public money." To millions of Britons as well as millions of Europeans across the EU, however, the Thoburn case represents much more than wasteful public spending and government bureaucracy run amok; to them the greengrocer's plight symbolizes a sinister, systematic effort to destroy national sovereignty and subject all Europeans to the iron grip of the total state.

The persecution of the Metric Martyrs follows a long line of power usurpations by the EU's bureaucrats, legislators, and judges. In 1999, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British military's policy of discharging homosexuals from service violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The Labour government of Tony Blair quickly yielded to the Court's decision. "This Government, like all governments, has to accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights," said British Defense Minister Lord Robertson.

The New York Times approvingly reported that Britain "has bowed to a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and ended its ban on gays in the military. Nearly every NATO member has now ceased discrimination against gay men and women in the armed forces." At virtually the same time, the European Court of Justice ordered Germany to allow women to bear arms in the military. The Times joyfully observed on January 14, 2000 that one area "where the nation-state seems to be losing ground particularly fast to the idea of a united Europe is that of the law. This was evident in recent days as European court verdicts obliged Germany and Britain to reconsider or revise basic military policy."

Following immediately on the heels of those verdicts, the Blair government announced new regulations governing parental spanking of children, based upon a 1998 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR had ruled against England's legally accepting corporal punishment under the traditional concept of "reasonable chastisement." In revising British law to conform with the Court's ruling, the government did not outlaw spanking altogether, but said that parents may use no implements other than their hands; spanking with a newspaper, slipper, belt, switch, cane, ruler, etc., will no longer be permitted.

Traditional expressions of national identity are being stamped out. The Summer, 2001 issue of Scottish Life reported: "Beginning this spring, a show of national pride in the form of a Saltire affixed to a license plate can result in a [pounds sterling]1,000 (approximately $1,600) fine. New European Union (EU) legislation bans the display of any member's flag; only the EU's 12-star flag will be allowed." Bruce Crawford, the Scottish National Party's shadow minister for transport and the environment, stated: "I've got a Saltire on my number plate and I have no intention of removing it. They are treating Scotland as a region rather than an ancient nation and that won't wash with the Scottish people."

In a blistering speech to the Bruges Group in 2001 entitled "Britain and Europe: The Culture of Deceit," British journalist Christopher Booker noted that one could easily cite countless examples "of how our British politicians and civil servants now quite routinely try to conceal the extent to which our lawmaking and forms of government are now becoming more and more taken over by this new system of government based in Brussels. The result is that few people, except those directly affected, now have any idea just how much of our power to run our own country we have already given away."

Mr. Booker continued:

The people of Britain have thus far staved off one of the most far-reaching revolutionary power grabs from Brussels: the launch of the EU currency, the "euro," on New Year's Day 2002.

The areas of policymaking handed over to Brussels now stretch right across the field of government, from agriculture and fisheries to much of our foreign policy. Whole tranches of the power to pass laws and decide policy have now been passed over to become what are known as Brussels "competences." And wherever such a competence has become part of what is known as "the occupied field," we no longer have power in that particular area to decide our own policies or laws. That has passed out of our hands forever. What in fact has been taking place has been a transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to Brussels on a scale amounting to the greatest constitutional revolution in our history. But much of this has remained buried from view because our politicians like to preserve the illusion that they are still in charge. The result is that remarkably few people now have any proper understanding of how the political system which rules our lives actually works.

Imposing the new "euro" currency on the people of Europe on January 1st was a revolutionary event of the first magnitude. In one fell swoop, national currencies that had existed for hundreds of years were swept away, along with the economic sovereignty of 12 nations. Their economic fate now rests in the hands of a cabal of central bankers operating through the European Central Bank -- and accountable only to the one-world Insiders whom they serve. The people of the "captive nations" of the European Union (EU) had no say in the matter; the scheme was gradually foisted upon them through a decades-long campaign of deception. Opposition voices were drowned out by the massive, pro-euro campaign, financed by funds from corporate and foundation Insiders, and by tax monies taken from the European taxpayers to pay for their own destruction.

A small glimpse of the astonishing duplicity and complicity of the British government in this destruction of sovereignty came to light in 2000 when records concerning Britain's 1970 application to join the Common Market were released after 30 years under seal. Clearly, Prime Minister Edward Heath had conspired with the Brussels globalists to deceive the British people.

"What these papers revealed more starkly than ever before," says Christopher Booker, "was just how deliberately the Heath Government and the Foreign Office set out to conceal from the British people the Common Market's true purpose. They were fully aware that it was intended to be merely the first step towards creating a politically united Europe, but they were determined to hide this away from view."

The deception has continued. "For 40 years," says Booker, "British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity," dismissing and denying the charges by opponents that the emerging EU government unequivocally attacks national sovereignty.

Soviet-style Euroland 

It is now no longer possible to deny the obvious; faceless EU bureaucrats and judges are overruling national laws and imposing a new Soviet-style collective upon "Euroland." As Christopher Story, publisher of the London-based Soviet Analyst, told THE NEW AMERICAN ("From Euro to Union," January 28, 2002), the EU program is "purely a Communist program, which is why Mikhail Gorbachev, when he visited London ... [in March 2000] was correct in describing the EU as 'the new European Soviet.' One does not need an advanced degree in Leninist studies to see this."

Was Mr. Gorbachev being cute or facetious? Not in the least! He knows exactly what he's talking about; over the past decade, he has worked closely with his internationalist brethren at the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.S. and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England to bring about East-West "convergence." The prestigious "State of the World Forum" conclaves sponsored by his Gorbachev Foundation, in conjunction with these Western Insiders, have been critically important in this "great merger" process. They have been part of an elaborate deception to convince the opinion molders of the West, and thence the general public, that "We won the Cold War."

Unfortunately, the ruse has succeeded all too well. While the people of the West have been celebrating the "collapse of Communism," the convergence strategy for Sovietizing the West has proceeded apace. Few beyond the readers of these pages realize that a high-level co-conspirator revealed this strategy to an official federal investigator half a century ago. In 1953, congressional investigator Dr. Norman Dodd was told by H. Rowan Gaither, then head of the Ford Foundation, that he and others were working under instructions to "so alter life in the United States" that our nation could be "comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

The Ford Foundation, along with the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, was also working furiously at that time to bring about the merger of the Soviet Union with Western Europe. Due to political and economic chaos caused by World War II and the socialist programs fastened on Europe by the CFR Insiders administering the Marshall Plan, the merger process moved much more quickly on that side of the Atlantic. The Sovietization of Europe has come not with the sound of clanking tank treads and the dread footfall of Red Army boots, but under the benign banners of "free trade" "stabilization" "harmonization," and "globalization."

The people of Europe were never told that the process begun in 1951 with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was being directed by architects and administrators who planned to move them through several stages before bringing them to the final goal of a socialist European superstate. In fact, they repeatedly were told precisely the opposite. Alert observers and political, military, and business leaders who pointed out the obvious dangers to national sovereignty posed by the growing European institutions were quickly neutralized by bribery, intimidation, or campaigns aimed at discrediting and marginalizing them. The public was continually assured that the European movement would never lead to full political and economic union; they were told that concerns about loss of sovereignty to a socialist bureaucracy in Brussels were the hobgoblins of vicious, right-wing, nationalist fear mongers.

The warnings of the so-called fear mongers have proven true. The ECSC gradually mutated into the European Economic Community (formerly the Common Market), then the European Community, then the European Union. At each step along the way, assurances were given that the new developments would lead to greater freedom and prosperity, as peoples and products would flow more freely across national borders.

Some small inkling of the darker, more sinister, nature of the process can be found in a recent front-page story in the Wall Street Journal. In a March 1, 2002 story entitled, "Tough Tactics: European Regulators Spark Controversy With 'Dawn Raids,'" the Journal's Philip Shishkin reported that "European Union antitrust investigators showed up unannounced at Coca-Cola Co.'s London offices early one morning in 1999." He went on to report:

Even though they didn't have a search warrant, the investigators scoured desktop computers and searched e-mail servers. They sifted through hundreds of messages and left with copies of those that contained such key words as "confidential," "competition," and "discount." They also took copies of confidential legal documents prepared by Coke's in-house lawyers....

There is no judicial review before what's known as a dawn raid.... In fact, judges don't have the authority to question, or even see, the justification for a raid. The only approval needed is from the EU's antitrust chief, Mario Monti....

The above article points out that Mr. Monti, a former economics professor, "is taking big steps to expand the controversial practice," including seeking the power to interrogate employees without allowing them the benefit of legal counsel.

The Journal story continues:

The dawn raids are part of the stormy battle for political power in Europe, where national governments vie with Brussels to exercise control. The EU's bureaucrats, who mainly regulate trade and antitrust matters, were never envisioned as a substitute for the member nations' governments. Lacking the legal weaponry of a full-fledged government, they have become creative about pushing the boundaries of the authority they do have.

Completely cognizant that they lack "the legal weaponry of a full-fledged government," the EU Insiders are currently working to remedy this deficiency through the "widening and deepening" process, by which is meant expanding the EU borders by bringing in new members states and extending the EU's reach further down into the most intimate aspects of state, local, and private affairs. The widening process took a big leap forward during the EU 2000 summit in Nice, France, when leaders voted to admit 12 new member nations over the next several years: Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus, and Malta. Besides diluting the votes of the present 15 member states with the new additions, the Nice summit also struck down the veto protection of states on many key issues. For decades the Europhiles had ridiculed the fears of the Euroskeptics, insisting that there was no danger of EU usurpation of cherished nationalist rights since the most contentious issu es required a unanimous vote, thus giving each country in the EU the power to veto objectionable encroachments. But the rules of the game have been changed and policies affecting virtually all areas can now be decided by simple majority vote in the EU institutions.

Regional Government Trap

Not to worry, say the EU's architects of expanding tyranny; these constantly evolving "innovations" are not usurpations but signs of "flexibility" and "healthy ambiguity." Such is the argument of Professor Wolfgang Wessels of Cologne University, for example, in a recent issue of Internationale Politik, journal of the German Council on Foreign Relations. Entitled "Widening and Deepening," Wessels' essay argues that:

Although the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community [a precursor to the EU] laid down some fundamental structures, Europe's subsequent dynamic trial-and-error growth has resulted in a Community that is very different from the original vision, an entity that does not just follow simple formulas from legal textbooks and political scientists, but is modified as circumstances require.

As the European Union widens and deepens, some ambiguity about the future is healthy. The central requirement for a future viable Union of 25 to 30 members is not some institutional fix, but simply a fundamental faith that the EU system has evolved and continues to evolve, can be renovated as needed, and is basically sound.

In other words, just keep giving us more power and trust us to do what's best for you; don't worry, be happy.

This widening and deepening theme has been taken up by German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer -- and President George W. Bush. "I strongly believe in NATO expansion, and I believe that the EU ought to expand, as well," President Bush declared at an EU-U.S. summit in Goteborg, Sweden, on June 14, 2001. He went on to say: "I don't view the European Union and its consolidation as a zero-sum game for the United States. I believe the stronger Europe is, the better it is off for America.... I am concerned about isolationism and protectionism, not only amongst some voices in Europe, but also in my own country.... And so I view a strong EU as good for the world..]' Mr. Bush also views the FTAA as "good for the world," and his support for "a strong EU" should make crystal clear what he has in mind for the FTAA.

Earlier this year the EU began a yearlong constitutional convention to formally legalize and expand the EU's powers and to administer the coup de grace to the lingering shreds of national sovereignty.

This convention, known formally as the Convention on the Future of Europe, is the culmination of a decades-long process of transferring sovereignty via treaty. Last December, in the so-called Laeken Declaration, the Eurocrats raised the ante, calling for a year-long convention to draw up a European constitution.

In a recent speech to members of the European Parliament, European Commission President Romano Prodi, speaking of the goals of the convention, warned that "only united can we put our own humanist stamp on globalisation and infuse it with Europe's social values.... I am convinced that we need a Constitution to mark the birth of Europe as a political entity.... [The Union] is not an alliance between States or a federation. It is an advanced supranational democracy mat needs to be strengthened."

Though the Convention has only been in session for a month, documents and speeches are already piling up, all supporting the drive for a constitution and empowerment of the EU to make and enforce laws (most of them socialist-inspired), conduct foreign policy, and a host of other activities more characteristic of full-fledged government than of simple treaty obligations. An early French proposal insists on a Europe-wide minimum wage, among other measures. A Dutch delegate, H.A.F.M.O. van Mierlo, thinks that "Europe must get actively involved in our children's education in member states," to propagandize the rising generation on behalf of their new European identity. Andrew Duff, member of the European Parliament, has already submitted a partial draft of a proposed European constitution, whose four general objectives will be: "to promote social and economic progress, to establish an area of freedom, security, and justice, to enhance the environment of Europe and the world, to secure and defend the Union." A Eur opean constitution with objectives like these has been supported by delegate after delegate, even from far-flung states like Slovenia and Poland. The message to Europe's hapless citizenry and to the rest of the world is clear: Socialist pan-European government is coming. Deal with it.