Ever since the establishment of the Common Market in the mid 1970s, the political leaders involved have had a clear but largely concealed objective. It is true that the preamble to the Rome Treaty stated that its signatories were "determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples." In subsequent campaigning, however, nearly all the initial emphasis was on the economic benefits of union. Gradually, though, on the continent, there has been a change. Speeches, declarations and announcements have made it clear that political union is the main objective. This is why there has been one initiative after another, covering currency and monetary policy, trade, defence, police, justice and much else, all designed to move the EU closer to being a United States of Europe. In Britain, however, these intentions have never been clearly explained to the public. Instead, the degree of integration which is the goal of continental politicians has constantly been played down. To this day, the EU is still being portrayed as being primarily about economic matters, when the truth is that these are almost wholly secondary to political objectives. The result is that for a quarter of a century now there has been something close to a conspiracy to deceive the British people about what has really been happening.

This process was much in evidence at the time of the 1975 referendum to decide whether Britain, having joined the Common Market at the beginning of 1973, should remain a member. Assurances at the time were constantly given by those favouring continuing membership that this entailed purely economic arrangements, with no threat to British sovereignty. The government's document stated that "There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed." It also declared that "No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British government and British Parliament . . . the Minister representing Britain can veto any proposals for a new law or new tax if he (sic) considers it to be against British interests." Especially in the light of recent revelations about what those in the know really knew, however, it is difficult to believe that those responsible for these words really believed that they were true, or that they fairly represented what they must have known was likely to be in store for Britain.

Increasingly in recent years, the statements of EU political leaders, though seldom given the prominence in the British media which they might have deserved, have made it clear that the phrasing of the 1957 Treaty of Rome meant the creation of a very different Europe from the one the British electorate thought they were voting for in 1975. Particularly recently, over the euro, the message from Europe has been completely different from that from our own Europhile politicians. How many of them have told the British people, reflecting widely held views among EU leaders, that "monetary union is the motor of European integration (Jean Luc Dehaene, Prime Minister of Belgium); that "A European army and a European police force lie at the end of the road to European Union" (Helmut Kohl, former German Chancellor); or that "The Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of the member States than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas." (Jean-Claude Trichet, European Central Bank)?

Prior to the 1997 general election, the Labour Party went out of its way to make clear how it proposed to handle further integration in the EU. The Labour manifesto promised "Retention of the national veto over key matters of national interest such as taxation, defence and security, immigration, decisions over the budget and treaty changes." In a high profile article in The Sun the Leader of the Labour Party stated forthrightly that "New Labour will have no truck with a European superstate. We will fight for Britain's interests and to keep our independence every inch of the way." Yet now, faced with the realities of the remorseless integrationist trends within the EU, a very different prospect is materialising. The Nice Treaty, scheduled for signature in December this year, is intended to include further major steps towards just the kind of superstate which Labour was elected to oppose. These involve policy changes increasing the powers of the EU vis à vis Member States on defence, taxation, policing, border controls, industrial and trade policy, the virtual abolition of the veto, and even control over what kind of political parties will be allowed to exist.

And yet we are still being told that the intention of most EU political leaders is still mainly to create closer economic ties between the nation states making up the Union. We are assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if we were to join the euro it will have no major constitutional significance. As a result, the five tests which have been set by him are all to do with comparatively narrow economic issues, while the huge impact of Economic and Monetary Union on our capacity to govern ourselves is dismissed as an irrelevance. The same emphasis on the economic as against the political impact of the euro is to be found in Tony Blair's recent Warsaw speech, where he said "I have said that the political case for Britain being part of the single currency is strong. I don't say political or constitutional issues aren't important. They are. But to my mind, they aren't an insuperable barrier. What does have to be overcome is the economic issue."

The reality, however, is very different. Among a large majority of those in positions of political leadership in nearly all EU countries, the urge to create a unitary European state as the primary aim is as strong as ever. Furthermore, this goal is getting closer every time changes to the EU institutions are made. The main objective is not economic integration, and never has been. It is to create a centralised European superstate, rivalling the USA in size and power, with its own institutions and government, turning the Member States into regions of little more competence and significance than county councils, even more subservient to federal control than the constituent states are in the USA. Given the history of Europe during the first half of the twentieth century, the reason why this process of integration started in the first place is understandable. It is hard to believe, however, that it now does anything but fly in the face of all the trends towards devolution of power and self government which are so apparent in so many other parts of the world.

It is also crystal clear that a United States of Europe, with Britain relegated to regional status, is the last thing that a vast majority of the British people want to see. This is not because they are nationalistic or xenophobic. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that British citizens want close and peaceful relations with their continental neighbours. They want to be able to travel freely in Europe, and to be allowed to work there if opportunities present themselves. Nearly everyone wants free trade throughout the continent of Europe. Increasing numbers of people from Britain have been able to experience for themselves the diversity and variety of European cultural, sporting and entertainment events and opportunities, and have thoroughly enjoyed doing so. There is no lack of friendship and good will. This is a totally different matter, however, from the British people favouring giving up their own particular and cherished legal and democratic traditions for the very different ones on the other side of the Channel.

While a big majority of political leaders in the EU may want a European superstate, it is far from clear that this vision is shared by ordinary people not only in Britain but right across the Union. It is in this context that the result of the Danish referendum on the euro, held on 28th September 2000, was so significant. Here is a small and tightly unified country, where almost without exception the political establishment, the media, and the business and trade union leaders all advocated Denmark joining the euro, only to see this policy rejected by a decisive 53% to 47% majority of the electorate in an almost 90% poll. There is surely something deeply disturbing about a situation in which almost the entire elite of a country were so completely out of touch with most of their fellow countrymen and women on such a major matter. Furthermore, while the Danes are the only people so far who have actually been given a chance to vote on the issue, it seems highly probable that if a referendum was held on the euro in many other EU countries, there would be more "No" votes. Even in heartland Germany, it was recently reported in one poll that over 80% of the population now regard having jettisoned the DM for the euro as having been a mistake.

Surely, the most important requirement of all is for the truth to be told, especially by the country's leaders. The British people have the maturity and the right to decide their own futures in the light of the facts fairly presented to them. It completely subverts the democratic process if attempts are made to have decisions taken on the basis of deliberately biased and incomplete information. The media, particularly the BBC whose pro-EU bias is cause for especially grave disquiet, our politicians, and our business and trade union leaders have a heavy responsibility on their shoulders to make sure that this does not happen any more. They need openly and honestly to tell the truth, and to allow the British people to decide for themselves what they want done with their currency, their laws and legal traditions, their police, their armed forces, their democracy and their capacity to govern themselves, based on a fair assessment of the facts. Some of Britain’s governing elite may well not receive the responses they would like. They need to understand, however, that this is what democracy is all about.