Ted Heath sold Britain to the EU for 35,000 (Why the three main parties in Britain all support the EU)


Why, when it is clear that a majority of the British people do not trust the EU and would, if given a chance, vote to leave it, do the three main parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats, all support the EU?

It makes no political sense. Not since 1983 has a major political party in the UK talked openly about leaving the EU. If one of the three main parties were to adopt a clear anti-EU stance that party would win any general election with ease. But none will.

I am always unwilling to accept conspiracy theories. But, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, when you have excluded all other possibilities then whatever you have left, however seemingly impossible it may be, must be the only realistic solution.

The only possible explanation is that the three main political parties in Britain are controlled by, and in thrall to, the European Union.

How could that be?

The answer is simple: our dishonest politicians are bribed.

It's all about money.

Edward Heath received a substantial financial reward for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. In fact the traitor Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official 25,000 for details of Harold Wilson's election tactics.

The reward of 35,000, paid personally to Heath, in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize, was handed over to him after he had signed the Treaty of Rome.

Heath later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty. He told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was not true - and he knew it was not true. He said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth.

Was Heath any worse than any other MP of modern times? I don't think so.

How much bribery currently goes on within the EU? That, of course, is impossible to say with precision. Bribery is, by its very nature, a secretive business. Neither those doing the bribing nor those being bribed are likely to talk much about what they are doing.

Questions relating to slush funds have been asked in the European Parliament. But so far there have been no replies.

According to International Currency Review, the EU operates a secret bank account which it uses to distribute money to many of those involved in treaty signings. The International Currency Review has reported that in 2004 a total of over 3 billion was allocated from secret slush funds to `procure' the European Constitution Treaty. Of this sum nearly 2 billion was allocated and paid out after the inter governmental conference in the summer of 2004. Sums of 70 million were allocated for each of the 25 EU member states with the bribery funds being remitted to various officials concerned in each country.

The EU, riddled with crooks and fraudsters, is built on fraud and deceit. The mainstream media, ever obedient to the EU, has not, of course, reported or investigated these allegations.

Is it any surprise that the European Court of Auditors, described as the `financial conscience' of the EU, has rejected the European Union's accounts for more than a decade?

Of one thing I am sure: those who support and protect the EU are well rewarded. Conversely those who oppose and criticise the EU are harried, marginalised and silenced.

Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Adapted from OFPIS by Vernon Coleman
OFPIS is available through the shop on this site.

Home