Those of us who, in the 1960s and 70s opposed the 'Common Market' not because of what it was represented to be but because of what everybody else in Europe knew it to be - an embryo political union, have been vindicated in the decades which have passed. The Lisbon Treaty, when it is finally ratified, will add the keystone to a rather unstable edifice which is meaningful only to the political elites which benefit from it. The populations of the member states cling to their separate identities. In Britain people are either uninformed or misinformed but in either case they have been denied any choice in the matter at any stage.

Some of us went even further with a thesis which, although valid, was difficult to justify or demonstrate at the time. That was an assertion that the European Project had, as a subsidiary aim, to destroy England and remove it from the scene. Germany and France, the prime movers in the European Project, were seen as in cahoots to continue the war by other means. Wittingly or not British politicians eagerly collaborated.

The United States of America, which sought to supplant British influence in the world, was not hostile to such an outcome. On the contrary, having struck a near mortal blow at the time of Suez,considerable energy and not a little cash were expended through the CIA to persuade British politicians, and as far as they were able, the public that their best interests lay in collaboration with what was represented as a purely trading arrangement - a common market. 

In fact England has been removed from the map. The official map of Europe whilst it acknowledges Wales and Scotland shows 9 historically meaningless European Regions where England ought to be.The southernmost spills cross the Channel. At the same time the official census form does not allow the English to describe themselves as such although Scots Welsh and Irish have that privilege. The English are required to place themselves along with a lot of odds and sods in a separate category as white British. The same discrimination appears in many Government forms. It is a small matter maybe but symbolism counts for a great deal.

In the 1930s there was a strong element in the political elite which favoured compromise with Hitler rather than confrontation. They have come to be known as the appeasers. As late as 1940 they favoured acceptance of the derisory peace terms offered by Hitler after the collapse of France. Prominent amongst them was the Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, a leading Anglo Catholic. Winston Churchill shunted him off to be Ambassador in Washington far away from any intrigue at home.

After the war these same people were in favour of surrender and absorption into a European State which inevitably would be a Catholic State. They gained ascendancy in the elite and hence the sorry history of the last half century.

It is true to say that those of us who had fought in the war and were proud of what had been achieved as the architects of victory were unaware of the parlous state the country was in as a result of wartime sacrifice and the Robin Hood policies of the Labour Government which won the election of 1945. It took the unfortunate affair of Suez to bring home to us that Britain no longer had the power to do what was seen as necessary to be done.

Nevertheless it was defeatism unworthy of the spirit of 1940 to see the only solution as absorption into a European Union. A large part of our history in preceding centuries had been characterized by opposition to growth of any dominant Power in Europe. In that effort England and later the United Kingdom had frequently thwarted the ambitions of both France and Germany to dominate the continent. That Europe as a whole should become such a Power and that we should surrender to it in advance was not an attractive or very noble proposition.

Some might question the plausibility of close co operation between France and Germany. In recent history however it was nothing new. The French political elite rolled over very easily in 1940.During the war years French Industrialists worked happily and profitably for the Third Reich. They largely escaped the destruction which fell upon Germany so they emerged from the war in pretty good shape. The price that France obtained for its co operation was the Common Agricultural Policy which remains an inviolable and unjustifiably expensive element in EU expenditure.

The damage done to Britain by EU membership is most obvious in the destruction of the fishing industry, in the difficulties experienced by agriculture, in the loss of border control, in the deliberate destruction of the Post Office, and in unnecessary cost imposed by the harmonization regime.The coal and steel industries were crippled by quotas imposed by the European Coal and Steel Community some years before the European Economic Community was founded. Most significant of all however is the fact that prior to membership the UK had a favourable balance of trade with Europe whereas within a few years it began to stack up a formidable deficit which can only be managed because of a huge favourable balance with the rest of the world.

All over the world small nations are fighting for their independence from giant masters. The political elite in Britain have seen fit to surrender centuries of independence without honestly consulting their population. How it has been done is a master class in deception.

One event however has thrown the whole European Project into doubt. The international financial crisis of 2007/8/9. has meant that member states have had differing experiences. They have been disadvantaged by not being in control of their own affairs not only buffeted by events over which they have no control but also unable to take remedial action in their own interest. Spain, Italy, Greece and the Baltic States are in serious trouble. The rest are neither able nor willing to bail them out.

The crisis has brought forth calls for control on Banks and especially on the payment of bonuses which are seen as obscene by populations struggling to make ends meet as a result of the mismanagement of these same bankers.

True to form the European Commission has brought forward a proposed directive for control of EU banks. France and Germany have seen to it that this directive damages the last bastion of independence in the British Isles - the City of London.

That pantomime figure the Mayor of London has called for the EU to get its hands off the City. A leading conservative newspaper is leading a campaign under the banner ‘Ditch the Directive'.This directive has brought the political elite in Britain face to face with divergent interests. The City of London is the world's largest financial centre. It does more business than many of them put together. Its sphere of operation however is global not European. The small but important fact that British commerce and Industry are also global not European is something that has been  ignored for 50 years to Britain's disadvantage.

As the City sees it were this directive to become Law it would be bound into a system of regulation which applied only in Europe. The consequence of that would be that financial transactions which are supremely mobile would move to where regulation is less or non existent. The City would not be operating on a level playing field. That would be to its disadvantage could even lead to its destruction as the promoters of this directive well know.

So the British political elite have a problem. Can they prevent this directive from becoming law or have they already sold the pass which means that it can be forced upon them by majority decision. If the latter is the case do they surrender as is their wont or is this milch cow-the City- too important for that to be allowed to happen.

That decision will decide whether or not war by other means has achieved its goal.