I guess you mean folly, Richard.

Edit:

Guess you mean 1961, this (page 144)

http://filestore.nationa...fs/large/cab-129-105.pdf

Sorry, not trying to be your sub editor ...your piece (and Booker's) is fascinating. Much appreciated

Edited by user 01 January 2013 13:34:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Or maybe follow through...

Yes, it rates with the Establishment's other greatest lie of the 20th century put about to the volunteers and in the press in July 1914 - "the war will be over by Christmas".


Why oh why, do we continue to fall for their pernicious duplicity - this time; they do not deserve a second chance - times up gentlemen - we are in need of a clear out and of a new way and that: 'le grand projet' has utterly and miserably failed - like we told you it would.

Auto-correct gave me "follow".

and are you sure you mean pg 144?

If it's in the Daily Mail it's now in the mainstream. Excellent work!

The trouble is that, even by the standards of the legacy media, the Express is a shite newspaper.

Page 144 of the pdf download has "DIRECTIVE - FOR UNITED KINGDOM MINISTERS FOR THEIR
DISCUSSIONS WITH COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS" from which you quote. It is dated June 21 1961

For your interest, Richard, yesterday I ordered that book, The Great Deception, which you co-authored with Christopher Booker.

I would disagree with the 'hard going' bit, I think you underestimate yourself here Richard (without wishing to be sycophantic). For such a complicated subject I thought it was dead easy to read - and one you could also 'dip in and out of'. In the second edition you noted that Dr Richard Vaughan described your book as "surely the best and most readable book on the EU so far written". I would concur.

Conversely the first 'anti-eu' book I ever bought was Bernard Connolly's Rotten Heart of Europe when it was first published. Fascinating in its detail but boy did it get bogged down in it. It is an essential book but not one you could casually read while sitting on the loo - so to speak.

I suppose that if there is a question I have, and which the book may or may not answer, it is: Why should anyone wish to engage in deception in such matters?

For it seems perfectly obvious to me that if people are to embark on a large scale political project - such as the creation of a European superstate - they must do so in perfect honesty and sincerity. Because if they engage in deception, sooner or later this will emerge, as will happen when people bring home their brand new European Superstate, and tear off the cellophane, and plug it into the power socket, only to find that it doesn't work at all, or stops working after a few minutes. They'll feel cheated, and want their money back. It's inevitable.

Deception really only makes sense if one is a con-man wishing to make a quick buck by selling shoddy goods, and escaping before the consequences catch up with one. Were Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors con-men?

Or is it that the founders of the European superstate project hoped that, once they'd duped everyone into signing up for it, there would be no way out, and all concerned would be locked in? In which case, why should they want to lock people into something which may prove (and arguably already is proving to be) a disaster for them?

Edited by user 02 January 2013 14:17:30(UTC)  | Reason: added 'it' to first line