When Nick Brown was the Minister for Agriculture, during one particular debate in Parliament on farming issues, a Conservative Party Member made the point that the only way to escape the weight of the European Union's plethora of rules, sheer waste and restrictions which the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) brings with it, we should leave the European Union. He reasoned it was the only way we could possibly avoid the worst of the CAP. Nick Brown, as he rose to reply, gave the Conservative MP a look which words could not describe, it was a look which indicated exactly the response he was about to give. He replied that it is was incomprehensible that we could ever leave the EU. This same message that we cannot leave the EU is constantly given by all Government Ministers, party leaders and many MPs as they tell us how beneficial the EU is to us and how many jobs our membership creates. Yet, in reality, the EU gives us no benefits whatsoever, nor does it create any jobs apart from the jobs of those working within its bureaucratic institutions.

So why cannot we leave if all that is required for the UK to terminate our membership of the EU is nothing more complicated than the will of our Members of Parliament? All that is required to terminate our venture with the EU is for our MPs to cast a majority vote in favour of repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. To do such a simple thing would end our membership of the EU and return the UK to being a self governing nation once again.

So why should we, after thirty years of involvement with the EU, begin to consider thinking the unthinkable? Why should we seriously begin to contemplate the end of British membership of the European Union? Is it not time we began to debate and question the so called 'advantages' of membership of the EU and the tangible advantages of withdrawal from it?

The first reason why anyone in business in the UK should seriously begin to consider EU withdrawal is down to the sheer weight of EU legislation, bureaucracy and red tape which now blights the lives of most small to medium sized businesses. The EU has created a whole panoply of restrictions which acts against the interests of those who provide employment as it gives increasing rights to part time workers, pregnant women, maternity leave for their spouses and partners, rules on workplace practises, a reduction in working hours and a whole array of other legislation which prevents many small businesses from expanding and growing. Yet, the irony is those who are in businesses and struggle to cope with the EU's abundance of mind boggling petty fogging rules, who would desperately like to vote against these excesses, cannot vote out of office, or have any influence over, the very people who make these rules which affect their everyday lives and efficient running of their businesses. However, the people they can either vote for, or against, are the Members of our Parliament in Westminster who, in reality have no influence or say over any of the rules emanating from the EU - our MPs are powerless and do nothing other than rubber stamp the ever increasing tide of EU legislation as it floods through Parliament and swamps us as it becomes British law - much of it without debate or scrutiny by our Members of Parliament as they simply do not have the time to study the masses of legislation pouring out of Brussels.

So, let's begin to strip away the illusionary benefits of EU membership. The first thing to take into account is the fact the UK is a major contributor to the EU's budget, our membership costs us as a nation billions as we give the EU far more than we take out. To enable us to pay this money continuously we are having to pay various forms of taxation on an increasing scale - Gordon Brown is devising new taxes almost on a daily basis. Considering the fact that for every pound the EU gives the UK in grants for various projects, which have to have the EU's full approval before finances are made available, the UK has to first give the EU £2 in order to get its £1 back to spend on an approved EU project. We also have to match pound for pound towards the cost of these projects. A project costing £1 million will in reality have cost the British taxpayer £1.5 million even though the EU has allegedly part funded the project yet somehow or other managed to pocket half a million at the end. You do not need to be a genius in mathematics to work out how much better off financially we would be if we left the EU and kept this money in the UK where it could be used to much better advantage. From the date the UK joined the then Common Market, now the European Union, up until 2001, this country paid into the EU's coffers a tidy sum of £44 billion. When you add the effects of inflation and interest, this sum of money has been calculated to be worth around £230 billion in real terms. This is money which could have been used to help the NHS, transport, pensions and other essentials and god forbid - even reduce the amount of taxation.

So what about the loss of foreign investment and business if we withdrew from the EU and the jobs related to it? Before the UK joined the Common Market all those years ago, we had a trade surplus with the rest of Europe. Since then that has changed to a trade deficit, we now buy far more from other EU countries than we sell to them. As natural global traders our business comes from the USA, Japan and other non-EU countries. Many say that should we leave, the EU would try make it impossible for the UK to trade with it by imposing trade restrictions and penalties. . However, the UK would not suffer from such penalties by withdrawing from the EU as we are its best customer, the other EU nations will not block our trade as they will do themselves immense harm. Regarding inward investment, many large companies are moving away from the EU as its employment laws, bureaucracy, high levels of taxation and red tape has become too restrictive. One of the reasons the UK still draws inward investment is due to the fact we have negotiated a number of opt-outs. However, if and when our Government commits the UK to the EU Constitution our opt -outs will come to an end as EU law will take priority over the laws of all the Member States which in effect could cost jobs. A little time ago someone within the pro-EU organisation, Britain in Europe, calculated that 3 million people work for companies which trade within the EU, and made the simple assumption that these jobs would be lost if we quit our membership. This is based on very basic logic and, as stated above, the EU will be unable to cut off our trade links, no jobs will be lost should we ever leave.

The worst effects on business and employment comes not from withdrawing from the EU, but from closer relations with it. A prime example is the effect of the euro currency itself since it came into being in 1999. For two years the euro was a currency in name only as national currencies, although locked together as one, continued to be used until 2001 until the launch of euro notes and coins. Within weeks of them locking their interest rates the Euro-zone nations began to experience problems. At the beginning of the New year, January 2001, within hours of the new currency hitting the pockets of the people of the twelve nati 1ons which had scrapped their currencies for the euro, began to experience the inflationary effects of the new notes and coins as prices were rounded up when being converted to euros. Unemployment in the two powerhouses of Europe, France and Germany, have risen to all time highs as their finance ministers struggle to cope with keeping their economies under control without the essential tool of interest rate adjustment as all interest rates for the whole Euro-zone are set by the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt. It is due to the negative effects of the euro which has allowed the UK to overtake France to become the fourth largest trading nation in the world. If the trend continues it has been forecast that the UK will overtake Germany within ten years - as long as we remain outside the euro-zone.

To stay as members will mean the eventual destruction of the UK and immense harm to our own indigenous businesses. Next year the European Constitution is set to be ratified as long as all the member nations give it their full approval. Once enacted the EU will, from that moment, become a nation in its own right and will infer upon us all EU citizenship. As such we will then have a duty to the EU and be expected to have Òl 7oyaltyÓ to it. Its laws will have primacy over the laws of the member nations and the EU will have given itself a legal personality. No longer will we have a British foreign Minister representing us and our trading opportunities abroad, that position will be handed to the EU's new foreign minister and its embassies will replace ours. For British companies who trade globally this will have a major impact as an EU foreign minister will not have the same affinity for British firms abroad as our own British Minister.

Many reading this article will naturally say: 'Why not remain as EU members but stay out of the euro?' There is a flawed argument in this logic, for as long as we remain in the EU we will never be able to repeal or amend any EU treaties or obligations previously ratified, under the European Union's Aquis Communitaire, what is given to the EU we can never take back. At one time we could rely on our veto to block the things which could be detrimental to British interests. However, since the advent of qualified majority voting (QMV), we have sacrificed the right to stop any harmful EU legislation or our ability to make changes to EU laws and treaties. Should we state that we intend to return full control of our fishing waters to the control of our Parliament in Westminster, or take back control of our agriculture or any other matters which have been given over to the EU, we will have to apply to the EU which, if minded, will put it to a vote of the other nations. Naturally, the UK as just one nation amongst fifteen (soon to be 25) we will be outvoted and unable to mak ¢e any changes or take back those things which once belonged to us and added to our wealth. If we ignore the EU and go ahead anyway and made our own laws on farming etc., we will then be hauled before the European Court of Justice which will fine us heavily for having the audacity of wanting to control our own affairs. In other words the only way we could take full control of our fishing, farming and other vital interests, we have little option but to think the unthinkable and quit the EU.

There is much hype given about our trade with Europe, we are told that over 60 per cent of our exports go there, yet, when the figures are broken down the picture begins to look very different. The figure of 60 per cent of our trade with Europe is not inclusive of our invisible exports such as banking, insurance and other financial services which form a major part of our income for the UK. Nor does this figure give the fact t áhat it includes non-European exports which pass through the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam before being shipped onto other global destinations but are still classed as European exports simply for passing through these ports. Nor are we told that when you take 100 per cent of all trade in the UK, only 20 per cent of that trade goes for export - the other 80 per cent is internal such as the simple purchase of your morning newspaper at the corner shop. By the time you account for the Rotterdam and Amsterdam effects and the inclusion of our hidden trade, we are being asked to sacrifice our currency, our democracy, our freedom to remain self governing and our future for nothing more than around 8 per cent of trade. It doesn't make sense, the really unthinkable thing about our involvement within the EU is the fact we are expected to comply with the thinking of those who want closer ties with the EU who try to make it sound as if the world will end if we question their judgement.

One of the sacrificial lambs to our British membership of the then Common Market, which is now the EU and all too soon to be the United States of Europe if Valerie Giskard d'Estaing gets his way, was our fishing industry. Membership of the EU has meant this country has litterally given away some of the richest fishing waters in the world to become an EU "common resource" which now means the Spanish and every other EU nation has more rights to fish our once sovereign seas than our own beleagoured fishermen who in vast numbers have either gone bankrupt or just given up. However, Cornish fisherman and UKIP activist, Mick Mahon, has decided its time to stand and fight and is organising a flotilla of small boats to, once again, come to the rescue of this beleaguered nation. In 1995 he was the first of many British fishermen to deck out his boat, the J-Anne, with the Canadian flag in support of the Canadian's arrest of the the Spanish trawler, the Estai. The J-Anne is a 29' stern trawler which is based in Newlyn, Cornwall. It has featured on the BBC 1 Panorama programme, Newsnight, Weekend World and other news programmes, including many international broadcasts. More recently Mick and his boat were also featured on the Political Slot on Channel Four promoting the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Mick Mahon, An Old Salt and his Sea Dogs

For a few weeks before the European elections in 2004 Mick intends to pack up his nets, donate his time, and sail along the coast, stopping off at various ports along the way. Then he will sail up the Thames to the Tower of London to arrive at Traitors Gate, the day before polling day, where he intends to deliver copies of the treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Nice. He has another little scheme planned which is intended to drive his point home - but you will have to wait for all to be revealed.

The whole trip should take three weeks and is intended to raise the profile of UKIP during the run up to election day. He already has media interest, despite the fact it is still in the distant future. The J-Anne will be displaying a large banner stating: "Support British fishermen, vote United Kingdom Independence Party". Mick also intends to fly the UK flag, the Canadian flag and flags of other countries which are free and independent nations. He will be accompanied on the way by other boats in support, including a flotilla up the Thames to the Tower.

As this trip will take several weeks, and will cost a considerable ammount, he will need financial support to help with expenses. Although he has an offer of support from one person to help fund the trip, it is hoped that other funds can be raised. Mick will not be the only trawler owner giving his time to promote the plight of British fishermen who are reeling under the merciless attack on the UK fishing fleet from Brussels.

If enough funds can be raised, then another trawler will also sail from its home port to Traitors Gate, but this one will sail down the East coast from Scotland with a similar purpose. Both boats will then sail up the Thames together leading the flotilla of other boats in support. It is intended that UKIP candidates, members of the press and media will be on board during the various 'port hops'. If he can get company sponsorship Mick will also display the logos of those companies.

Mick needs funds to help him with this venture. Anyone who can donate whatever amount, be it a large or small donation, please send payments to: the "J-Anne Appeal Fund", C/O John Bass, The Old Reading Room, Craft Hole, Torpoint, Cornwall, PL11 3BE.

Election night is the time when the members of the varying political parties are all thrown together in the local town hall to supervise the count and watch the votes piling up with, either glee if they are winning, or dismay, if they are not doing as well as hoped. On April 3rd 2003, as a by-election candidate for UKIP, I found myself in a small committee room surrounded by Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats in Walsall Town Hall. I already knew many of those there from past skirmishes, but there was one there who I had not met before, he was the leader of the local Liberal Democrats. I was introduced to this chap and within minutes of meeting we were talking about the the European Union - the conversation became a little heated as we could not agree on just one aspect of the EU - our continued membership. Strangely enough he agreed with me the EU was a mess. Considering the Lib Dems are now more left wing than many of the old Labour Trotskyites, it seemed strange that he thought the EU was too socialist, he thought it was "top down" rather than bottom up. Naturally, I told him the only option we have is to leave, but to him, even though he agreed the EU was not good, he still foolishly insisted that we must be in there to obtain change from within and have "influence" despite the fact, as I pointed out, that will never happen as we are always out-voted and the French and the Germans have it all stitched up.

Derek Bennett

It is this sort of denial that we can change it from within, that the EU has taken too many powers for itself, or that there is anything wrong with it, which has landed us in such dire straights today. Throughout our long sad involvement in this anti-democratic and corrupt institution we have heard a multitude of denials, which I now consider to be blatant lies. Ted Heath told us there would be no essential loss of sovereignty, yet we have given away vast tracts of sovereignty to the EU in many areas. Harold Wilson said the threat of a single currency had been eradicated - yet here we are today with a single currency in use in twelve of the EU's fifteen member nations and immense pressure to get the UK to scrap our pound for this European Union currency. We have been told there would not be a European army (now being created and called the 'Rapid Reaction Force'), or there would not be a European police force (now in existence and called 'Europol'). We were also told there would not be a European Arrest Warrant in which British subjects could be arrested in their own homes by foreign police and removed to another country to face trial without a jury for a crime which may not even be a criminal offence in the UK. Even a short time ago on BBC Radio Four's 'Today' programme, EU Commissioner Chris Patten denied there would be a European army in his lifetime - how long does this man expect to live? A year or two?

By the end of 2003 all the above EU horrors will seem like a pleasant daydream - the new EU constitution is on its way. For those in the know this constitution is a truly horrendous nightmare. It will eradicate all past EU treaties as everything will be amalgamated into this new constitution - all member nations will be locked into the EU with little chance of escape, and their once sovereign parliaments will become subjugated to the superior laws of the new European superstate. Under this constitution, which is still being formulated under the supervision of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the EU will give itself legal personality and will place the Brussels administration above all the administrations of member nations. Under Draft Article 9 the Constitution will have primacy over the laws of member states - and there will be no escape as Article 46 stipulates that any member nation wishing to leave the EU must have the consent of two thirds of the other member states.

Under the EU constitution the EU will have its own ministry of justice, it will create its own style FBI with the power to launch raids anywhere in the EU. It will have its own attorney general who will be able to prosecute "cross-border crime" and Brussels will be able to take charge of all national life including economic policy for all member nations. Our British constitution, which was originally laid down in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, will be defunct despite the fact it will be totally illegal for not only the British Government, but also the British people, to override. Yet, even now when so much has been lost and our nation stands on the brink of extinction, Members of Parliament and Government Minister appear to be blind to the truth - they are living in denial that all will soon be lost. All they fear in this constitution is the word "federal" and demand its removal from the constitution. They live in denial of the truth.