CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 3 – “I shall be in command of the defences of London”

This entry is part 4 of 12 in the series GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed

London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London and…
it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire
Winston S. Churchill
Harrow School, 1891

Winston S. Churchill

Winston S. Churchill

In CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2 – “London will be attacked”, we began a more in-depth examination of Great-Grandpapa’s prediction at sixteen years old. I raised the point that in the same year that Churchill made his prediction, physicist Samuel Langley attempted flight with his steam-powered Aerodrome. Although not widely reported in the media, Wallace and I found no evidence to support whether Churchill knew of this attempt or not, and if so, did he then use the information to predict that London would one day be attacked using aircraft?

Despite being highly improbable that without aircraft, London would be a battlefield, and no evidence to confirm Churchill’s awareness of Langley’s attempt which could have prompted a lucky guess, we felt it was best to dismiss this part of his prediction, and instead move on to analyzing the remaining two parts, both of which aided us further in our belief that Great-Grandpapa’s life was directed by ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more often than we are always prone to admit.’

“I shall be in command of the defences of London”

Churchill’s awareness of Langley is irrelevant. The validity of the prediction does not hinge on London being attacked. Churchill’s words take on new understanding when one analyses his confident statement that he would be “in command of the defences of London.”

Looking at the raw statement, one realizes that in order for this prediction to come true, Churchill would have had to accurately predict that there would be an attack on London, and that at the time of that attack, he would either be, or rise to be, “in command of the defences of London.” This part of the prediction is too specific to dismiss as a lucky guess. Only in the light of history can we appreciate the magnitude of his words fifty years before the start of the Second World War.

This is where religions around the world separate prediction from prophesy. A prediction can come from anyone and may or may not come true, however, prophesy can only come from God, and in order for it to be considered a prophesy, it must come true exactly as has been spoken.

“Will you be a general, then, in command of the troops?” Evans asked.

“I don’t know,” Britain’s future leader replied. “Dreams of the future are blurred, but the main objective is clear.”

Unsure of his career path, Churchill was very confident that whatever it was, it would be a great adventure, “I have dreams about it,” he told Murland.

In reviewing Churchill’s career path, his brief stint in the British Army, his time as a war correspondent, and then his political career to 1940, one might find it hard to imagine that what Great-Grandpapa spoke of in 1891, could possible become a reality. Aircraft had been invented as was predicted however, throughout the 1920s and 30s, Churchill’s popularity and political career were at an all-time low. Churchill’s staunch position against Indian Independence pushed him to the backbenches of Parliament during the 1920s, and his warnings throughout the 30s of the rising threat of Hitler and the Nazis kept him there.

Misunderstood and labeled out-of-date because he was in favor of keeping the Empire going, Churchill refused to back down. He saw the vulnerability of Britain without the protection of “our Empire beyond the seas,” and fought tirelessly to prevent its demise.  When Hitler came to power in 1933, this further fueled Great-Grandpapa’s fear that Britain alone would be easy pickings: “I dread the day when the means of threatening the heart of the British Empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers of Germany,” he told fellow Members of Parliament in 1934. His warnings fell on deaf ears and he was shouted down. Undeterred by the rejection, Churchill rose again, and kept rising, despite all his colleagues threw at him.

“I shall be in command of the defences of London.” How unlikely this part of the prediction was. Churchill was widely considered a failure in his career. The First World War tore him down over the Gallipoli disaster. Returning Britain to the Gold Standard as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s, proved him to be useless with finance as Britain sunk into a deep depression. His stance against The India Bill and then the warnings of the threat of Hitler, further confirmed the uselessness of the out-of-date, ageing lunatic, who clearly missed the battlefields of his youth. Throughout his political career, Churchill proved the accuracy of his 1904 statement: “In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times.” – Based on his record, Churchill was the last person one would call upon to lead in a time of crisis. However Destiny was to play its hand, and on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was, as per his prophesy, invited to “be in command of the defences of London,” and serve Britain as our wartime Prime Minister.


Subscribe today so you don’t miss:

GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED

 COMING ON NOVEMBER 2

 CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 4
“It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire”

 An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’


Front Cover (USA) (sml-150x225)Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.

GOD AND CHURCHILL
How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny
Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours

 Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

(more…)

CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2: “London will be attacked”

This entry is part 3 of 12 in the series GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed
Winston S. Churchill

Winston S. Churchill c. 1891)

In CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1, I quoted Great-Grandpapa’s prediction in 1891, at sixteen years old, taken from a letter written by friend and fellow Harrow student, Murland de Grasse Evans, and sent to Churchill’s son Randolph when he was named his father’s official biographer.

London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London and…it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire

We discussed the prediction in total in the first part, and it was from this evidence that my co-author, Wallace Henley and I began to deepen our research to determine if Great-Grandpapa had been correct in his own belief that his life was both directed and protected by, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more often than we are always prone to admit.’

Over the next few weeks I am going to put forward a more in-depth analysis of Churchill’s initial prediction. “London will be attacked”, begins separating the truth of Great-Grandpapa’s personal faith from the myth.

“London will be attacked”

In 1891 Victorian England, London as a battlefield was an improbable concept to grasp. “We are forever safe from invasion, since the days of Napoleon,” Murland de Grasse Evans told his friend and fellow Harrow student, sixteen year old Winston Churchill. But Great-Grandpapa was adamant. “London will be attacked”

United Kingdom (London highlighted)

United Kingdom (London highlighted)

When looking at a map of Great Britain one can see the improbability of London being a battlefield. In order to reach the Capital one would need to approach by sea, and the Royal Navy, with all its mighty strength, would have easily repelled any threat to our shores. If luck however had allowed a large force to land undetected, the British Army, and indeed every man, woman and child, would have fought fervently in the fields and in the streets. The battle would have been very bloody and before the enemy could have reached London, they would have sustained great losses.

“We are forever safe from invasion, since the days of Napoleon.” Murland was right, before the invention of aircraft, London was one of the safest locations in England.

Samuel Langley

Samuel Langley

In the same year Churchill predicted his future, physicist Samuel Langley managed to fly his steam-powered Aerodrome in America for less than a mile before it ditched. There was little rush by the media to report the event, so it is highly unlikely that Churchill would have known anything of it, and no evidence to support it either way. For the sake of argument let’s assume Churchill had seem some obscure report and dismiss the power of prophesy from his words. By luck from that, he could have extrapolated what he did some years later, that aircraft would be the weapon of future warfare, and this would put London within measurable reach of any European enemy.

This leaves us with his confident statement that in such an event, I shall be very prominent in the defence of London…in the high position I shall occupy, it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.”

At sixteen years old, how possible is it that Churchill, unsure of his future career, could predict with such accuracy, the destiny that would be fulfilled forty-nine years later?

Subscribe today so you don’t miss:

GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED

COMING ON OCTOBER 30

 CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 3
“I shall be in command of the forces”

An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’


Front Cover (USA) (sml-150x225)

Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.

GOD AND CHURCHILL
How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny
Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours

 Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

 

(more…)

CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1

This entry is part 2 of 12 in the series GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed

London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London
and…it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire
Winston S. Churchill
Harrow School, 1891

Winston S. Churchill - 16 years old SANDYS, Celia - 'Churchill', p.17

Winston S. Churchill

Even at sixteen years old, Winston Churchill had a sense of the great destiny that awaited him. His unlikely prediction to friend and fellow Harrow student, Murland de Grasse Evans one summer Sunday evening in 1891, is only possible in the light of history. Its discovery became one of the cornerstones supporting the contention in God and Churchill, that Great-Grandpapa himself was correct in his belief that throughout his life he had been ‘walking with Destiny,’ and his life had been both directed and protected by, as he put it, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects.’

It was ‘one of those dreadful basement rooms in the Headmaster’s House,’ Murland recalled years later in a letter he penned to Churchill’s son Randolph, who promptly added it to the ever-increasing stack of documents that had recently landed on his desk after the announcement was made that he would be his father’s biographer. Over 8,000 pages were destined to be written as the official biographies on the life of Britain’s greatest hero, and Randolph would sadly only live to contribute the first two-thousand. In amongst the mess, Evans letter disappeared. It would remain hidden until Sir Martin Gilbert, Randolph’s original researcher who continued the biographies, found it, ‘only after the Churchill papers had been transferred to Oxford from Randolph’s home.’ The startling account revealed the first instance when ‘that High Power’ clearly intervened.

“London will be attacked and I shall be very prominent in the defence of London.”

In a conversation about their aspirations for the future, Evans, Churchill thought, would either go into the diplomatic service or ‘follow his father’s footsteps into finance.’ He was however, less sure of his own career path, ‘but,’ he told Evans, ‘I have a wonderful idea of where I shall be eventually. I have dreams about it.’

Evans pressed Churchill to be more specific, but the young adolescent merely shock his head and replied: “Dreams of the future are blurred, but the main objective is clear…I repeat-London will be in danger and in the high position I shall occupy, it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.”

Since his death in 1965, many notable historians have dismissed the possibility that Great-Grandpapa had any sort of faith beyond the abilities he himself possessed. However, Churchill himself professed on the night he became Prime Minister, ‘I felt as if I were walking with Destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.’ Evan’s letter supports Churchill’s 1940 profession which later appeared in the first volume of his six-volume account of The Second World War.

Mislabeled in life and now in death, it was from here that Wallace and I began our journey to separate the truth from the myth and provide evidence that confirms Great-Grandpapa was neither an agnostic nor an atheist but instead a man of faith.


Subscribe today so you don’t miss:

GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED

COMING ON OCTOBER 28

CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2
“London will be attacked”

 

An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’


Front Cover (USA) (sml-150x225)Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.

GOD AND CHURCHILL
How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny
Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours

 Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

(more…)

GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed

This entry is part 1 of 12 in the series GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed

BEGINNING MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, will present the evidence which formed the foundation of his first recently released book:

GOD AND CHURCHILL:
How The Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His
Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours

*  *  *  *  *

WAS SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL A MAN OF FAITH?
Or was he, as many renowned historians would have us believe, an agnostic or an atheist whose references to God and Biblical quotes in speeches were mere platitudes?

DID GOD DIRECT AND PROTECT WINSTON CHURCHILL AS HE HIMSELF MAINTAINED?
Or was this pure bravado intermingled with luck?

WHAT DO THE FINDINGS IN ‘GOD AND CHURCHILL’ MEAN FOR US TODAY?

*  *  *  *  *

God & Churchill (US Cover)

Based on the evidence discovered, Jonathan challenges the assumptions of many notable and renowned historians to separate the truth of his great-grandfather’s personal faith from the myth.

“This country will be subjected somehow to a tremendous invasion,” Churchill confidently told a fellow Harrow student at sixteen years old. “London will be attacked [and] it will fall to me to save the Capital and Save the Empire.” – How did Churchill know his destiny in 1891? Was this a prediction or prophecy? What exposure did Churchill have to faith? Did he ever question the religious instruction of his youth?

Over the coming weeks, Jonathan will explore the evidence he and his co-author, former White House aide and senior associate Pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, discovered.

When a bomb exploded in 1940, on almost the exact spot where Churchill had been standing, he looked at his longtime bodyguard Walter Thompson and pointed to the sky, reassuring him not to worry, “There is somebody looking after me besides you.” – Was he right, or was this false confidence or bravado? How did Churchill survive on the battlefield of Omdurman? Was it fate or luck that he escaped from South Africa? And what of his near-death experience in the trenches of France during the First World War?

Great-Grandpapa claimed that his life was both directed and protected by what he called, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects.’ Wallace and I have sought to present the unbiased facts that disprove the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist. Through the evidence, we show that without the interference of that ‘High Power’ at critical times in Great-Grandpapa’s life, history today would be very different. – Jonathan Sandys

Subscribe today so you don’t miss:

GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED

CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1

An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’

 

Front Cover (USA) (sml-150x225)Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.

GOD AND CHURCHILL
How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours

 Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

(more…)

EUROPE: In or Out?

‘The idea underlying the conception of United Europe is very simple. It is the universal desire of all ordinary men and women to live their lives in peace, to bring up their children in freedom, and to reap the just fruits of their day’s work – instead of dwelling, as they do now, under the lasting shadow of tyranny, poverty and war.’
Winston S. Churchill
European Movement and the Council of Europe

THE CRISIS
001
Britain is facing a semi-crisis as time marches forward for us to decide whether we want to remain as part of the European Union or not.  Winston Churchill, who was in favor of a union of nations that would protect each other with a common European Defence Force, may today look at the Union and encourage us to press forward, but with caution.

Britain’s initial entry into a European Union was out of urgent necessity as the European countries ravished by Germany during the Second World War, desperately needed help in their recovery. However, Great-Grandpapa and the European Union architects all foresaw the very type of union we have today.

‘Plans must be prepared for the permanent and organic unification of Europe. These should include:

  1. The grant of a Common Citizenship, without loss of original nationality;
  2. The creation of a single European Defence Force;
  3. The development of a unified economic system; and finally
  4. The conclusion of a European Union or Federation with an elected Parliament’

We the British, complain fervently about the dictates sent down to us from our European overlords in Brussels, but Brussels is merely enacting all its architects originally envisioned. However, it is our responsibility as the people to ensure our representatives in London keep us informed and ensure that there is full disclosure from our representatives in Brussels. And we the people must also be given the right to choose at each stage. Questions of a single currency and a European Defence Force, cannot be agreed upon just by the Members of Parliament in London or Brussels, this is a question for us, the people and NOT with a simple “IN/OUT” question.

CORRUPTION
I am convinced that Churchill and the other European Union architects were right in their initial ideas. However, they did not sadly make a provision addressing corruption in the governance of the Union, as was made similarly by America’s founding fathers. Corruption in an organization the size the European Union may always be unavoidable. However, we as member-states elect our individual national governments to oversee this aspect and ensure that there is an active check and balance system in place. If corruption is allowed to run freely in Europe, our national governments are as much to blame as those perpetrating the corruption.

THE SINGLE CURRENCY QUESTION
The architects of the Union envisaged a single European currency, similar to that in the United States of America. Although in recent years the Euro has proved less than reliable, and had Britain been part of it we would most certainly have suffered negatively, we should accept that a single currency is the most practical way to trade among our European Allies, however, as with the European Defence Force, we need to ensure this is the right move and that move is made at the right time. I love our British Pound, as do many of us, and before we even consider giving it up, we need to understand the full implications. Single currency trading certainly overcomes the issues of exchange rates, but if asked, in this current climate, I am not convinced that we in Britain would be prepared to risk all as was previously done by other European nations. I personally don’t wish to see a single currency in Britain. I am very happy to pay the exchange rate to trade with Europe. Much work is needed to ensure the stability of the Euro and the single currency idea must NOT be forced upon nations. We have a right to choose, and that right should be respected. If Britain opts to remain in Europe but not adopt the single currency, we should not receive threats of expulsion, as was the case when it was first rolled out. The question is best left to those who better understand economic systems as to how a single currency can be kept buoyant. It is however a fact that all currencies rise and fall, but rarely collapse completely. Further investigations need to be carried out and proof of stability needs to be established before Britain should be prepared to even consider adopting such a risky idea.

COMMUNICATION
Signpost with Various FlagsThe European Parliament needs to be more accessible by the peoples of the member-nations. Our European representatives need to not only report back to us more frequently, but be more visible and more prepared to hold open discussions. This will offer the opportunity for British subjects to participate in the process and it will, I feel sure, make things easier for our representatives in the long run. I am convinced that the reason there is such apathy towards the European Union is because there is a lack of understanding on our part. However, that lack of understanding has not been caused by the peoples of the member-states, but by the representatives who disappear to Brussels and are only ever seen again when they want to have our vote. Great-Grandpapa recognized that visibility as a leader was vital to ensure the support and cooperation of the people he represented during the Second World War. A European Union is quite a daunting prospect, and we the people need reassuring. Visibility and a willingness to explain things to us would go a long way to winning our support for potentially further integration.

TRADITION PROTECTION
‘Independent but not isolationist, pacific but not pacifist…One of the aims and advantages of a European Union, achieved by consent, will be to preserve these national traditions and distinctive characteristics which, under forceful totalitarian unification, would assuredly be obliterated.’

In recent years a lack of communication on the part of our European representatives has caused friction over simple changes. We have no wish to be isolationists, but we equally have no desire to be dictated to without explanation and a chance for discussions.  The traditions of member-states must be preserved and no individual nation or act of European Parliament should be able to overturn or change that.

ECONOMIC STRENGTH = SAFETY
It is a true fact that the more economically strong a nation is, the easier it is to ensure its security. The pro-argument is that a united Europe with a single currency and single European Defence Force will make it much more difficult for any one nation in the world to take action against us. The philosophy of “you go to war, we go to war,” comes into play and we are able to ensure that in unity we will find peace and security. The architects put in a provision to protect us from nations inside Europe who seek to overthrow. This provision was created in the wake of the Second World War. However, an economically strong Europe will be much harder to pick off and the question of a European Defence Force is one that will continue to haunt us. There are advantages, and at the time when Great-Grandpapa was promoting such an idea it seemed the most sensible, but the world has changed dramatically and I am not convinced that looking at the European Union we have now, Churchill would support the idea of a common defence force. We are certainly facing some very troubling times, but we need to make balanced decisions based on the facts, not our fears. This is most certainly an issue that needs much more discussion and before it is settled we need to ensure that such a force can only be used for good.

DID EDWARD HEATH MISLEAD US?
According to some, former Prime Minster Edward Heath misled Britain when he encouraged the people to sign-up for a union of European nations that would enjoy open-trade agreements, and live in the security of knowing that as a union of sovereign nations, we would be protected from outside attacks. However, although he may not have shared the complete plan with our people, the ideas he was promoting were not new concepts but had in-fact been discussed both during and since the end of the Second World War.

Great-Grandpapa’s support for the initial European Union proposal was clearly fueled by his concern that without the protection of the British Empire which began to collapse in 1946, Britain would be as vulnerable as she had been against Germany following the French surrender in June 1940.

CHURCHILL’S PLAN FOR POST-WAR BRITAIN
At a private meeting at the Yalta Conference, Churchill and Roosevelt spoke of plans for the future of Britain once Germany was finally forced to surrender. As part of the Lend-Lease agreement, Roosevelt, who disliked the British Empire, forced Churchill to agree to give India her independence following the end of the war. Churchill recognized that once India had gone, others would follow and Britain, a tiny country in comparison to potential enemies such as Russia, would be left alone and could in future years be much more easily subdued. It was my great-grandfather who proposed that Britain become a “protectorate” member of the United States, retaining her sovereignty, while at the same time ensuring no repeat of 1939, where America could not join the war effort until Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war on America. Sadly, when President Roosevelt died in April 1945, and Great-Grandpapa lost the subsequent General Election, this plan was not carried forward by either of the leaders who followed. A European Union was the next best thing and due to our proximity and continent position, was considered to be the best solution to not only ensure continued peace but protection as well. ‘When the Nazi power was broken, I [Churchill], asked myself what was the best advice I could give to my fellow citizens in our ravaged and exhausted continent. My counsel to Europe can be given in a single word: “Unite!”’

THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION
004
The issue with the proposed IN/OUT referendum is going to be the wording. To walk completely out of Europe thus ending both the protection and also all trade agreements would, I feel, be suicide. However, no European nation should be permitted to overstep their remit in uniting Europe as a whole at the cost of a single nation’s wishes. For example, discussions must be held without threats of expulsion. If one member-state disagrees with a policy, discussions must be held until the single state, (in the case of a single state), agrees to move forward. The single currency question is a prime example of this. Although a single currency is widely considered more practical, not all nations are ready to adopt one. Respect should be given to those who choose not to participate at this moment, and those who want to proceed should be allowed to do so freely. To admonish or diminish the genuine fears of other nations to take such a mammoth step is destructive to the ultimate aim and purpose of the Union. We are not always going to agree, ‘But if we are to achieve this aim [of peace and security], if we are to win this supreme reward, we must remove every impediment. We must conquer ourselves. We must rise to a higher level. Old feuds must die. Territorial ambitions must be forgotten. National rivalries must be confined to rivalry as to which can render the best service to the common cause.’ The European Court exists today to settle all disputes, and we should encourage our representatives to avail themselves of its justice when we feel an injustice has been done.

We talk of being asked “the question”, but I personally feel it is much more complicated than that. In my view we need a checklist of things we are prepared to agree to and things we are not. It is up to our representatives in London and Brussels to convince us with debate. To assume we won’t understand the answers, or to blindly ask “IN/OUT?” is irresponsible, and with such serious ramifications one way or the other, we need a question “IN/OUT?” to be accompanied by more specific questions. As with our other elections, the majority decision is carried and therefore if out of the total number of Britons who vote, 51% say “NO” to a single currency, then the people have spoken and our decision should be respected and upheld by our representatives. However, we the people MUST be asked. It is argued that to ask the people every time a new policy is proposed would hold the process up indefinitely, I argue that to not ask us would be criminal, considering we are ones being expected to accept it. We are not talking about our own countries alone where we have the power to oust our leaders and representatives and their policies can be overturned by the members we have elected. We don’t vote for the French representatives and they don’t vote for ours. By agreeing to allow the European Union to unilaterally decide our fate based on the majority of Members of the European Parliament, requires a trust on our part and an understanding on theirs. The European Union is still very new and giving it this level of power could be a fatal mistake. The United States of America, while having a centralized government, makes laws to protect the union as a whole. However, the individual states have the power to make laws of their own. The Federal Government has limited power and not dictatorial power over the individual states. This should be the case with the European Union. What works in France, may not work in Britain, therefore, any change that affects our way of life in our individual countries, should by right be put before us, not foisted upon us. We are all part of the building process and like it or not, we are the architects now. Asking us if we want a European Defence Force, or a single currency, is how it should be.

I am convinced that the European Union is not the monster it has been made out to be. I firmly believe that many of us who are skeptical are so only because our representatives’ hide in Brussels once elected and are only heard from again when they need our vote for reelection. We cannot give Europe the power to dictate, and only when our individual countries are respected for the decisions we make, should we even consider allowing Europe to govern. States-rights. In my view that is the only way that a European Union can work. I believe that Great-Grandpapa would agree because he himself used the United States of America as the template for the formation of the Union. However, true and open representation is a requirement before anything further can happen.

OPEN GOVERNMENT
003
We need a more open European government where our representatives communicate with us and listen to our concerns. We need honest answers to questions and we need to be kept informed. One day, I would love to travel throughout Europe and be able to say ‘“Here I am at home.”’

Britain, it is up to us as the people to apply pressure to our government to word the question sensibly. It is up to us to communicate with our Members of the British Parliament to force our representatives in Europe to visit more and explain the processes, keeping us both informed and involved. This will probably be the last time we are asked what we want with regard to European membership, let’s make an informed decision and actually make it count. I would urge you to write to your Member of Parliament and push for the correct wording that enables us to either remain in the Union, while retaining our sovereignty, giving us the right as individuals to choose, retain the trade agreements, and travel perks, or leave the union completely. A simple “IN or OUT?” question is unacceptable. This is a vital choice that will cost us dearly if we go the wrong way. Let’s get a grip and ensure we are fully informed and choose the right way to vote.

‘By our combined exertions we have it in our power to restore the health and greatness of our ancient continent-Christendom as it used to be called. No longer a breeding ground for misery and hate, Europe shall arise out of her ruins and troubles, and, by uniting herself, carry the world a step nearer to the ultimate unity of all mankind.’
Winston S. Churchill

(more…)