Sir.

In reference to your candidlist website, I wish to be categorised as 'Eurosceptic'.

My opposition to British membership of the Euro as a matter of principle is grounded in our party's long standing commitment to a Europe of nation states. Since the Euro is (according to other European politicians) a political rather than an economic project intended to be the next major step in the federalisation and politcal unification of member states, membership of the Euro is therefore in the final analysis contrary to the vision of a Europe of nation states.

Therefore, those Conservative candidates who are not telling us about the 'political' nature of the Euro project obviously do not believe those European politicians and advocates of federalism across the water who say it is the next major project on the road to federalising Europe.

When those advocates of British membership (such as Ken Clarke) say that EMU will not lead to further transfers of sovereignty such as tax and spending harmonisation (which the European elite now reality admit it will) remember the following:

In the 1950's we were told that the European Coal and Steel Community was simply a measure of controlling the raw materials that could be used for warfare (and an experiment of grand socialist central planning and controlling of free markets). We were told that there were no issues of sovereignty involved beyond the High Council and a trade court.

In the 1970's we were then told by Ted Heath et al that we were entering just a 'common market' with no issues of sovereignty beyond mere trade issues. Yet, now we are told it was well known at the time that there were clear issues of sovereignty involved and that the EEC was the second phase of the plan following on from the ECSC - and how stupid of us not to have realised that at the time.

However, we now know that the reason we were not told the truth was because we 'would never have voted for it' if we had known and so were deliberately deceived by our own politicians who held us - the people of this country - in utter contempt because they thought they knew what was best for us and were prepared to lie to us to get their own way.

Then in the 1980's were told by Mrs. Thatcher that the Single European Act was simply an 'open borders' treaty intended to break internal and external barriers to cross-European trade, again with no issues of sovereignty involved. Again, this was a deliberate lie told to her (and then to us) by Geoffrey Howe et al, once again deceiving the electorate over the extent to which sovereignty would be ceded to the European Economic Community - again because deception was the only way the European elite could get their way. Those who pointed out the possible consequences and warned about the possible future loss of sovereignty were labeled as 'extremists'. The Single European Act was the third phase of the plan intended to 'standardise' Europe in preparation for harmonization of currencies.

Again in the 1990's there was the Maastricht treaty - hailed by John Major as a great brake on the integrationsit movement within the European elite because the notion of 'subsidiarity' was formulated. However, this too involved massive ceding of yet more sovereignty to the European Union and the disguising of the words 'federal project' with the phrase 'ever closer union between the peoples of Europe'. Again we were deceived because of the insistence to push through the 'project' without regard for the wishes of the people. Those who opposed such moves were labeled as 'bastards' and 'extremists'.

Now, once again we are being told by the pro-European elite in British politics that now surrendering our currency involves 'no further transfers of sovereignty to the institutions of the European Union'. Once again, those who warm of the consequences are being labeled as 'extremists'. EMU is the next big step towards full federalization. The Treaty of Rome established common markets, the Single European Act standardised Europe, EMU will harmonise currencies and the next step.....

They lied to us about the ECSC
They lied to us over EEC entrance
They lied to us over the 1975 referendum
They lied to us about the Single European Act
They lied to us about the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht)
Now they are lying to us about Economic and Monetary Union.

If pointing out that we have been deliberately and consistently lied to over this matter of sovereignty is evidence of 'extremism' then we live in a world that has gone mad and where reason and freedom of thought is endangered more than ever before. We are approaching a dangerous juncture where politicians feel they do not need a mandate for massive constitutional upheaval that could see the end of the nation state and the birth or a new era of 'regionalism'. We have arrived at a place in political history when to stand up and point out past deceptions and future dangers is evidence of 'extremism' and 'xenophobia'.

The only people that now say there are no political consequences for the UK in EMU - are the British Europhiles like Tony Blair and his supporters in my own party. The European political elite are now at last being honest about political nature of EMU, as are the bankers at the European Central Bank and the commission. They can be honest on the continent because the continental country's have a much less defined sense of their cultural identity being wrapped up in their national identity. Their histories have often been bloody and full of conflict. For example, most major European countries have constitutions that are post war in origins - Germany from the 1950's, The 5th French Republic from the 60's, Spain, Portugal and Greece only democratised and threw of fachism in the 1970's. For the continent perhaps (although I still disagree), evolution into a federal state can perhaps be seen as an uncomfortable but inevitable progression.

Whereas the UK constitution has had no major upheaval in 300 years since the act of Union. Our constitution was settled and needed no major overhaul until Labour vandalised it. Our sense of identity was strong and distinct from the continent. We at least have as much to do with the commonwealth and the America's as we do with Europe. The reality is that the 'Little Englanders' in my party are those who say 'England is too little to survive outside of a federal Europe'.

What rubbish. With the worlds 5th biggest economy, lower unemployment and a stronger economy that any other EU economy, we need no-one to prop us up. We can easily survive as a trading nation and exploit the links we have with Europe and the rest of the globe outside of EMU.

For the record, in the late 1970's, the Conservative Party were 'the party of Europe' as Labour descended into their darkest hour, despising the EU as 'a bastion of a failing capitalist system'.

But that Europe of which we were such strong advocates was a de-centralised free trading un-bureaucratic Europe of sovereign nation states. That is the Europe of which I wish to be a member. A Europe of freely trading partners were barriers to trade are broken down and where mutual understanding flows in the place of distrust and hatred.

That is not the Europe that stands before us.

Adrian Yalland

Dear Mr Yalland,

Many thanks for your long e-mail of earlier today.  On the basis of your very full statement of opinion, I am delighted to add you to the Candidlist as a Sceptic.

Please accept my very best wishes in your future political career.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Sean Gabb
Candidlist Webmaster