UK Space Agency Fails To Make Contingencies For Possible Brexit

The only one thing which would upset me if Britain decided to leave the European Union would be the potential damage done to the relationship between the UK and the ESA (European Space Agency.) I believe space travel to be one of the most important projects humanity has ever undertaken, and is something that only collaborative efforts can achieve between nations. The way I see it is that the sooner we can leave this planet, the sooner we can get away from the issues of overpopulation, banker-slavery and inter-ethnic troubles. The technology that we may unlock in this pursuit might also help us lessen the impact on nature here on Earth too, and may well enable us to restore this planet to it's former glory for the benefit of all life.

That however is a pipe-dream, something which at this point we can only live in hope of. Nonetheless, it may interest people out there to know that the UK space industry alone was worth a reported £11.3 billion in 2013, and has been growing at an average 7% year on year with 70% of this trade being exported. Britain is obviously a key part of the ESAs operations, particularly in the field of telecommunications. This status is clearly shown by the fact that the ESA opened the science and innovation campus in the Harwell University here. With Government money as well as BAE's being invested in emerging technologies (like Skylon for instance) anyone with half a brain would assume that this industry was being looked after and protected by the UK Space Agency, the Government's own organisation devoted to the UK's fledgling space industry.

With the potential for Britain to leave the European Union, there is a perhaps a small worry that the politics of the day might have an impact on the UK's involvement with the ESA though. Bare in mind that whilst there are countries who are not apart of the EU (like Israel and Canada for instance,) who are members of the ESA, since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, there has been a concerted effort to bring more of the ESAs operations under a more Federalised EU structure. Given all the scaremongering about the economy and so on surrounding the Brexit referendum, I thought I would email the UKSA about what might happen to the UK's space industry should we vote to leave the EU.

So I wrote:

To who it may concern,

I've recently started a blog and website which I hope will grow and get people interested in spaceflight and technology, in particular projects being undertake in the UK by some incredibly innovative companies like Reaction for instance.

In any case, I hope it is not too much of a cheek to ask for correspondence with yourselves. As is obvious by the title of this email, I'd like to ask if the UKSA has looked into the implications of a Brexit vote in the EU referendum, and whether it would have an affect on the UK's involvement with the European Space Agency?

Many thanks for your time!


The response was not particularly amazing.

Thank you for your email. The UK Space Agency has not made any contingency plans for a possible vote to leave the EU at the 23 June referendum.

Warmest regards

Trying to dissect this single sentence answer is difficult, but still possible. Personally this answer either shows one of three things:

A) The Government is "psychic", and already knows the result of the upcoming referendum. Therefore it has been telling its departments not to bother doing research into, or planning possible contingencies for a vote to leave the European Union.

B) The UK Government knows that there will be genuinely little disruption to the UK economy and exports, and the UKSA/ESA partnership will continue regardless of the result.

C) The woman who answered me couldn't be bothered to go trawling through documents to give me a genuine answer.

I'm not sure which one I should take more seriously, but it's still interesting. Call me a pessimist but I'm very drawn to option A.

What do you readers think? Leave in the comments below!

Solving A Housing Crisis- Vote Out of the EU!

Today in the UK, and in South East of England in particular, there has brewed a huge issue that nobody can today deny; there is a lack of affordable housing, young adults are increasingly finding it harder to move out and the housing that is marginally affordable is in short supply. Not to put a too finer point on it, but certain regions in the United Kingdom are now so ridiculously overpopulated, that public services (like schools for instance) are now also stretched to their absolute capacity. 

In my local area of Southend in Essex, a modest two or three bedroom house or bungalow that a young family might wish to purchase to get onto the property ladder, may pay in excess of £280,000 just for the privilege of owning their own property. With rentals for the same type of properties being around the £1000 per month mark, renting doesn't seem a viable option for anybody either. For many wishing to start out in life and move away from their parents, or begin a family of their own, these costs are simply prohibitive. This is partly because wages for the most part seem to have been in decline since the banking crisis of 2008, when factoring in inflation. In many ways given that interest rates have been kept at 0.5% since 2008, we're still very much in the midst's of the same, if not another more serious dip in the economy.

The bottom line is that for the younger generations, things aren't getting much better. A "solution" to the problem of a lack of social mobility for the younger generations, is this new "living wage" initiative started by the Conservatives, which in truth isn't going to help anybody. Any wage increases as a result of this new minimum wage are only going to be short-term. An overall increase in money being paid by companies, will simply lead them to increase their prices ultimately devaluing the currency, and causing inflation. In fact, long-term the effects of increasing everybody's wage may end up meaning more people ultimately end up being paid minimum wage as some companies will refuse to pay more, in a sort of squeezed concertina effect. Ultimately the middle-class is being wiped out by rising minimum wages at the bottom and the 40% tax cap once you begin earning over £43,000 at the top. Essentially there is little incentive to succeed or bother with vocational training in this ridiculous system. Being cynical, the elimination of the middle classes is beneficial for our overlords running international finance, but that is a separate debate for another day. 

There are in my opinion, three contributing factors to the housing crisis that many communities today have felt, factors which in many ways slot into one another as to make them basically the same issue.

Firstly, one of the biggest contributing factors to house price rises is population growth, and the biggest element to population growth over the last few decades in the United Kingdom is immigration. Over half (53%) of the increase in the UK population between 1991 and 2014, was due to the direct contribution of net migration. As a result, the projected population in 2014 for 2030, is 11 million greater than what was projected back in 1994. This shows an enormous disregard by current and previous Governments to plan for and accommodate the influx of newcomers. The lack of precautions to build an infrastructure to cope is only just becoming apparent as vital public services are today already feeling an immense strain. These figures by the way, do not include 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants who were born in the United Kingdom before the 1990s. A recent European Union prediction expects that by 2060, one third of the British population with be 1st or 2nd generation migrants, once again omitting from this data the impact that families that came to the UK pre-1990s have had. The United Kingdom is already the most densely populated country in Europe with the exception of Malta, the population growth caused by further immigrants having generally larger families will only acerbate this issue, with an expected average of 500 people being sardined into each kilometer in Britain by 2046. 

Just so you know, to prevent going off on a tangent I'm not even discussing the issue of ethnic and cultural genocide going on in the UK against those who define themselves as White British on their census forms every ten years. That argument is for another day.

The second reason for the housing crisis is a localised one. Although I personally was born and raised in the South East of England, I am not blind to the suffering of other communities in Britain who suffer for different, although connected reasons. While people living near London struggle to find affordable housing, those living further afield in rural areas, particularly ex-mining or industrial towns, struggle to find work at all whilst the local housing generally remains cheap. In fact, for the price of one family home in Essex you could potentially buy up an entire terrace in an old mining town. Stoke-On-Trent's council, a town long associated with heavy industry and mining, even began selling homes for £1 last winter in the hope that it would kickstart the local economy. Trouble is, nobody wants to move to these places for the simple fact that there's no local jobs, and those who do live there and can move, do move to where there are jobs. When people flock to areas with jobs, they in-turn push house prices higher, leaving those who were born in those expensive areas in a difficult situation where they struggle to buy or rent. 

This issue has mostly been bourne out of decades of Government Ministers simply being disinterested in the problems faced by those who live outside counties that border with London. A lack of investment or infrastructure to assist these communities after the UK was essentially de-industrialised starting in the 1970s, has acerbated the decline of old industrial towns. Although on the face of it, investment seems to finally be taking shape, if you look at the HS2 campaign as an example, this once again seems to mainly benefit London's economy by taking workers out of their own localities and placing them into the capital. 

Towns with transport links with London do grow faster, but are also responsible for the biggest rise in house prices. Take my area in Southend as an example again. With London being only an hours commute away, the area is popular with people who work in the city. It's far enough out to not be of London, but close enough not to make their commute too long. As a consequence, properties here have become desirable. Towns like this, as they begin to attract more wealthy professional city workers, fall victim to their own success though. This process known as gentrification, makes properties become more valuable at the expense of the local communities. As a result, those who aren't high earners get pushed out of the communities that they may have grown up in. They may end up having to move somewhere where houses are cheaper, but perhaps where there aren't so many job prospects. Whilst there is the mantra that there are always winners and losers in the dirty game of capitalism, the fact that nothing is done to at least limit the affect of this situation which is ruining lives and destroying communities is a disgrace. That's without taking into consideration the massive influx of immigrant workers that have entered this country over the last two or three decades.

The bizarre situation we have now in the UK, is that the Government would rather build more homes in these desirable locations at the detriment to local greenbelt land and local infrastructure, than invest in the building of industry outside the tentacles of the City of London. Entire towns remain practically deserted whilst contractors build on flood plains elsewhere. The entire situation is simply retarded.

Thirdly, and essentially combining the first two aspects of this already long post, is that all of these problems are caused by globalism. It is globalist interests within the EU, the UK establishment and right at the top within organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, Goldman Sachs, the World Trade Organisation etc, that promote immigration as an economic boost.

Whilst it might be true that mass-immigration brings short-term economic gains for top corporations, ultimately it is not these corporations who have to deal with a collapse of public services and all of the social issues, like the housing crisis, that emerge from such ridiculously ill-thought-out plans. Like your Mother always used to say, money isn't everything, and it's true. There are things more precious than simple economic gain for the sake of gain. The real economic argument for immigration as seen by these top corporations, is that it lowers average wages by saturating work markets. As I've already mentioned earlier on in this post, this works against the British people who were born here, and who want to work and succeed.

Globalism is also at least in part responsible for the degeneration of British industries, as the Government sits on its hands with it's head up it's arse as British factories are sent abroad to China, India or Turkey. The fact that our Government's inactivity surrounding protecting our own industry is mostly caused by international regulations, usually at the behest of the European Union, is seldom mentioned by the gutless wankers in Westminster. For instance, it was European Union grant money that actually paid the Ford motor company to move the Transit van plant to Turkey from Southampton.  Look at the recent fiasco surrounding the UK steel industry with TATA on the brink of complete collapse. Not one fuck is given by the UK Government because in all likelihood, it's non-competitiveness was caused by the UK and the EU's collusion with Chinese steel exporters who have made steel manufacturing practically worthless by saturating the market. Nothing has been discussed on the issue of protecting our own industry by placing tariffs on Chinese or other imports. (By the way, the fact that TATA's partial closure was announced the same week that China had an official state visit in London was totally coincidental, I'm sure.)

These issues, whilst they on the face of things seem disconnected, form the main crux of the issue in this country with housing. Too much emphasis is being put on the financial industry and the City of London, and as a result the rest of the country is in economic decline. This is clearly obvious from the fact that London is the richest area in Northern Europe, yet Britain has almost all ten of the ten poorest cities elsewhere in the country. This is what is driving those who can to move to the same areas in the South East.

In those centralised areas like London, those who move are then coming into direct competition with an immigrant workforce, which can only drive wages down. It doesn't take a genius to work out that in this situation, short of getting lucky with finding an exceptionally well paying job, or being given inheritance monies, young adults are effectively being priced out of the housing market.

Whilst the majority of permanent immigrants to the UK were not born in the European Union, voting to leave in the upcoming referendum in June would potentially give the UK the ability to put strict new measures on those who entered the country to live and work. Currently the majority of policies governing these issues are the result of unaccountable European bureaucracy. It would also put a stop on the influx of those born outside of Europe, who are encouraged to come to Europe by the EU themselves.

The only crisis in Europe is that the citizens are not being told that this entire issue with refugees is a ruse. The Syrians and North Africans are being invited! Ironically they're being invited because birth rates in Europe are below replacement rate, and they hope this will act as a stop-gap, however the immigrants themselves also cause lower wages for reasons already discussed. Low wages and high house prices are in part, a reason why many Europeans in their peak fertile age (mid-twenties) can't actually afford to move out of their parent's homes and start a family of their own. News reports recently have been stating that the 'remain' campaign are scaremongering the public by saying an EU exit would cause a drop in house prices. This is surely a good thing!

Leaving the European Union would also remove a plethora of regulations to do with housing, and give at least some control of our economy back to the British Government meaning, at least in theory, that tariffs could be implemented to protect British industry and jobs. That is a big but however, considering that the same types in bed with our national Governments, also pull the strings in the EU. But we can only have hope at this stage. Perhaps ridding ourselves of the European Union would also make the politicians consider their commitments to those poorer areas in the UK too, and hopefully do their part to rejuvenate them instead of spunking all of our money up a wall on nonsense European projects. Whilst entire towns and cities in the UK suffer poverty, the British Government funds art projects in Germany, or Syrian migrant accommodation on Lesbos. The time has come to put our own children first for a change.

Whilst short-term, leaving the European Union may have some economic hurdles, it should be clear that long-term, the best bet for the younger people in society is to get control of our country from Brussels so they can one day own their own property, have actual careers and start their own families.

The Haavara Agreement & The Balfour Declaration

As the "antisemitism"  row continues within the UK Labour party, it is somewhat ironic to see those who were once described as "anti-racists" working within Labour backed organisations such as Hope not Hate and Unite Against Fascism, to now be accused of practicing what they've preached about for years. Ken Livingstone, former London mayor for Labour and honourary president of the UAF,  has recently got himself into trouble for making the bizarre claim that "Hitler was a zionist".

It seems inconceivable with all that we've learned about Hitler and his regime that he would support Zionism, which is a philosophy which very much supports a form of world-wide political domination by Jews. In fact it is inconceivable. Any theory which supports the idea that Hitler was somehow working for Jews is nonsense, however there is a very small nugget of truth hidden somewhere in the mix that perhaps the Israeli supporter would not be entirely comfortable with. The mass-media of this country however seems to be pouring so much time into character assassinating those dubbed antisemitic, that they seem to be ignoring any facts they're stating. Perhaps they do this out of fear that the lesser-known information against Israel becomes mainstream.

Whilst we should perhaps refrain from feeling sorry for those who have done much to stifle free-speech through the actions of 'anti-racism' organisations over the years, we should at least come forward and say where and when they're correct.

NSDAP & The Havaara Agreement

So impressed were the NSDAP with how well theagreement was going, a special commemorative
coin was minted in Germany to celebrate the
partnership between them and Zionists in Palestine.

The average person who possesses no further knowledge on how the persecution of Jews began in Germany, would be forgiven for thinking that it began randomly with the boycott of Jewish goods  on the 1st of April, 1933. What is rarely cited is that the German's boycott was in fact a retaliation to a Jewish led boycott that began a month earlier. 

With the German economy still in much disarray after two decades of severe economic sanctions as a result of the treaty of Versailles, the German administration was concerned about the implications of wider economic sanctions and the damage that they could do to Germany's recovery. If anything, the animosity towards Jews was acerbated by a large group of international Zionists who desired to see Germany's economy fall flat. 

A desire to rid Germany of Jews altogether led to an unlikely agreement between the NSDAP and a small group of Zionist interests however (there were different camps within the Zionist movement, and they did not always agree with one another.) The Haavara Agreement, was a resettlement programme whereby German Jews were willingly repatriated to Palestine. This system was funded by those who emigrated, their wealth in Germany was liquidated by the German state, and partly returned to them on the understanding that they brought German goods to export to Palestine once they arrived in their new homeland. This agreement helped German economy in that it kept some profit coming in for German exporters, and some in the Zionist lobby were pleased that the flow of Jewish immigrants back to Palestine could one day populate a homogeneous Jewish state in Israel, which eventually it obviously did.

The agreement ceased with the outbreak of war in 1939 however.

Whilst some might see a connection between the aggressive nature of Israel's border expansion and war-time Germany, the 60,000 Jews who relocated to Palestine were of little consequence in the creation of the state of Israel. 

The Balfour Agreement

A newspaper clipping at the time.

Israel had been an agreed goal of the British in the Balfour Agreement during WWI in 1917. With the French and British losing WWI and Germany being kind enough to offer the Allies terms in 1916, it seems the only way to keep Britain in the war was by keeping certain international financiers sweet who were predominately Jewish, some of whom happened to be incredibly pro-Zionist. The Balfour Agreement was a letter of intent from the British Government to a member of the Rothschild family in the UK, explaining how the British would honour a deal for the creation of an Israeli state.

Considering the incredible amount of money that the British were borrowing from America at that time, it is perhaps conceivable to suspect a conspiracy was occurring during such a tumultuous time. The American economy, through the recently created Federal Reserve in 1913, was very much under Zionist authority with an alliance of the Rockerfeller, Morgan, Warburg and Rothschild dynasties sitting on it's committee. Given that it was America that Britain looked to for it's funding requirements, the decision to offer Israel to the Zionists was more than likely part of a deal, rather than a separate issue, given that at that time, much of Levant was in total chaos.

Whilst any rational human will think the concept of deliberately keeping WWI going was insanity, the truth is that it was massively profitable for many types of industry, and hence politicians can be bribed by said interests into artificially fighting a pointless war. Even more insane is the fact the same banking dynasties that were funding the allies, were also funding the German war machine too.

When WWI ended, the treaty of Versailles was brought in against Germany. This effectively wringed their economy and made most of their revenue payable to the various financiers that had been funding both sides under the monumental amount of reparations it was forced to pay. Germany was also humiliated into accepting sole responsibility for WWI, which simply wasn't true, and by the fact that much of it's territory had been annexed by the newly formed state of Czechoslovakia, with other territories given over to Poland and France. It is often said that the harshness of the treaty of Versailles was what led to the election of the hardline NSDAP. Hitler and many others, blamed the predominately Jewish financiers for their hand in humiliating the German people.

Despite the British giving word to the Zionist world that they would be supporting the formation of Israel, they clearly saw what an issue they would have facilitating this change in an area that was already inhabited by Arabs. With the help of the United Nations, the British tried to partition Palestine as fairly as possible, however Zionist terrorists waged a campaign of bombings and murders, essentially because they wanted the Arabs out, and wanted to claim the entire country for themselves.

Looking at Israel today in 2016, it's clear that the same ruthlessness exists as they unironically declare all Palestinians terrorists, whilst ignoring it's own terrorist past, or indeed the actions of it's well-financed and well-armed military. 

Conclusion

No, Hitler was not a Zionist. Far from it. Considering Hitler confiscated Jewish wealth, including that of the Rothschild dynasty, you would be hard-pressed to claim otherwise. The modest contribution to Jewish settlers that the Haavara Agreement made, would not have in anyway contributed to the troubles that eventually engulfed Palestine. Perhaps ironically, the decision to create Israel had already been made back during the previous World War, as part of a deal which eventually led to the German nation being humiliated and ready for war again twenty years later.
Had Britain been willing to accept peace talks with Germany in 1916 instead of dealing with the Zionist Rothschilds in America, the outcome of European, Jewish and indeed world history today might be very different today.

Churchill: The Unexpected Europhile

A few weeks ago now the mayor of London, Boris Johnson who has been openly supporting the Brexit campaign, found himself in a spot of bother after he spoke about Barack Obama's speech on the UK and the European Union. Obama had, as some might expect, supported the UK remaining apart of the EU, prompting anger for many Britons after the thinly veiled threat made by the president about the trading repercussions should Britain choose to break away.

Boris Johnson found himself under attack after suggesting that maybe Obama's Kenyan ancestry was partly the reason for the US president's Anti-British and Pro-EU attitude, arguing that the removal of a Churchill statue that had been in the White House before Obama's inauguration was evidence of this. The London mayor claimed that Churchill had "fought for democracy in Europe" adding that the EU today threatened Britain's democratic process. 

What sort of a democracy though? The grandson of Winston Churchill, serving MP Nicholas Soames, said that Boris Johnson's claim was appalling, adding that it was “inconceivable” that his grandfather would not have welcomed Obama’s views on the EU.

So who is right on this? The popular, yet misconstrued fictitious character of Churchill we are often given today is that he was the isolationist yet plucky Englishman who dared to defend the British realm from would-be invaders. Someone whom would have wholeheartedly rejected the on-going formation of an ever-closer political union within Europe. Yet that is a facade, probably born out of post-war propaganda intended to cheer up a war-weary nation. Churchill's grandson Soames is correct, Churchill was not anti-Europe in the slightest, in fact he was at the forefront of the agenda to create a unified European state.

This may come as a shock to some, especially in the pro-Brexit lobby. There are many instances where "little Englanders" use Churchill quotes and imagery to give their point of view more of a political punch, but most of these quotes are either taken out of context or entirely fabricated. 

“We have our own dream and our own task.  We are with Europe, but not of it.  We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.  If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”

This above quote is shared often through social media, it's aim presumably to give credence to a isolationist view point, the problem is that Churchill never said this. At least not at the same time, anyway. This quote is a hodgepodge of different quotes disingenuously seamed together to make something altogether different. The first four lines in the above quote were published in an American paper Saturday Evening Post, written by Churchill himself in 1930. The last line was uttered by him during an argument between Churchill and De Gaulle, where he was explaining how he has a preference for working with the United States over France. It's obvious now that Churchill's personal conviction on Europe changed over the following decades. 

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, an important but
hidden figure in the creation of the EU.

During the 1920s and early 1930s, the most prominent proponent of a unified European Union was a man named Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His published thesis called "Practical Idealism" published in Vienna in 1925, was well received by the aristocracy of Europe, and through substantial funding from some well-known (some might argue infamous) financial institutions including the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Zionist leaders including Theodore Herzl, the Pan-European agenda was born.

The European Coudenhove-Kalegi Plan, as it is sometimes dubbed, involved the gradual removal of all borders from Europe, a unified military and economy and the creation of a European Parliament and legal system. With all of these more or less achieved in 2016, perhaps people will take the last goal of the pan-European agenda seriously, as it was theorised that they would eventually wipe out all European genetic homogenity. With the borders today opened to millions of North Africans and those living in the Middle East (not to mention the ongoing integration of Turkey into the European community) the agenda to essentially ethnically cleanse Europeans out of existence has to be looked at with some credence.
After all, Coudenhove Kalergi himself wrote the following in the book Practical  Idealism:

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews."

Given that the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl was a family friend of Kalergi's, the above passage drips with a sort of Jewish Supremacist viewpoint, not to mention a racist pro-genocidal intent for all those who are not themselves a wealthy Jew! The beliefs he wrote on this subject go much further than this, but it is up to the reader to pursue more information on it, as quoting too much might frighten off any prospective truth-seeker on the matter!

So why is Kalergi important here when discussing Churchill? 

It would be easy to dismiss Kalergi as a radical who's views today are out of date and which were for the most part irrelevant even when they were written. Unfortunately this is not the case, as his Pan-European agenda and the later Pan-European Congress turned out to be only a stepping stone towards the eventual European Union that we have today.

Within the pan-European and later on, European Union leadership, there has been an annual award given to the individual who has pushed the European agenda the furthest throughout the last 12 months.  Called the Charlemagne Prize, contemporary winners of this award over the last decade or so include well known European leaders such as Herman Von Rompuy, Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel, to name but a few. The very first winner of this award in 1950 however was awarded to one Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His importance in the creation of today's union was immense, but it is incredibly rare that the mass-media or education system of today should name him. I'm afraid it's up to you as a reader to decide as to why this might be the case.

Kalergi's autobiography with
a preface by Churchill.

Both Churchill and De Gaulle became close friends of Kalergi, Churchill even wrote the preface to Kalergi's autobiography which was ominously entitled "An Idea Conquers the World" (which like Practical Idealism, is also mysteriously out of print.) Churchill in his later years became wholly committed to the formation of a European super-state. 

Whilst it is widely unheard of today, faced with the prospect of Germany scuppering the pan-European agenda as they advanced into French territory in 1940, a last minute attempt at a political Anglo-French Union was tried, which despite failing due to political disagreement, makes clear that many of the leaders at that time were well aware of the long-term Europe-wide plan. It has been conjectured that had the deal been offered earlier, the British and French Governments would have had the time to make the necessary amendments that could have seen the deal signed. The wording of the declaration of Union, approved by the British Cabinet which could have been signed by the French the following day read as follows:

The Anglo-French stamp that was being designed for a political
union between France and Britain in 1940.

"France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France."

In 1948, Winston Churchill said “We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved.” Perhaps that is why, despite Brexiters today conflating Churchill with an undying 'little Englander' philosophy, that Churchill too, like Kalergi, won the Charlemagne prize in 1956. The sobering reality is that Churchill was no isolationist, he was a globalist who fought for globalist interests.