These pages have been designed using Internet Explorer - they may not display correctly in other Browsers.

The Churchill Society

The greatest actions of men or nations are spontaneous and instinctive.
They do not result from nice calculations or long processes of thought.
They happen as if nothing could help them happening.
The heart, as the French say,
has reasons which the reason does not know.

Winston Churchill
July 4th 1918


Search the web site.

Contact the society.

A Single Currency
and the
European Union

Churchill would Fight
Churchill would be Right

Norman Harvey Rogers

(Written in January 1995).


There are considerable doubts now as to whether the present plans for a single European Currency are feasible within the planned Maastricht Treaty timetable.

If the new parliament has to decide whether or not to join the single currency system, our nation will have arrived - as it did in 1914, and 1939, - at yet another 20th century momentous time of decision; and the question then becomes a far bigger issue than just finance. We will have to decide the astonishing question:-

Who Rules Britain?

To those who fought in the last war such a question is incomprehensible.

It was British soldiers who, in spite of being driven into the sea at Dunkirk, ensured that the stolen Title Deeds of all the countries overrun by the Nazi's - including Germany's - were returned eventually to their rightful owners - the ordinary people of those countries - made possible with the aid of many allies; who after a five year life and death struggle, regained the freedom of all people to decide for themselves . . . Who Rules?

To prove the point, as soon as the European war was won the British - typically - put the matter to the proof, by summarily dismissing Churchill!

It is always fascinating to imagine what great English statesmen of the past would think about contemporary political events.

Even as an old man, Churchill still retained his capacity to update his knowledge and opinions and could learn and adjust to new ideas better than his younger political colleagues.

Were he alive today, he would be immensely pleased and relieved at the ending of the cold war and the renewal of our friendship with Russia. But his thoughts would be anxiously occupied with the British political battle about the EEC and he would be leading the national debate.

There is no doubt he would view with great alarm the very considerable loss of parliamentary sovereignty that has already taken place, and with even greater alarm the implications of handing control of the nation's finances to people outside this country.

That to him could only be the act of a madman or traitors: traitors to our grandparents and their forebears who through the long and ancient aisles of British history, had - at often grievous cost - won all the many different freedoms that we enjoy and take for granted today: traitors to our children and grandchildren for having robbed them of their priceless inheritance.

The proposal to destroy sterling and jointly create in its place a single European currency would be so incomprehensible to him that he would be in a state of shock and disbelief.

He would consider it a threat of such magnitude to the safety and future well being of the UK, that he would not only verbally fight it tooth and nail but would physically fight to stop it.

He would describe the fight as


To him, the loss of the battle would be the end of the British nation.

It is sensible for THE CHURCHILL SOCIETY to set down why Churchill would probably react in this manner; trusting that this will help clarify for younger people the great and fundamental issues which are at stake.

What would Churchill - the fervent patriot - and yet one who considered himself to be a citizen of the world - the great statesman who delivered the famous Zurich speech we reprint here . . . . . . . What would he think about the present state of Britain, Europe, and the world today?

With his sturdy radical and independent outlook, he would recall the last words in his Zurich speech . . . . . . .

"Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America,and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine".

To remind younger people of how the story of the European Union all began, and to bring its its subsequent 50 year history into perspective; we reproduce in the Web Map INDEX section, the full text of Mr Churchill's 1946 Zurich speech entitled;



I9th September 1946

and a Chronology of the European Economic Community and a schematic diagram of how the European Union works.

As you will read, his original plan was for a 'family' of European nations to which Gt Britain "would be a friend and sponsor" and where - but only when absolutely necessary - the members would pool some of their sovereignty to achieve ends for the benefit of all, that could not otherwise be achieved.

As you will read Churchill never contemplated a European future in which the British Parliament was anything less than the British people's supreme and only law maker, or in which Gt Britain would become a European offshore province with continental politicians deciding our laws.

Standing at his high desk at Chartwell, Churchill, (with always uppermost in his mind, the preservation of peace) might have jotted down . . .

'War or Peace - would the planned Federal structure of the EU prevent or cause war?'

He would look back into history; and then peer anxiously into the mists of the future to try and assess whether - were one EU member nation to decide to tear up her membership and leave - whether that event might trigger a European Union American style civil war.


12th April 1861 - 9th April 1865

618,000 soldiers killed (360,022 North - 258,00 South) .

Never able to forget the terrible consequences of war Churchill would be alert to any possibility of it - or terrorism - the modern method of Civil War.

He would reflect the swollen discontent and disillusion with the Common Market which so frequently results in acts of lawlessness in ill humoured France today. This would lead him to consider the greater likely discontents of the poorer European Union Member Countries, (and less politically mature peoples) and whether they might erupt in IRA or Basque style discontent and commit acts of terrorism.

On the 14th January 1963, two years before Churchill died, France, led by President De Gaulle, announced that she would veto the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community.

Had Churchill been alive and active in politics during the next decade he surely would have argued that whilst the UK was very happy to co-operate in Free Trade matters, but that any proposal that Gt Britain should join a European Parliament was unthinkable, as the political independence of Gt Britain was not negotiable.

Were he alive today he would undoubtably say that the present EU political pandemonium has been caused - yet again -

'by the failure of the Conservative Party to place the absolute independence of Gt Britain at the centre of its political philosophy; and that this is also the root cause of the British people's loss of their historic vision. That a political union of European countries is impossible, and if attempted, will end in a spectacular crash causing immense antagonisms'.

He would remind us . . . .

'that the European Parliamentary system is wholly foreign to the British parliamentary system of government; permitting only its bureaucrats to initiate legislation - not MEPs : and that in so doing; it makes all the MEP's subservient to bureaucrats, and the European Parliament superior to the British Parliament'.

This he would never, never, NEVER accept.

He would jot down more notes. He would remind us - using his own former words . . .

"of the great inheritance in our possession which represents the prolonged achievement of the centuries; that there is not one of our simple uncounted rights today for which better men than we are have not died on the scaffold or the battlefield"

He would insist that . . . .

'we should mutiny against the servitude our political parties are leading us into in a Federal European Union'.

That we should . . . .

'not flinch from our duty to fight to go back into the natural environment of a sea girt isle - our former oceanic commercial role; using our native skill, dexterity, and mercantile judgment to buy or manufacture in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, just as the successful and independent Norwegian, Singaporean, Hong Kong and Swiss peoples do - ie, trading freely world wide in open and fair competition with anyone'.

Churchill would assure us that . . . . .

'we are no more incapable today than we were 100 years ago . . . and that . . . . . . those who assert to the contrary do so from a regard to their own self interest'.

Knowing how wars happen suddenly; he would be astonished to find himself even considering - let alone underlining his notes . . . .

'That under no circumstances could the UK contemplate European restraint upon British Armed Forces that only a British protective hand should cover the British nuclear button'.

How amazingly . . . and delightfully . . . out of date this remark sounds in 1995!

He would anxiously enquire . . . .

What is the UK's relationship with the USA, with the UN and with NATO?

Does the UK still cherish that special relationship? Do members of the EEC still resent it, and if so, why?

He would see with joy and immense relief how European children had for so long now been been able to grow up in what he promised if we were faithful to our duty in the war -

"the sunlit uplands".

He would rejoice in the recent events in Russia and the former Iron Curtain countries: but examine anxiously those in the Balkans - the latter having such familiar echoes from his early political life.

He would make a note . . .

'not to under-rate the threat of continued ethnic conflicts there. . .

and jot down how important was . . .

'the speedy incorporation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech & Slovak Republics - into the Europe's economic and trading structures'.

He would note the serious implications of the failure of (firstly) German and then European state craft to have prevented the recent tragedies in the former Yugoslavia. He would examine why Great Britain had had so little influence for good upon these horrible and distressing reoccurrences of European racial hatred.

Nor would he underrate . . . . .

'the threat of terrorism to the West by the rise of Islamic militancy'.

He would privately caution the government of the day again and again . . . . .

'that the Secret Service must be ever be alert to the threat of political blackmail from a terrorist group using a DIY nuclear device, or from germ or electronic terrorism'.

He would examine with the greatest concern the latest CIA report that . . . . .

"Of the nations that have or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction, many are led by megalomaniacs and strong men of proven inhumanity or by weak, unstable or illegitimate governments and that by the end of the decade, we could see over 20 countries with ballistic missiles, 9 with nuclear weapons, 10 with biological weapons, and up to 30 with chemical weapons.

In some instances, the potential capabilities at the command of these unpredictable men is more destructive than the Soviet threat to the West in the 1960s."

Publicly he would say that we would be . . .

'mad to allow any future European Political Union to possess a veto over our use of our military forces', and that we 'should never relax our guard or become complacent about the risks of nuclear war'.

He would recall how he had originally spoken of a permanent alliance between the United States and Britain, and how as a consequence the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation came into being and . . . . . again and again emphasise . . . .

'how important it is that we nurture the Alliance because it was the ONLY way to ensure European and therefore world peace'.

Were he alive today he would remind us . . . . .

'that as America has the resources, technology and capital, she is the natural leader of the West. So long as she remains in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the West remains a great stabilising power for good in the world'.

That recent events in Bosnia proved that were America to lose interest in NATO, the European Union would not find solutions to renewed European ethnic conflicts . . .

'that the constant nurturing of the Atlantic Alliance ensures European stability and the substantial flow of capital into the new central European democracies and thus their stability'.

He would speak about . . . . .

'the great importance of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area and how important it is to widen it further to the great commercial advantage of not only Europe but all the surrounding underdeveloped countries'.

He would ask himself . . . . . .

'why are the European politicians stampeding everyone into what they now call - without permission of the people - the European Union?

Why so much urgency? . . . .

'why is time not allowed to pass to allow new political and collective governmental institutions to evolve at a less stressful and more natural pace?'

He would observe how . . . . . . .

'the benefits of the Common Market can be seen to have been grossly exaggerated'.

Churchill would query what was behind it all?.

He would scorn as a myth, the assumption that our national sovereignty - gained at such cost over 1,000 years of political evolution . . .

'is worth trading for an unknown, unproven European Union collective economic benefit'.

He would jot down to remind us . . . .

'of the dire results that all forms of collectivism have had this century'.

He would be appalled to realise that if the present course were continued by Parliament . . . .

'within five or six years, no political party would rule Britain: its governance would be that of a province ruled from Brussels under an anonymous tyranny of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats'.

He would be alarmed at British apathy and how they do not realise that the nation's very existence is again under imminent threat.

How once again the easy going British people had been . . . . . . .

'hypnotised by people pleasing political pundits with vote catching 'soft in the heart - and soft in the head' rhetoric - and the politicians had bored them insensate - into a 1938 type sleepwalking trance; which, if they be not awakened in time, will deliver them them bound and gagged into the tyranny of a European majority'.

He would see he the politician's old trick of 'name changing' to get their way; and how the Common Market was changed without permission to the European Economic Community . . then was changed - again without permission - to the European Community and then again without permission to the European Union.


He would recall his war time quip . . . .

'Experts on tap - not on top!'

He would observe how the ideas he promulgated for Europe's future peace and prosperity long before many others had thought about the subject, were in danger of . . . .

'taking the United Kingdom far beyond anything he had envisaged'.

He would observe that whilst all the countries formerly under Russian domination had so eagerly reclaimed, and now cherished their independence; the British, to his amazement, are now, . . . .

'after a century in which so much blood has been shed to preserve our - and other countries independence; were (uncharacteristically) today so indifferent to our own'.

He would know he had to forcefully denounce this . . .

'hand over by stealth of UK power and independence to the EU'

by British politicians. He would know that unless he - with other like minded politicians of all parties - did not . . . . .

'speak out against the national drift and awaken the British public from their apathy; that like the 1930's; it would lead to disaster which might end with the disintegration of the United Kingdom'.

He would scribble down memorable phrases that would sturdily debunk . . . . today's . .

'group thinking' and 'media hype', as the certain indicators of pending disasters just they were prior to the Stock Market mania before the 1987 crash; the debacle of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and the years of deceit about - and then collapse of - Lloyds.

He would vividly remind the people, of Britain's long history of independence and . . .

rouse our flagging consciousness and pride in being English - something that until a few years ago was universal and unquestioned:

and he would contemptuously brush aside the arrogant and imposing prejudices his views would subject him to.


Churchill, more than most politicians, would know how political attitudes and battles are fought under false banners and that when stripped of their many different guises, politics is always about money.

He would state that the debate about the Single Currency is under a false banner, being in truth no debate at all, but masked from public view is in fact about . . . .

Who Rules?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune"

Those who control the Single Currency

Rule the European Union.

He would remind us how . . .

'the very institution of parliament was originally founded to control the money excesses of the Sovereign - and that it is absurd that other countries should have any - let alone equal - voting rights to the United Kingdom in such matters'.

He would note that . . . .

'the idea for a single currency is essentially a political symbol of a European State which does not exist . . . except in the heads of giddy unelected bureaucrats and MsEP and the notion should be relegated to where it belongs . . . the realm of day dreams.

He would note how all the European legislators are unelected and how the . .

'the unelected always become the 'masters' . . . of the the elected, but never cease to describe themselves as the 'servants' of the people.

He would observe the . . .

'EEC interference in peoples lives amounts to a perpetual, anonymous and arrogant tyranny'.

He would warn of how . . . .

'watch dogs can become become wolves'.

He would think about how . . .

'inflation has been the cause of so many of the curses heaped upon the peoples of Europe in the 20th century'.

He would find another Prof Lindemann to calculate how reduced in comparable purchasing power today would be the pre war majestic white 8 inch by 5 inch crisp £5 note. He would then be told . . . . that if compared in physical size - then in 1995 it would be smaller than a postage stamp.

In answer to his urgent queries about how much purchasing power it had lost he would be informed that in 1945, £29.0s.10d would buy what £1,000 will today (1995). (source: ONS). That in 1938, the purchasing power of the pound was worth 21 Swiss francs. Now it's only worth 1.87. and how during this entire period the 'hard' Swiss franc had kept its value, but the pound had lost 90% of its value: and how sterling's value had fallen by 3.3% every year since 1981. (source: FT) and he would be told that at this rate in 15 years' time, the money in our pockets will buy just half of what it buys now.

Churchill would never have believed it possible that British people would for a moment even consider the possibility that . . . . .

'decisions relating to their wages, taxation, mortgage and bank interest rates, and gold deposits, might be jointly decided with European politicians'.

He would be alarmed at the prospect that monetary union - ie the single currency - to be called the the Euro (the new name for the ecu) may well replace sterling in less than three years' time, and our money and pensions be devalued as simply and quietly as happened when they abolished our centuries old pints, yards, and decimalised our former pounds, shillings and pence.

He would jot down in the notes for his new speeches how . . . .

'history proves time and time again, that it is not the people who cause inflation - though the politicians always blame the people - but only rulers; that by their mystification of money they bedevil our lives, our industry and independence - for it is only they who are able to debase the mintage - when unable to honestly finance their electoral promises from taxation'.

Churchill would continually be asking himself. . . .

'Just why are all these European nations so eager to surrender their independence when all the nations behind the former Iron Curtain rejoice today in the recovery of their nationhood? Is it to prevent (or wage?) economic warfare?'

Churchill would observe how today, politicians no longer teach the people.

Churchill would know that in the European Union today the real political battle is the unspoken one of money, ie, the unseen manipulation of the voters by control over the currency and the historic and unceasing battle of

'Free Trade versus Protectionism'.

a battle that to him - and his father Lord Randolph - is the old and so familiar one of industrialists secretly forcing the politicians to protect their profits to avoid having to honestly compete in world markets.

He would jot down (all familiar grist in his lifetime's political diet) how . . . .

'Protectionism has been the cause of so much European conflict . . . .

How . . .

'How Free Trade is always a stillness in the midst of storms;

How Free Trade illuminates dark places.

How free trade enriches the poorer nations as well as ourselves'.

How Free Trade is about Free Men.

How Free Trade requires no laws and wrongs no man'.

'How world wide Free Trade is the surest way to world peace'.

He would not fail to point to the European Court of Auditors statement that . . .

'that EEC high tariff anti-free trade policies were run in such a way as could be properly described as a 'fraudster's paradise'.

He would find the existing EU tariff walls dishonourable and the absence of complete Free Trade a sad feature of the European Union; and how it . . .

'impoverishes further the poorer countries of the world'.

Why a Single Currency, he would ask? . . .

'Why not allow all the European Union currencies be legal tender in any country and compete?'

He would argue . . . . . .

'forget political union with all its problems, just let it be the largest possible European Free Trade Area, ie, just a European Association (the EA) with each nation's currency being legal tender in any of the countries and all commercial activities (including a free market in gold and the printing of money), all competing in a complete free enterprise?'

He would know that . . . .

'the public will use the currency which retains it purchasing power and offers the best interest terms'.

In this way competition between the currencies will ensure that none are debased. This being something that hitherto the politicians have never allowed the public to think possible.

He would say that . . . .

'it is a neat - simple - workable - cost free - competitive - free enterprise - self regulating - non governmental - anti inflation - currency control system and each nation's reputation for financial probity would then be their most jealously guarded asset'.

Churchill would jot down further notes -

How, for 500 hundred years Britain has stood for the following principles

Common sense - as opposed to doctrinaire ideology.

Freedom for all nations based upon the consent of their peoples.

Preserving the territorial integrity of every nation in Europe by ensuring a balance of power in Europe.

    He would point out . . .
      'the folly of those who claim that size is everything and that if you do not belong to a very large trading area you are doomed to poverty'.

    In refutation he would point out to the economic success stories of the last 25 years belong to Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Norway all of whom are trading independently of each other.

    How . . . .

      'the highest per capita income in Europe is in Switzerland and she has no natural resources, no oil or gas, and is not in the European Union'.

    How . . . .

      'in a fast moving world, changes in commercial policies have to be swift - and how this is impossible in the European Union'.

    Churchill would conclude that the only safe way out of the present European political entanglements - and to ensure peace in Europe - is to . . .

      're-establish the supremacy of the British Parliament forthwith'.

    Only then can we continue with the original European idea . . . .

      'to pursue genuine Free Trade and conservation policies'. Then the British people would learn then just how profound their influence could be upon it.

    Being ever a radical Churchill would seek an analyses of why the European Court of Justice had ruled against the UK 41 times in 23 years years, knowing that from the results, there would be some important lessons for the British to learn.

The Monarchy.

    Turning to the domestic political scene he would sigh deeply, pour another whisky, light another cigar and confirm his staunch belief . . .
      'that in the institution of the Monarchy, the British people held a priceless protective constitutional inheritance . . . . and the the European political union was a deadly threat to it'.

    He would ponder long and hard . . . .

      'What ails this once great and upright nation?'

      'Why do Englishmen now live without any reference to their forbears and their illustrious past?

      'Where has gone the nation's unquestioned sense of political, mercantile and national independence and why are parents not instilling both it and a robust fortitude into their children?

      'Why do the British no longer respect traditional and moral values?

    I feel sure he would conclude the cause to be . . . . .

      'That 25 years of parliamentary debasement of the coinage had inevitably debased moral standards.

    He would be sorrowful that so much insecurity stalks the lives of so many people - especially children in marriages that fail.

    He would observe how over this period . . . .

      'inflation had undermined and then tested to breaking point the trust of the people in their political and financial institutions: and how this in turn had affected family values and the peoples confidence in being British.

    He would be startled at the extent of immigration that has taken place since he died and examine the effect of this upon native population.

    He would find out the true extent of illegal immigration and study why political parties will not acknowledge its prevalence and why they fear to debate immigration openly.

    He would argue that . . .

      'this failure denies to both the native and immigrant peoples equal rights of security and opportunities'.

    He would argue . . .

      'that failure to honestly debate legal immigration is political cowardice - a betrayal of ALL the people; leaving everyone silently fearful, suspicious and angry.

    He would argue . . . .

      'that a parliamentary debate would relax tensions so that everyone could express their fears and know that they were to be seriously listened to. That only then could parliament and people work together to resolve the problems'.

    He would argue . . . .

    'that failure to do so will lead to civil war'.

    He would point to the steadfast devotion shown by Her Majesty the Queen throughout her reign to all the Commonwealth peoples and he would argue that the safe and happy way forward in the UK is for us all to follow her example.

    He would examine the effect upon the moral fibre of the nation of television.

    He would anxiously enquire into why such a large segment of the population has become so dependent upon agents, therapists, counsellors, social workers, and a hundred other busybodies.

    Why so many people were uncouth. Why there are so many teenage pregnancies. Why there was so much casual drug use and drug addiction. Why today not a week goes by without a child or an adult being raped or murdered.

    He would seek advice about the effects of certain TV programmes - which as he predicted when he saw the first TV programme in 1939 . . . would become . .

      'tuppeny ha'penny peep shows'.

    and what evil commercial and (mis)management forces were at play that cajoled actors and actresses to prostitute their art (and themselves) into portraying copulation in public.

    He would enquire why - in an age of unparalleled prosperity - so many of our towns and cities remain so leafless, ugly, dirty, and noisy; and why the countryside is now so shorn of mature trees. No doubt he would advocate massive and urgent hardwood replanting.

    He would ask himself . . . .

      'Have the people become so disheartened by their leaders; and their hopes for change so thwarted, that their indifference to the loss of the nation's independence is a sullen rebellion against the class ridden establishment, with its divisive titles and 'honours' system . . . .

    to which - until the new Queen begged me . . .

      "I was also averse to?"

    He would ask himself. . .

      What has happened to the ancient British genius for gently moulding outworn institutions into acceptable modern ones?


In trying to place myself into Churchill's mind - an impossible enterprise - let me conclude by saying that . . . .

England can only remain England when by courage and address it reclaims its absolute political independence and once more makes a virtue of . . .

The Union of the United Kingdom,
The Supremacy of Parliament.
Maintaining the integrity of Sterling.
Protecting the rights of minorities.
World Wide Free Trade.
Minimum government
Maximum local self government

Failure to follow these policies, and our grandchildren will say, that we - not they - should have been the ones sobered by misfortune.


About The Churchill Society

The Christmas Lectures

Sale of Downing Street Churchill Portrait

Something to astonish you!

Chronology of the EEC

The nature of our National Sovereignty






Search the web site.

Contact the society.


To purchase an 80 minute CD of
Churchill's War Time Speeches
(one is given free to new members)


To purchase a Bust of Churchill.


To purchase the Double CD (or Tape Cassette) of


Reviews of The Churchill Music.



(All the profits go towards the society's educational work).




Internet pages provide general information only.

Whilst we make every endeavour to check our facts, mistakes do occur.

The society cannot be held liable for any special, direct, indirect or consequential damages.

It is your responsibility to verify the accuracy of any information supplied by e mail
or contained on any of these pages.