The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive

by Christopher Booker, Richard North

A new edition of Continuum's best selling book revised and amended to address all the issues of the forthcoming Referendum and the publication of the new EU Constitution. The first edition of "The Great Deception" was one of Continuum's biggest selling books. It told the true story of the origins and history of the European Union- revealing all the deception and skulduggery involved. Now with the publication of the new European Constitution, Christopher Booker and Richard North have condensed some of the early history in order to make space for an examination of the new European Constitution and to argue that in it are all the tricks and traps at the heart of this European Idea and the disastrous consequences.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Contemporary, Economics

643 pages, Paperback

First published November 13, 2003

About the author

Christopher John Penrice Booker is an English journalist and author.

Reviews

[Ken Bell · Rating 5 out of 5]

When the first edition of Christopher Booker and Richard North’s The Great Deception was published in 2003 it received very few reviews in the mainstream press. Instead, much of its publicity came about by word of mouth amongst men and women who met in hired rooms above pubs to discuss the campaign against the EU. Dog-eared copies would be pulled out of bags to allow speakers to reference something, and then people who had not read the work would be encouraged to go and buy a copy.

The lack of the usual publicity for a major work like this brings us rather nicely to the theme that runs through the over 600 pages of Booker & North’s fourth edition of the work, published in 2021: that Britain joined what became the European Union and then remained in it for decades based upon deceit and obfuscation. It amounted to a conspiracy by the political elite of all the main parties against their own members and voters.

Even today the brazenness of it all leaves the reader stunned. Edward Heath wrote in his memoirs, quoted by Booker & North: “The bedrock of European union is the consent of the people.” However, the people’s acquiescence was based upon deceit, and it took them many decades before they realised the totality of that deception.

So, Britain was kept out of Europe in the 1960s until the French had managed to create the Common Agricultural Policy that favoured their inefficient peasant farmers. Once that had been done, French objections vanished as they needed someone to help pay the subsidies that the CAP needed. When Heath started Britain’s entry negotiations starting in 1970 that was quietly forgotten about and so was the newly minted Common Fisheries Policy that allowed foreign boats into British waters. The Norwegians balked at that, but Heath was willing to take any terms that were offered to him and conceal the truth of what he was doing to the people.

Getting this travesty through Parliament involved more deception. Labour, as the party of the industrial working class, could not be seen to support British entry, so its leader Harold Wilson pretended to oppose the bill’s passage whilst at the same time giving a nod and a wink to the Labour MPs who were willing to conspire with the government and against their own people. “At the heart of the plot was a red book, kept by Labour whip John Roper… He guaranteed there would be just enough Labour abstentions for the government to win every vote. But to stop the vote-rigging being noticed and creating embarrassment for the Labour Party he varied the abstentions.” The bill passed and as Tony Benn summarised, it amounted to “a coup d’état by a political class who did not believe in popular sovereignty.”

A couple of years later it was Labour’s turn to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Wilson who became Prime Minister in 1974 went through the farce of pretending to renegotiate the terms of entry, something which Brussels was only too happy to play along with. Nothing changed, but Wilson was able to pretend that they had and because people did not believe in those innocent days that British politicians could lie so shamelessly he got away with it. The 1975 referendum was largely won because “good old Harold” told the people that he had got them a good deal and people like Christopher Booker cast their ballots in favour of staying in. As did I, come to think about it.

Fast forward to 2015 and David Cameron tried to same trick that had worked for Harold Wilson of pretending to renegotiate the terms of membership and then put the resulting fantasy to the people in a referendum which he hoped to win with smoke and mirrors, as had Wilson forty years earlier. Cameron failed, not because he was any less astute than Wilson, but because people just did not believe him. They had learned in the long decades after 1975 not to believe anything that any pro-EU figure said without checking and then double-checking his words.

The Rogue Parliament period from 2017 to 2019 was roughly a larger version of the conspiracy that had allowed Heath to take us into Europe in the first place. Labour MPs joined with their Tory opposite numbers to pretend that they were merely scrutinising Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with Brussels, whereas in fact they wanted to subvert it and keep the country as a province of the EU.

The Great Deception is at its weakest when dealing with this period. It may be due to the untimely death of Christopher Booker in 2019, but more likely it is because the people involved in that period are not yet willing to talk openly about their schemes. The guilty men of 1973 were more than willing to talk about their conspiracy in a 1996 BBC documentary called The Poisoned Chalice, and Booker & North relied heavily on that four-part series in The Great Deception. It may be that we must wait for a few more years until the full story of the roguish times is known.

For the earlier years from Harold MacMillan’s time right up to the 2016 referendum, The Great Deception sits on solid, well-researched ground. It demonstrates how each government and every Prime Minister helped weaken the United Kingdom and increase the centralising powers of Brussels. That is especially true of Margaret Thatcher, who in spite of what her minions cry, was as much an EU centraliser as any of them.

Now that the EU is something that future British historians will argue about, The Great Deception stands as a warning to generations that are as yet unborn that no people can fully trust those they elect to govern them. We allowed our political figures to conspire with each other in the interests of Brussels and against us, the British people.

That must never be allowed to happen again, which is why The Great Deception will serve down the generations to come as a terrible warning of what happens when the people are duped.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is simply not the same book post-Brexit. I began reading this in 2014 honestly never thought it just around the corner. I was simply interested in a critical look at the wonderful, ambitious project, hyped up by commentators to be creating an unprecedented quality of life fueled by benevolent, peaceful, supranational cooperation. The fact that the UK chose to leave a future utopia, hints that it is nothing of the sort, but that skeptical British attitude to the project as highlighted in this book, is very old and ultimately Brexit, while it was very unlikely, does fit into a very recognizable historical pattern. In contrast, if a prominent, continental power which has been core to the project from the very beginning such as France were to leave, that would be something much more unprecedented, and at that point one could begin their draft of the EU's obituary.

The book begins as a general history of the European Union though later chapters make it clear
that this is a history of the UK's relationship with the European Union and a critical one at that.
I enjoyed reading about the efforts to unite Europe which go back centuries, though they really didn't become a possibility until after the First World War, and honestly what else was Europe supposed to do after so much devastation. It was a natural reaction, and it seemed then that there was a possibility of fulfilling a dream that went back to medieval times. The League of Nations set up an institutional framework that the US refused to join, leaving it a mainly European organization, a possible nucleus to future integration efforts. The point that this books makes is that such a phase in the history of the EU has been largely forgotten because of the ominous implications that such idealistic dreams can fall apart before the force of unpredictable geopolitical events.

The official story as I heard on US cable news shortly after Brexit is that the EU was born after World War II, catalyzed by Winston Churchill's famous 'United States of Europe' speech, in 1946. The book claims that Churchill had in mind a continental union, not including Britain shorn of it's Empire, having to join the European Community to maintain it's influence and prestige, interesting and plausible claims that I would like to investigate more.

The rest of the book is a straightforward history of UK integration into the European project, it's ups and downs. A running theme being that supporters of the project tend to downplay integration and merely pretend that the EU is a means of easing international cooperation involving no real loss of sovereignty to member states. I'm not caught up in European politics enough to know how much of the general public believes the EU's end to be a United States of Europe, an actual superstate, but I do recall John Gunther in 1961's Inside Europe today, understanding the goal of the European Community to be the latter.

The book ends comparing the EU to the ugly, drab architecture of Le Corbusier, another product of the experimental, utopian mood of the 1920s. It hasn't been long at all since I first picked this up, but there's been quite a few surprises since then and I expect there to be more. Only time will tell
how many chapters this book is missing.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

First off, I know that most people see the title and think, "another EU Conspiracy Theory". But like most books, they contain conclusion/opinions based off of facts. Not to say that I agree with the conclusions or theories pieced together based on those facts, but the facts in this book themselves are fascinating. I really enjoyed this book because it sheds light on something (European Union) we all know of, have heard about and for those of us born after the fact it is something that has always just been there. But what is it? Where did it come from? Sure I've read and heard the sales pitch from our salesperson authority figures, but who came up with this idea, really? Do you know? Do you want to know?

Favorite Quote: "...a forth man, Paul-Henri Spaak, a prime minister of Belgium, also made his own crucial contribution. It was he who urged on his friend Monnet the idea that, initially, the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretence that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market'."

(Hmmm...Did I mention that you should read the CFR report, Building a North American Community?)

[Bliss Tew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the 2005 edition of this scholarly book that revealed the long term deceptions by many national leaders and behind-the-scenes operators intent on trapping the nations of Europe into a political unification by convincing the people of the nations chosen to be included that what was being done all along was just the building of a "common market" or free trade between nations to bring them prosperity. All the while the true intent was to build economic union as a precursor to political union. National independence would thus be sacrificed to a new supranational government without most of the citizens of the nations involved knowing what was being done to the. It's often slow reading, but It begins in the World War I time frame so there's much to be covered.

[Nigel · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a compelling book! It is incredibly well researched and provides a damning account of the degree to which our politicians have deceived us throughout our membership of the EU. The authors show how the original architects of the Common Market always intended to build a super-state which sat over the nation states that make up the EU and how this was hidden from the populus. They describe in great detail with many examples how the unelected policy and lawmakers in Brussels hide behind national governments whilst still pulling all the strings but at the same time evade accountability to the people of Europe. They show many examples about how the UK has given away whole industries to "the project" and how France has built the system to suit its own national interest.
The only criticism I have of this book is that it was published 5 years too soon: before the full catastrophe of the Euro, which was predicted by the authors and by many others, had started to play itself out. If you want to understand how one of the largest anti-democratic organisations in the world operates then you should read this book.

[Hilary Shearing · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely well researched and written. A relentless read of political twists, turns, deceit, lies, egos. For anyone new to the history of what I call the European Project and really dislikes the idea of a European anything you will probably feel like punching a hole in the wall. What's clear is that the majority of British leaders and British civil servants, were out-played and caught-up in a mire of political confusion. Others such as Edward Heath, clearly saw Europe as the way forward, accepting from the outset, the need for a single-currency and ultimately, federalisation. The latter of course was hidden from the British public for decades, along with a few other things, which this book reveals. What I've come to realise, sadly, is the same luck of understanding, continues to overshadow political debate in the UK, now. Not a good idea to read this book alongside current affairs relating to Brexit. Glaring parallels. As many mistakes are likely to be made and to be hidden attempting to get out, as happened when attempting to get in.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This detailed account is probably the best accurate history of the European Union out there. It is heavily critical of the project, of course, but that is essential to bypass the mythology and get to what really has occurred in Europe since the 1920s.

The downside is that the careful, documented detail means the book is not as pleasant a read as the author's fine prose could have made it

I would also say that the author might have allowed for more conflicting agendas in the overall story than he presents. I suspect that whilst there has been a Supranational agenda from the start it has not always been desired by all those who helped advance it. Booker expertly lays out the facts but slightly oversimplifies when it comes to his overall interpretative thesis.

Finally, after reading this I am even more ecstatic that we voted to leave this monstrously undemocratic creature!

Liked it a lot.

[Nicholas Batten · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Great Deception has been described as the Eurosceptic's Bible but despite the implacable hostility of the authors to the European Union and all its works it is a valuable resource for Remainers and Leavers alike because its account of how and why the Union was created is arguably unrivalled. It traces the origins of the EU to the First rather than Second World War (in particular the Battle of Verdun in 1916) and shows that when Winston Churchill advocated a United States of Europe in his 1946 Zurich Speech he had Aristide Briand's intergovernmental Memorandum On European Federal Union from 1930 rather than Arthur Salter's supranational model published the following year in mind:. It was Salter's blueprint inspired by the League of Nations which actually formed the institutional structure for what would become the EU: his long time friend and collaborator Jean Monnet would play the leading role in setting the European project in motion, starting with the ECSC in 1951. The original intention was to go straight to political union via the EDC/EPC in 1954 and when that plan failed Monnet and his allies pursued the economic route instead, reasoning that a United States of Europe could not be achieved all at once, only over many years and stealthily via the process known as engrenage or gearing.

The British, far from being aloof and isolated within Europe, were enthusiastic champions of intergovernmental cooperation and thwarted Monnet's early attempts to establish his 'government of Europe' via the Council of Europe and the OEEC. The crisis of confidence created by the Suez Crisis followed by the exposure of the weaknesses of the British nuclear deterrent during the U-2 incident in 1960 led to an historic U - turn and the first two unsuccessful applications to join the EEC in the 1960s. Reading this account it seems astonishing that Harold Macmillan failed to recognise how important the CAP was to France, or for that matter that Nigel Lawson could not grasp the fact that the ERM (which he supported) was the inevitable precursor to EMU (which he opposed). One of the central themes is that British politicians were as guilty of self-deception as deception, while the ignorance and wishful thinking of the last three Prime Ministers prior to Brexit (David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson) are especially apparent in these pages.

Like the authors I favoured the Norway Option and was not impressed by Vote Leave and their lack of an exit plan, the Lancaster House speech and the unnecessary and damaging decision to exit the EEA in January 2017. In the years leading up to his death in July 2019 Booker was actually labelled a Remainer in the comments section under his Sunday Telegraph column, so critical was he of the government's handling of the situation, while Dr North's EU Referendum blog was inundated with actual Remainers similarly alarmed by the direction of travel under May and Johnson. The government and Parliament made such a hash of things that by the time of the 2019 General Election it was imperative for many people that Brexit happened however sub-optimal it may be: the alternatives including Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street in coalition with the SNP and the biggest democratic mandate in British history not being implemented meant that this and a landslide for Johnson was at least the lesser of two evils for millions of voters. I agree with Dr North that defining British national sovereignty in this era of globalisation in which communications technology is exacerbating the atomisation of society is no easy task: there would always have been an element of 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' whichever form of Brexit had been utilised because in areas such as international trade in which the EU has exclusive competence and in which the world has moved on dramatically since 1973 the UK will have to redevelop the expertise lost after outsourcing responsibility to Brussels for so long.

Dean Acheson's famous observation that Britain had lost an empire and not yet found a role rings true now yet it was the former Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso who.once stated that the EU had the dimensions of empire while the arch-federalist Guy Verhofstadt also defined it in these terms when he addressed the 2019 Liberal Democrat party conference, identifying the US, Russia, China and India as comparable rivals. However it was weakened in many ways by the loss of the UK while the overwhelming majority of support for Ukraine since the Russian invasion last year has come from the US: there is also a section entitled 'Poking the Bear' in which Cameron's rhetoric about a Union from the Atlantic to the Urals could be seen as provocation in a country which fears encirclement. In earlier editions it was posited that the EU would ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, leaving behind a wasteland from which it would take the continent years to recover. The eurozone was likened to an aeroplane constructed without wings or engine and it seemed as if the debt crisis which erupted in 2009 was no beneficial crisis but one which threatened to bring down the whole house of cards as Angela Merkel among others noted at the time. The EU survived that existential threat just as it has weathered the storms of Brexit, Covid and Ukraine so far, but like Brexit Britain it faces an uncertain future, especially considering how most of the rules are made at global level and it is as much a rule-taker as anyone else.

[Tom Emm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book. A chunky history of dysfunctional nature of EU integration. It’s such a shame the Brexit referendum was hijacked by the immigration debate. The failings of its political structures and bureaucracy, and the relentless march towards hegemony (as exposed in this study) are the best reasons to want out.

[James Francey · Rating 5 out of 5]

An astounding book about the history, personalities, workings and deceptions of the EU. How I would love to see a new book by these authors examining the means of getting out of this organization,i.e. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

[Mr. R G Twaites · Rating 5 out of 5]

Europe . The Franco-German carve up.

This book, well researched, will open your eyes to what the EU is really all about. Our politicians should hang their heads in shame at the blatant deceptions inflicted on the general public. Oh for some honest MPs.

[Richard Cubitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A VERY depressing read. Labyrinthine, immense detail and well supported.

[karen neil · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only way forward

Good insight on the European union glad I voted to leave. I have learnt a lot in this book thanks

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brick of a book that holds open the door to the inception and aspiration of the EU, and more importantly its affect and influence.

It’s presented in chronological format with smaller sub-headings which break down each chapter into digestible sections. It begins with ‘The Birth of an Idea: 1918-1932’ and travels through time until we reach ‘Collision with Reality: 2004-2005’.

The text provides clarity from an entirely British perspective of successive leader’s perceived achievements and momentous failures while stumbling down the rocky road of membership.

One thing I was astounded to learn was exactly how long the original ‘EU’ idea had been brewing before it was brought into the public eye, and how only a minute part of its ambition was shared with said ‘public’.

I’d only planned to dip into this between other books. But my interest was quickly piqued and I found myself binge reading large portions of it. And there’s also an abundance of annotations all clearly indicated on every page, if that’s your thing.

[Donald Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors offer an insight on the European union.

I voted to stay as I'm attracted to the idea that trading prevents wars. What supports that notion? Just a gut feeling unsupported by any real evidence whatsoever. As I write this review the May government is being treated by Junkers, Michel Barnier and the other combatants, as both the enemy and a cash cow. Nowhere is there a sense of a future relationship, a positive contribution to a progressive Europe.

This book helps the reader to understand the personalities who became the midwives to the EU project, and where it became more that the sum of its parts, and therefore a monster that needed to be tethered.

[Oolalaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

14/20

[Tao Chen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a light read but excellent account of decades of events between Britain and the European project, and why and how the project doesn't work. Extremely informative and thought provoking.

[Zdenek Sykora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clear history. Very recommend.

[Marsilla Dewi-Baruch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite fascinating to know that British people were lied before, during and after EU membership by the politicians. Their leaders were poignantly snubbed to the very last deal of Brexit, their flesh was sucked and left only with carcass. Something British people should learn now, is to not trust their leaders. All seem useless.

[Kevin Pease · Rating 5 out of 5]

Managed three quarters of the way through but it was making me depressed and very very angry.

[Yogy TheBear · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read history book with 1749 footnotes, a book that beautifully and full of details, describes the workings of politics and diplomacy that has transcribed in the story of the EU.

A book that dispels a lot of myths I belived and have been told about the Eu. I am an euro-sceptic but now I know what I oppose and why, I know my enemy.

Among the myths it dispels is the: so called free market goal of the Eu and her founders, the EU being designed as a custom cartel.

The myth that the EU concept arose from the ashes of WW2 when in fact it was from WW1 and the first attempts to transform the league of nations into a supranational entity for Europe, and the failures of this early federalist attempt.

The facts that shocked and surprised me are the falsification of history done by the EU, the clear socialistic origins of the EU and the level of socialization and state planing of the EU from the start, clearly not a union on any liberal principles.

But the most important myth that is debunked late in the book (and could have been given an entire chapter) is the comparation between the Philadelphia convention and the EU project...

How wrong is this comparation... Reading the federalist papers and now reading this book I realize that beside the fact that the EU is based on deception and double narrative, it violates all the federal principles put down by America's Founding Fathers.

The US federation was created in a unique and ideal moment in history, and people then knew in large what they got into, the US federal guv was all at once created and delivered as a whole.

The EU runs by deceiving the public of the true goal of the EU institutions and goal, The EU march to federalism is one of constantly stealing suzerainty; never is enough, nothing as clear on the subject of who holds what power is present in the EU.No prospect of putting the whole idea clearly and sincerely down to the people to see.....

In the late of the already happened Brexit I hope other Exist happen.

[Michael Connolly · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main problem with the European Union is that it places too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. The citizens of the various member countries have only a weak and very indirect control over those who rule them, even less than we Americans have over our federal government. The European Union was sold as a way to prevent the member nations from going to war against one another, but there is a simpler solution. If all the countries are democracies, then they will not go to war against one another. Just look at the United States and Canada. There is also no need for a supra-national organization in order to have free trade. Just don't charge tariffs on imported goods. The title of the book refers to the fact that the promoters of the EU sold it as being a free trade group called the Common Market, but their unprofessed goal was to establish a United States of Europe.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite being unashamedly biased, it's still a good history book on the EU. What the authors miss, is that whether or not the EU was created as an evil conspiracy to bring down perfidious Albion is irrelevant today. We are either better off inside or not. We're about to find out. All I want from the author now is to say how many years in the future does he want to take stock. The book ends with the prediction that initially we will be worse off. OK, for how long? Because if I'm dead before we're better off then it's a bit irrelevant to me.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

In order to understand what it is we are trying to get out of, it is important to know what it is that we got into in the first place and how that was done.
Anyone thinking that the behaviour of MPs and "Experts" during the referendum was deplorable really ought to read about the deceit and machinations that went on in order to bring us inside the EU.
Fascinating historical chronology of events and clear descriptions make this a must read for any fan of modern history.

[Graham Cammock · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book! Such a detailed and complete history of the European Union. I couldn't have asked for more in this context. The only issue I have is that I started the book more a eurosceptic and ended up slightly more pro-European. The EU doesn't seem to be a 'great' deception, but a slight one.

[Teresa · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very long read, so a bit late for the Referendum if you've not started yet, but I found it very interesting and informative. Obviously everyone rights from a stance and this one is very anti-EU, but you do come away thinking they may have a point.