The current positions of the British political parties is set out in "UK political parties' positions on the EU," under CIVITAS EU Facts.  A detailed and very revealing summary of the history of the EU issue in the UK is provided in Revision: Impact of the EU on British Politics.  Some interesting excerpts:

  • Britain’s role in the EU is a major issue in contemporary politics, but one that political parties have found difficult to manage

  • The two main parties have changed their policies on Europe, suffered internal divisions and faced problems exploiting the issue for electoral advantage

  • The Conservatives and Labour parties seem to have swapped positions on Europe in the last 3 decades

  • Labour used to be hostile to European integration but is now broadly supportive

  • The Conservatives were generally pro-European but are now predominantly Eurosceptic


  • Since the Treaty of Accession in 1972, Britain accepted the Treaty of Rome and subsequently the SEA as well as the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, and so it can be argued that Britain has accepted a diminution in its legal sovereignty for the following 3 reasons:

1. Laws enacted by the EU are directly applicable to the UK

2. The British Parliament can’t pass laws in areas where Community Law already exists

3. British courts must accept and enforce decisions made by the ECJ


  • Some commentators, such as Norman Lamont, have pointed out that “membership of the EU has not been settled for all time; it is provisional, not unconditional.” Hence any changes that have occurred, as a result of membership of the EU can be undone by leaving the EU, and thus sovereignty is ultimately not surrendered.

  • However the body of commentators view this argument as a delusion. Due to the level of involvement and the obvious benefits of membership, it is very unlikely that Britain would remove themselves from the EU.


  • In recent years the British government had had to amend pensions, social security and equal opportunities “ to bring British law into line with European law” (Alan Davis)

  • A number of commentators including Thatcher agree that powers have been ‘surrendered’ to the EU

  • Enoch Powell argued that sovereignty by its very nature can’t be pooled and therefore “entry into the community was a surrender of sovereignty because for the first time an external body could overrule parliament”

  • Philip Norton believes that there has been “a shift of power within the institutions of the UK” as a result of membership of the EU, which accompanies a shift of power to the institutions of the EU

The summary appears to apply to the political state of affairs in United Kingdom in the year 2000.  The positions of the parties at that time are presently unchanged, and the debate for and against European Union membership rages.  It would be fair to state that there is an ongoing Battle for Britain; and the tide is running against the Protestant heritage of the nation.  In 2002 ROME’S RESURGENCE both marked the inroads of Roman Catholicism in the body politic, and the larger ecumenical drive to embrace other religions such as Islam, which is a part of Rome's New Evangelization.  Jumping forward to September, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Britain for the first ever visit of by a Pope (Pope Benedict XVI starts historic tour in Britain.)  As the report states, the visit was not popular with the people (Cf. Controversy around Britain's first papal state visit deepens.)  That matters little to the powers that be at the top.  As reported, the Queen welcomed the Pope warmly.  She had already made her inclinations clear as stated in Rome's Resurgence hyperlinked above.  Her actions have not been in harmony with nearly 500 years of British monarchical history (Cf. The Break with Rome.)  These events are of such a significance as could not apply in the United States.  Adrian Hilton wrote in 1997:

In 1953, the Queen swore on oath at her Coronation 'to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law.' Both of these are negated by the process of deeper European integration. In a continent in which 61 million claim a Protestant heritage and 199 million profess to be Roman Catholics, it is simply not possible to maintain Protestantism by democratic law. The Protestant constitution of the United Kingdom has long been a strong defence against Rome's desires for the 'evangelisation' of Britain, which the Pope refers to as 'Mary's dowry' - hers by right.

This quotation brings into sharp relief the significance of the Queen's conduct, and the severe repercussions to be expected from deeper European integration.  Both Democracy and Protestantism are crumbling in Britain.  The Queen is no doubt acting with the advice and consent of the leaders of the British Parliament, which has been complicit in the movement back to Rome.  Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was present to welcome the Pope.  Prime Minister David Cameron offered "a warm welcome" to the Pope (Cf. David Cameron offers 'warm welcome' to Pope in video; Pope's state visit criticised in luminaries' letter.)  An article in The Telegraph dated April 24, 2011, titled Church blocks reforms over royal marriages, reported that "Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, began work towards repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement, under which heirs to the throne must renounce their claim on marrying a Roman Catholic, in order to introduce full equality between the faiths."  The article goes on to state:

Talks were held with the Anglican Church as part of wider discussions on constitutional reform, which come under his remit as Deputy Prime Minister. . .

However, the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith.

This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

To the shelving of the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement, the Catholic Herald of the UK boldly raised the question "Why shouldn’t there be a Catholic ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England?."  The fact that we are blessed with a constitutional separation of church and state should not dim our perception of dangers posed to the historical identity of Britain as a Protestant nation.  In a lecture delivered at the European Institute of Protestant Studies titled The conspiracy Behind The European Union What Every Christian Should Know, Professor Arthur Noble presented some of the history and ramifications of the European Union plot.  The following are quotations from the lecture:

What is the real nature and purpose of this Europe into whose heart the British people are being dragged with increasing resistance? I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.


Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that is the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, now numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.


Rome's plan to unite Europe politically and the world religiously by ushering in a seventh revival of the Empire was announced by Pope Pius XII as early as 1952 in his Christmas broadcast, which envisaged "a Christian order which alone is able to guarantee peace. To this goal the resources of the Church are now directed." This arrogant and cunning fanatic, who helped Hitler to power, blessed Mussolini's troops and colluded with the Nazi Ustashi in Yugoslavia in slaughtering 240,000 Orthodox Serbs and forcibly converting over 750,000 to Roman Catholicism, exhorted the faithful of Rome in February, 1952: "The whole world must be rebuilt from its foundations." The plans for this gigantic task, about which the world knows little, were subsequently laid under cover by the Vatican's diplomats. The concept of a United, Roman Catholic European superstate, which is presently emerging in Europe, was to be the first step in world domination.


Historically, the concept of the nation-state has been anathema to the Vatican, whose tactics have been to rob sovereign nations of their nationhood and reduced to mere states or provinces of a single European nation-state controlled by her, even subdividing them internally where it suited her purposes.


Are our leaders blind to what is going on in Europe, or are they naively stupid, or knowing collaborators?


The Catholic Herald recently stated: 'The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant mediaeval forebears.' It is almost a symbolic fulfilment of that prophecy that the 20-pence coin of the British colony Gibraltar, issued by Parliament and approved by the Queen, bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Queen of Heaven' and titles 'Our Lady of Europa'. The head of the Queen on the other side is simply titled 'Elizabeth II - Gibraltar', without her usual titles of D.G., REG., F.D. - Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith. As portentous as such Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a whore riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation which a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing Papal Rome.
Roman Catholic imagery is endemic in Europe, and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the European government. The design of the European flag was inspired by the halo of 12 stars around pictures of the Madonna, and appears prominently on the Council of Europe stained-glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral. The window was unveiled to the world on 11th December 1955, coinciding with the Roman Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception.



If we do not pray and if we do not act, Rome will once again succeed in establishing her evil system in this country. When William Tyndale, captured and burned in 1535 by Belgian Papists for having dared to translate the New Testament, uttered his dying cry: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" God's eventual mighty answer came in the form of the King James (or "Authorised") Version of the Bible (1611). It fell to Protestant Britain to spread the Gospel worldwide and check the power of Rome. I am convinced that that is our divinely-appointed task once again. We can no longer rely on our political leaders or even our Royal Family to carry the torch of Biblical Truth. Let us therefore pray: "Lord, open the eyes of the British nation!"

From Principality and Power of Europe - Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire hyperlinked above comes another cogent quotation:

A system of government based on a throne which is Protestant by law seems to invite charges of bigotry, out-datedness and political incorrectness. It may not be surprising that the Roman Catholic-dominated press and other media are waging a propaganda war, but the consequent ascendancy of Roman Catholicism in public esteem and respectability causes concern. Protestantism, meanwhile, is being marginalised and dismissed. The demeaning of the name, the drives for unity in the ecumenical movement, and the search for compromise and peace have effectively rendered it politically incorrect to be known as a Protestant. The Protestant truth is the foundation of the British Constitution and social fabric. Considering there are only five million Roman Catholics in Britain, with fewer than a million regular church-goers, the high media profile of the Roman Church is utterly disproportionate.  (Cf.  Making America Catholic, which deals with the influence of the Church of Rome in America.)


There are some who suggest that the ten kings of Rev. 17:12 represent the original divisions of the Roman Empire.  This is not exegetically logical.  In the first place, three of the ten horns of the Book of Daniel were "plucked up" by the little horn.  They ceased to exist (Dan. 7:7-8; 20 & 24.)  Next, the internal evidence of Rev. 17:10 is they were future, and they probably still are.  Here is where the European Union may provide a clue to the ultimate manifestation of these ten kings.

In FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY: THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISM under the heading "What is Sovereignty?" the author D. Andrews states:

Though nationalism was once very similar in definition to patriotism and independence, it is now often used to refer to a negative rather than a positive concept. Supranationalism, given much more popular publicity than the latter, is the concept that the nation state no longer matters, that interdependence is better than independence, and that it is necessary to form regions of countries into centrally-controlled blocs with the probability of merging those blocs later on to form a world government. Thus supranationalism is merely the process of political globalism. . . (underscored emphasis added.)

Under the heading of "The Grand Design of the EU" the author states the following concerning European Union founder Jean Monnet:

In the closing words of his memoirs, Monnet wrote:

"The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow." (emphasis added).

And in a communiqué of 22 August 1962 this same man spelled out the grand design of Europe when he wrote:

"It is impossible to solve problems between European States who preserve full sovereignty. We are convinced that our times must see the creation of vast units like the United States and the USSR, and to establish a [world-wide] organisation to ensure co-operation between all those vast units. It is this organization which will create the new world order." (emphasis added)

It seems beyond doubt now that regionalisation, despite initial promises to the contrary, was and is about the elimination of national sovereignty - and is itself a pre-planned stage toward globalisation (the joining together of regionalised blocs into a world government). The true story behind Europe can be ignored no longer.  (Underscoring for emphasis in the original; italics emphasis added.)

The question arises whether the concept of the regional unions of nations represents the blueprint for emergence of the ten kings of Rev. 17:12?  This raises the questions of how countries such as China will be roped in; and into what regional union will Russia be drawn, since the USSR no longer exists.

Is it possible that fulfillment of the prophecy will not be fully matured until after the appearance of Satan as the ultimate antichrist, fulfilling Rev. 17:8 & 11?  It is worthy of note that the beast referred to in Rev. 17:12, is not the papacy, but the dragon, defined by Rev. 12:3-9 as Satan.  Rev. 17:12 states that the ten horns receive power as kings with the beast for one prophetic hour (15 literal days;) but it does not state that the beast's appearance on the earth will be limited to that period of time.  Also, how long after the conquest of Britain will it be before the end comes?  At the present time, there remains the vexed issue of Jerusalem, and the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45.  There appears to be no movement there, but that problem may be resolved suddenly.


UK political parties' positions on the EU