A re-appraisal by Robert Edwards
Sir Oswald Mosley’s
greatest post-war achievement was most definitely the formation of an embryonic all-European party comprising the leaderships
of several parties from Britain, Germany, Belgium and Italy. This achievement was brought about through Mosley’s faith
and belief in the essential oneness of Europe and the friendships he had formed throughout the continent and beyond in what
became known as the post-fascist era. These friendships were forged by common goals and a mutual respect for each other’s
The National Party of Europe, as it became, was launched at the Conference of Venice on March 1, 1962. The
principal signatories being the aristocratic Adolf von Thadden of the Reichspartei (later a leader of the NPD), Giovanni Lanfre
of the post-fascist Movemiento Socialiste Italiano and Jean Thiriart of Jeune Europe and author of some of the most radical
works on the National Communitarian State … and, of course, Oswald Mosley of Union Movement. Their hopes and aspirations
were high, being attended by seasoned and experienced exponents of the European idea. Their declaration at this conference
included regular liaison between the parties and an intention to change the names of their parties to the NATIONAL PARTY OF
An important principle was to accept a common policy under a centralised leadership, meeting as equals in the
interests of common action.
To emphasise the post-fascist aspect, the declaration stated that a European government would
be elected by a free vote every four years with a parliament given the power to censure a government at any time by a two-thirds
majority. Meanwhile, a government would be given the powers of action necessary in a fast moving age.
A common European
policy on defence, foreign affairs and economics was an essential component.
Its democratic credentials were impeccable
despite the label of “neo-fascist” applied by a hostile press. The spectre of a fascist bogeyman was raised again
by the scribbling toadies of the Establishment, made darker and more sinister by the broader continental dimensions of the
enterprise. Today’s “European Union” seems a mere shadow of the Declaration of Venice with its lack of true
conviction and a muddled thinking on the role of Europe today … and with America taking the lead on matters that should
be within the domain of Europe and independent of this volatile superpower across the Atlantic.
But despite the old hate
propaganda spewed out by a manipulated internationalist press, the principles of progress, solidarity and unity became the
underlying motivation for a truly European party in the service of all Europeans, guarding their regional customs and protecting
the civil rights of individuals in the service of all.
What went wrong? Why is there no party representing ALL Europeans
today … instead of the same old gangs playing the same old game of going on the make and trying to get out of a fractured
“union” whatever they can at the expense of the others? The existence of such a truly European party was too much
of a challenge to the old order that dark and sinister forces sought to cripple it from the beginning.
biographer, Robert Skidelsky, touched on the events after the Declaration of Venice by stating, “This event [the Declaration
of Venice] temporarily activated the old Jewish-communist alliance. Violence was switched on again”.
Telegraph let the cat out of the bag in August of 1962, reporting, “The Jews are planning a nation-wide campaign against
Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement”. The Yellow Star Movement and the newly revived 62 Group, both led by gangsters,
unleashed a wave of violence, which, on one occasion put Mosley’s life seriously at risk as he walked to address a meeting
on July 31 at Ridley Road in East London.
For years he had addressed perfectly peaceful meetings in Trafalgar Square
in the heart of London, drawing large audiences that went there to listen to a great orator. Even the Home Secretary at the
time, Henry Brook, stated, “… the Union Movement … has been holding meetings and there has been no disorder”.
This, shortly before Mosley was banned from Trafalgar Square in the face of Jewish and communist violence for which the explanation
of one newspaper was, “Mosley is himself a provocation” … as if the mere presence of this great and controversial
figure justified the undemocratic methods of thugs and gangsters.
Robert Skidelsky made the reason for the violent attacks
of 1962 quite clear in his biography of Mosley. He wrote, “The Venice meeting and the scare of a European “fascist
revival” was the precipitating cause”. He also cited Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement meeting
in Trafalgar Square in July 1962 with its provocative “Free Britain from Jewish Control” banner as a contributory
factor to the ban on Mosley. With or without the idiotic Jordan meeting (for which Jordan was arrested) it was obvious that
Mosley was the main target of these attacks and the Declaration of Venice the event that got their backs up.
along with television coverage, demonised Mosley in a way that led the ill-informed to believe he had just appeared out of
the woodwork to cause trouble … when, in fact, the very opposite was true.
With halls and most outdoor venues
barred to him, Mosley was even more restricted in putting his European ideas across. Sir Hugh Carleton-Greene, in control
of the BBC, said that Mosley “would appear only over my dead body”. Eventually, in 1968, he did just that.
Meanwhile, violent repression was the method used to silence a man with a great idea … an idea well before its time.
If these ideas had held sway forty years ago then Europe would have achieved a position in the world putting America in its
place, instead of giving it carte blanche to do as it pleases today.
The fact is, the National Party of Europe was a
reality insofar that Europeans from different countries came together in the spirit of solidarity and declared an agreement
on the key issues that today seem to divide and render asunder the old mainstream parties.
My Life, contains the entire transcript of the European Declaration of Venice in chapter 23, The Post-War European Idea. An
entire blueprint for a renewal of a party and a continent is laid out for those who possess the intelligence, the courage
and the vision. He included it in his autobiography for a very obvious purpose.
To relegate Mosley to someone to blather
about as a relic of the past would be to misunderstand his motives and aims because the call to action is eternal.
his chapter on the post-war European idea, he wrote, “Nothing in the end can prevent the victory of the Europeans, who
will come from all countries and from all parties to the final achievement. The work of Venice was done and nothing can alter
or reduce the reality of the fact. What has been done before will one day be done again, on a broader front and in a greater
For Mosley, Venice remained “a massive achievement” because it proved that the will is there
and so the act can be repeated.
That a new European party needs to be formed is made abundantly clear by the intransigence
of all other existing parties. Their moral bankruptcy is obvious. The aim of the new ACTION will be to promote this European
idea ... and to stir our comrades into action once more.
As in Mosley’s day, we are up against very powerful vested
interests that profit from division. We face the threat of persecution and physical violence, along with misrepresentation
by the media and our enemies on the far-Left.
It is the same now as it was then.
To reminisce about days gone by,
the “good old days” as some would have it, is more appropriate in an old people’s home where the tales become
woollier or perhaps more coloured with age. Mosley called it, “blowing the froth off the beer”. We must live in
the reality of today and tomorrow.
Union Movement fell into a significant decline after the orchestrated campaign of
violence of the early 1960s. This was not due to a lack of spirit on the part of the rank and file but more a realisation
on Mosley’s part that being deprived of the means of free speech through traditional channels he had to decide to leave
party politics and to propagate his ideas as an individual. This he did in 1966, leaving a small Directorate of Union Movement
to act in an administrative capacity.
He remained the “Leader” in the eyes of those of us who had supported
him and to those who continued to do so through the Directorate and the later formed Action Society. A new National Party
of Europe would be our first duty. His legacy is the European idea as envisaged at Venice those forty-odd years ago and is
as relevant now as it will be in the future. With that legacy we have the foundations on which to build … but who has
the will to act?