How to define "Vital National Interests" in an "Ever Closer Union"

In the posting immediately beneath this I have pasted the "Secret" document agreed by the Prime Minister and traitor Edward Heath with the French President Georges Pompidou in May, 1971. Referred to is an underlined proces verbal ("procès verbal" perhaps in French?) which is commented upon in that same post. Let us, for a moment, make the now clearly false assumption that Edward Heath actually had Britain's vital national interests as his primary concern back in 1971, how might they then have appeared to him from outside the six member state Common Market and with Britain as a leading power and democracy within both the Commonwealth and EFTA? The list of priorities will of course vary according to one's own political standpoint and rather than risk becoming involved in controversy over a matter of opinion it must surely be possible to state, without risk of contradiction, that such a list prepared in 1971 would be considerably longer and far more extensive than any similar list prepared today. Before considering the consequences of that fact consider the reported actions of a later Tory Prime Minister John Major. Some time ago I read from a source believed to have close contacts within Britain's security services (unsurprisingly enough I am not now able to find the source) that during the John Major premiership the intelligence services were instructed that the major political parties had determined that continuing British membership of the EEC (EU or whatever) had become a matter of "vital national interest" and consequentially parties pushing for withdrawal should be penetrated and were thereafter legitimate targets for hostile state interference. The proof that vital national interests are eroded as the "Union" broadens and further entangles hardly needs proof, consecutive Treaties have clearly eroded unanimity and advanced the multitude of majority votes. Eventually and inevitably members of such a union will cease to have any vital national interest as the Good of the Union becomes the rule. The EU, in my view, assumed it had reached that point several Treaties ago. But what of democracy? Applicant nation states to the EU are required to be democratic, the EU and its institutions make much of claiming to be democratic, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Disregard for a moment anything within the Lisbon Treaty and consider the chosen means for its ratification and introduction. Nothing could be more dismissive of individual rights nor democratic process. The vital national interests of all the member states are to be destroyed with the independent powers of their parliaments, via which the people would have retained the rights to periodically change their rulers, all that is to be trashed. On any list of Britain's Vital National Interests prepared in 1971, few would surely have excluded democracy and the sovereignty of parliament. Yet all the agencies of the State from the Queen to the Courts to the state broadcaster mouthpieces of the media are all deployed to obscure these facts and suppress from the public consciousness the outrage that the promised referendum on this Lisbon Treaty is being denied. If Parliament remains Sovereign, how are the electorate to elect MPs who are prepared to enforce such sovereignty in the face of the totalitarian tyranny of a post-Lisbon EU, when no such candidates have any realistic prospect of selection let alone election? How can independent parties prosper when the main parties are funded by the unaudited evil empire itself? "Vital National Interests" themselves no longer exist, for they have been crushed in the false belief that the "interests" of the Union trump all else for the greater common good and therefore take precedence - yet it is only through nation states and their independent parliaments that our rulers can be unseated without bloodshed - as ever Karl Popper's defining difference between democracy and tyranny!