Anti EU Face Book Rants

These rants are here for the use of anybody that wants to use them.

Simply “Copy & Paste”, amending as required.

Attribute if you wish; I’m really not fussed

Though I intend to post them all, at least once, eventually; they have not all yet seen the light of day.

ONE — General

If we vote to leave the EU, which I believe we must, we will be able to spend the £350 million we send to Brussels every week on our own priorities like Hospitals, Schools, Security and Defense.

Most of the current, unpopular cuts would be unnecessary if we saved the money we currently waste on the EU.

If we vote to leave the EU, we would end the supremacy of EU law.

Once again, we could make our own laws.

Other countries around the world trade freely without making EU law supreme.

If we vote to leave the EU, we could have a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and cooperation.

As well as Trade, we would regain legal control of tax, economic regulation, energy & food bills, migration & crime.

If we voted for the people who make our trade deals and control public services, (it’s called ‘Democracy’) the results would have to be better.

British voters should be able to change our laws and control our taxes by voting for and against our own politicians.

If we vote to leave the EU, we would be able to stop the current immoral, expensive, and out of control immigration system, that means an open door anyone from the EU, while blocking people who could contribute to the UK coming from non-EU countries.

If we vote to leave the EU, we could make it easier for some to come, such as scientists and job-creators, and impossible for others to come, such as convicted criminals.

If we regain the power to control our own affairs, we can sort out our own problems.

TWO — Euro

The EU’s bureaucracy, created in the 1950s, is slow, undemocratic, and inflexible.

Billions are lost to fraud and waste. Although the EU and its Single Market process may have brought a few gains, (though I’m not certain I can think of any at the moment,) the EU system is rigid, very slow, hard to fix and very costly when it goes wrong.

Some things we have tried to change for decades are still there, like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that just increases food bills, supports obsolete farming in Europe and damages African agriculture. Damaging regimes, like the CAP, usually come from the lobbying of multinational corporations trying to eliminate competition.

We are not in the Eurozone; but as an EU member, the UK is affected by the Euro’s problems.

The Euro was created in the wrong way with the wrong members.

It is making Europe’s economic problems worse, severely damaging national economies; not just the Greek’s, undermining democratic government, and poisoning relations between nations. Extremist parties are growing across the continent.

Those who created the Euro knew all along that it would need ‘political union’ to survive. The plans to save the Euro mean much more centralisation of power in Brussels. The EU is committed to more of the same despite all the evidence of failure.

THREE — Negotiations

Our politicians have undermined Britain’s reputation.

Politicians used to repeat phrases like, “In Europe, not run by Europe,” but every year we ARE run by the EU, more and more.

UK negotiations with Brussels always follow a predictable cycle of complaints, criticisms, and ultimatums from our politicians; followed by a collapse of confidence, caving in, and stage-managed rows to spin the appearance that the Government is fighting for something; resulting in a further fall in our reputation abroad.

Eurozone countries quite reasonably didn’t regard Britain’s approach as a serious policy, or anything they need worry about; until UKIP won the UK European Elections in 2014; forming the largest British Party in the European Parliament.

Now the EU is beginning to recognise that it needs the UK more than the UK needs it.

That same UKIP surge got the pro-EU members of our own government worried too.

David Cameron assured us that he would get the EU to reform, and then hold “…an IN-OUT referendum, before the end of 2017.

I don’t think he is very hopeful about reform; he has set the bar low, but doesn’t look like clearing it.

As Tony Parsons, writing in GQ, has said:

Just to be clear — David Cameron is not asking for much. — And he’s not going to get it.

The Paris evening daily, “Le Monde” recently carried the warning, Britain beware; Brexit could be your Waterloo. Don’t let the sirens of fake independence pull you away from the continent. Just as in 1815, your future is in Europe.

The only “fake independence” around is what we have now; we are seeking the return of our real independence.

In 1815, we helped Europeans deal with a European problem; just as we have a couple of times since.

We can’t help that our future is indeed “in Europe;” geographically, that’s where we are; but it need not be in European Union shackles.

Oh, and Waterloo was our Waterloo; we won it; got the station!

FOUR — General

In 1940 Winston Churchill said; “We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall NEVER surrender.

And we didn’t surrender… until 1973…

UKIP may have started this present move to get the UK out of the EU, and Nigel Farage is still a dominant force at the head of it. But there are Eurosceptics, and OUT campaigners on both sides of UK politics.

Tony Parsons in GQ; “Half a lifetime ago, when this country last had a debate on our relationship with Europe, two of the most iconic political figures of the age — Enoch Powell and Tony Benn — both campaigned against the UK’s membership of what was then the European Economic Community. The reasoning of these wildly different men was the same — their objection to the subservience of an elected government to unelected foreign bodies, the meek surrender of our national sovereignty, the fundamental lack of democracy in the EU.

On our joining the EU, Benn described it as, “The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.” A view I shared then; voting in that referendum; and still agree with now.

Enoch Powell was a little more detailed, but no less correct, when he said, “For the first time in centuries, it will be true to say that the people of this country are not taxed only upon the authority of the House of Commons. The judicial independence of this country has to be given up. The law made elsewhere will override the law which is made here.

And they were right; our laws are made by an unelected Politburo; our courts’ decisions are over-ruled by European Judges and very soon the taxes we pay will be decided in Brussels.

With the upcoming referendum, we have an opportunity to put that right.

FIVE — Negotiations

Don’t be fooled by the Government’s renegotiation smokescreen.

In 2013, in his “Bloomberg” speech, when he first outlined his plan for an in-out referendum, David Cameron argued that, “We need fundamental, far-reaching change” within the EU.

But what he has actually been asking for could never be described as either “fundamental” or “far-reaching;” there’s no chance he will get it; even though, in truth what he’s been asking for is trivial.

At the start of his farcical negotiations, on Tuesday, 10th November 2015, he made a speech outlining just four rather pathetic “Demands.”

1. That the EU to allow just a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work and other benefits; (whereas what the UK needs is complete control of our country’s borders.)

2. That the EU give greater protection for non-Eurozone countries to ensure they cannot be outvoted by Eurozone countries; (what UK actually needs is independence to make our own decisions; where no other countries, Eurozone or non-Eurozone, have any vote at all.)

3. That the EU give Britain merely an opt-out from the EU’s commitment to “ever-closer union”; (what we have now is already much too-close a union; the UK needs is no “Union” at all.)

4. That the EU give parliaments more powers to club together to block EU legislation; (what the UK needs is a complete end to the EU legislating for the UK at all.)

After hearing these four “demands;” Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin asked, “Is that it?”

What the UK needs is a total end to EU law for the UK and to take back control of our economy and our borders, and regain our democracy.

David Cameron used to have a longer list of demands to secure the “fundamental, far-reaching change” which he talked about in that 2013 Bloomberg speech

These were the supposedly “black-and-white promises” made by him and his Conservative Party.

In his 10th October 2005, Policy Programme, Cameron stated that, “…our aim should be to take back control of employment and social regulation.

In his current negotiations, he hasn’t mentioned this.

The Conservative European Parliamentary Manifesto of 2009 said that: “The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels.”

In his current negotiations, Cameron hasn’t mentioned this at all.

Also in 2009, on 4th November BBC News, Cameron promised to, “…limit … the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level.

Though what the UK needs for the ECJ to have no UK jurisdiction at all; in his current negotiations, he hasn’t even mentioned it.

On 28th November 2014, BBC News, the Prime Minister claimed that, “…we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here.

In his current negotiations, he hasn’t mentioned this.

On the same BBC News, Cameron promised that, “…if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave.”

In September 2015, the ECJ ruled that this would be illegal.

On Tuesday, 10th November 2015, in his speech opening his negotiations, the Prime Minister ignored that ruling and claimed he had achieved his objective!

On 4th January 2015, in The Guardian, the Prime Minister said his plans “…do involve … proper, full-on treaty change.

In his current negotiations, he hasn’t mentioned this.

The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 stated that, “We will push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

Cameron did not mention agriculture at all in his speech opening his negotiations, and he hasn’t mentioned it in those negotiations either.

The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 also pledged, “…further reform of… …Structural Funds.

But, Structural funds were not mentioned in Cameron’s 10th November 2015 speech, or in the subsequent negotiations.

SIX — Audit

It’s been a while since I’ve seen old Rumpy-Pumpy in the news…

President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy has just told the Europe’s Court of Auditors that he wants it to ensure that its findings get positive headlines and preach the benefits of European spending worth over £110 billion a year.

“Every year, they generate headlines that ‘yet again the EU’s accounts have not been signed off’,” he said,

“The court might want to give some further thought as to how it can encourage more nuanced reporting.” He suggested.

You have to wonder what “Nuanced” means

David Cameron’s spokesman said: “The prime minister is absolutely clear that the only way to clear up concerns about Brussels spending is to shine more of a light on it, not less.”

So I thought OK — hence this post

The PM’s mouthpiece went on, “This kind of nonsense is exactly why the prime minister wants to reform the EU and then let the British people have their say on membership,”

Which begs the question, why wasn’t this included in his negotiation package then?

The Court of Auditors (European Court of Auditors, ECA), an institution of the EU, was established in 1975 in Luxembourg to audit the accounts of the other EU institutions.

The Court is composed of one member from each EU member state, one of whom is chosen to be its president. The current president, since 2008, and currently in his third 3-year term, is Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, a Portuguese lawyer.

The EU annual accounts have not been certified by the Court of Auditors since 1994.

Let’s just ‘get our heads round’ that; the EU, of which the UK is a member; with a budget of billions, to which the British taxpayer contributes about £14billion annually; which sees itself as the “Government” of its projected United States of Europe; hasn’t had its accounts ‘signed-off’, by its own auditors, for 21 years!

Right at the other end of the governmental spectrum; if our small Parish Council, (of which I am Chairman) with an annual budget of less than £5,000, failed to get its accounts successfully audited just once, there would be hell to pay!

SEVEN — Trade

All European countries, in and out of the euro, should be able to trade freely. International trade does not require the supremacy, or even the existence of European law. Other countries around the world trade freely without making EU law supreme — it is obviously not necessary for free trade.

There are Free Trade organisations all over; Nafta (the North American Free Trade Agreement), Mercosur (in South America) and Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations).

And as Boris Johnson has pointed out, “None of which has these elaborate sovereignty-sharing arrangements, with a peculiar parliament and court and a vast and ever growing corpus of supranational law.

Interestingly, membership of Nafta was on offer to the UK; but stupidly chose the EEC instead.

Trade agreements need regulatory systems that are very agile and easy to correct. They need systems that allow decentralised cooperation on issues rather than any centralising power, which just makes it very hard to adapt when things go wrong.

EU institutions should stop blocking non-Euro countries from making trade deals outside Europe. The current annual cost of EU regulation to the UK economy is estimated to be €33.3billion (Open Europe).

EIGHT — The Euro

As Iain Martin wrote in the Telegraph, “The real madmen are those who created the Euro, who thought that political dreams and vanity could trump economic sense and cultural and national differences, by creating a currency union on a vast continent without safeguards.

From Bail-out to Bail-out; the Euro bounces from crisis to crisis; the refugee/immigrant tsunami strains the EU’s joints nigh to the point of dislocation. Unfortunately, those in charge are committed to doubling down on their failing Union, demanding greater contributions to the ever swelling budget.

The non-Eurozone countries are out-voted inside an organisation where the Eurozone has a built-in majority and is going in the wrong direction.

For twenty-five years, British politicians have tried and failed to block other European countries integrating further. 72 times, in the Council of Ministers, the UK has attempted to block motions without success.

For our politicians there is a pattern of failure within the EU.

First, our politicians say that ideas coming out of Brussels are, “…not really on the agenda.

When they are, not only well and truly, on the agenda, but are actually being implemented, the same people then say, “…the EU is evolving anyway so we have to go along with it so as to have influence, if we oppose them we’ll have no influence.

After we have failed abjectly & completely, to influence them at all, the same people then say, “…this change is inevitable and only extremists oppose it.

I suppose that makes me an extremist then.

NINE — Trade

The best way to get a better deal between Britain and Europe is to leave. This will force the politicians to renegotiate a new, better deal between the EU and an independent UK.

We’d stop sending £50 million every day to Brussels and instead spend it on our priorities, like the NHS, Education & Defense.

We’d regain our seats on international institutions like the World Trade Organisation and so become a more influential force for free trade and international cooperation.

A recent Spectator article noted: “The World Trade Organisation has brought down tariff rates around the world. Even if we didn’t sign a free-trade deal with the EU, we would have to pay, at most, £7.5 billion a year in tariffs for access to its markets.” And that is considerably less than what we pay into the black-hole that is the EU budget at the moment.

A vote to ‘leave’ and a better relationship with the EU is much safer than giving Brussels more power and money every year; year after year.

TEN — General

Which is safer — a vote for the permanent supremacy of EU law, or a vote to take back control?

Which is safer — a vote to keep sending hundreds of millions of pounds to Brussels every week, or a vote to put that money into UK Education, Scientific Research, Defense and the NHS?

The EU’s bureaucracy is not interested in Science & Technology.

Recently the EU abolished its post of Chief Scientist because advice from scientists was politically awkward, a decision that was widely condemned by leading scientists.

The EU science funding process is not developing the networks between universities, scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs, and finance that have been so important in America and Asia.

The EU Commission recently raided over €2 billion from the HORIZON science budget to pay for the problems caused by the Euro.

ELEVEN — General

How can we really influence Europe?

By a vote to remain in the EU?

No, we know we have no influence from within the EU; if we had, David Cameron & George Osbourne wouldn’t have had to go cap-in-hand to Brussels, begging for reform.

A vote to ‘remain in’ is not a vote for the status quo.

THERE IS NO STATUS QUO.

The EU is always changing.

The European Commission is currently planning the next EU Treaty, intended to fix the Euro’s problems. Every Treaty since the 1950s has increased the power held by Brussels; and decreased the power of the member states.

The new Treaty plans for Brussels to take even more power from EU members including control of taxes. This will naturally lead to yet another increase in member states’ contributions

Our complaints will be ignored. Our politicians will give in as usual.

We have repeatedly given away control in the hope of ‘influence.’

But the loss of power has been real and the hoped-for influence just a mirage.

Since joining the EU, Britain has lost control of many things that are fundamental to what Abraham Lincoln described as, “Government Of the People, By the People, For the People.”

As Tony Benn once said, “If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.”

TWELVE — General

Over the past decade Britain has paid over £150 billion to the EU budget.

We send about £350 million to Brussels every single week. This is about half the English schools budget, four times the Scottish schools budget, and about 60 times what we spend on the NHS cancer drugs fund.

If we vote to ‘remain’, it is a vote for the permanent and increasing haemorrhage of all that money; wasted in Brussels.

It will get worse. UK taxpayers will be paying the huge bills caused by the Euro’s crisis, and even further increases to pay for Angular Merkel’s open-door refugee/economic-migrant “policy.”

Of course, all this money would be better spent on our Hospitals, Schools, Police and Defense.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for the continued supremacy of EU law over British law.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for continued EU control (or perhaps EU utter lack of control) over migration policy.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for continued EU control & regulation of how public services work, and how businesses, especially small businesses operate.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for the continued denial of democracy.

We spread democracy throughout the world, but we’ve binned it in Europe

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for permanent EU control of UK trade.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for Britain having no power to make our own trade deals and no vote at the World Trade Organisation.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU is a vote for EU judges striking down UK laws using the new Charter of Fundamental Rights, which Tony Blair, when Prime Minister, promised it would have, “…no more legal effect than The Beano;” but is already being applied by the European Court of Justice.

This Charter gives EU judges more power over Britain than the US Supreme Court has over US states.

This is not about your view on human rights. It is about whether the EU controls human rights in Britain or whether we, the British public and courts, control human rights, within our own country.

In an excellent article in GQ recently, Tony Parsons wrote, “The case for the UK remaining in the EU will be made by the same people who assured us that Britain should ditch the pound sterling for the euro. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EU means the UK being constantly outvoted.

The nineteen Eurozone countries now constitute a majority in the EU that can routinely outvote Britain. We now only have 8% of the votes on vital EU decisions.

Since 1996, Britain has strongly opposed over fifty measures in the Council of Ministers. Britain has been outvoted on every occasion and every one of those measures has now become UK law.

THIRTEEN — General

Whatever benefits the UK has gained from being in the EU in the past; and I can’t think of many; they’ve been accompanied by the UK making a NET contribution of £11billion every year to the EU budget.

65% to 75% of our laws come, not from our elected Parliament in Westminster; not even from the elected European Parliament, but from the unelected European Politburo (they chose to call it a Commission) in Brussels.

The elected European Parliament cannot propose legislation.

It is only able to approve or reject legislation proposed by the unelected Politburo and as such, it is a toothless institution.

The European Commission’s rulings bypass Westminster; ensuring laws voted through the European Parliament are forced upon Britain.

Furthermore our limited influence in Brussels ensures European laws can be implemented even if all British MEPs voted against them.

All treaties of the European Union clearly set out the principle of Member States continuing to seek “ever closer union”, which means the EU gradually evolving into a single unified state, with the Member States reduced to mere provinces of a Federal United States of Europe.

Just so we are all clear about the EU’s true intentions, in their visitor centre, in Brussels, there is a plaque which reads:

National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.

The only way to prevent the UK from becoming a European province is to Get Britain Out of the EU.

FOURTEEN — The “IN” Campaigners’ shenanigans

The “Stay-in” campaigners are prepared to use any tactics to try and stem the rising tide of Brexit believers.

Barack Obama’s former classmate, the US Trade representative, Michael Fromen, in an attempt to scare, recently poured cold water on the idea of the US agreeing a trade deal with a post-Brexit UK.

But US Republican Presidential hopeful, Jeb Bush countered, “Great Britain is a sovereign nation, and they must make this decision about their relationship with Europe on their own. The US should… …not bully an ally. That said, if Great Britain made that decision (Brexit) of course the US would work with them on a trade agreement.

And Fromen’s motives became clear when it came out that he & his wife both used to work for the EU; he was a member of the Forward Studies Unit of the European Commission.

Tony Parsons points out that, “The liberal establishment, from Downing Street to Broadcasting House, will argue for Britain to remain in the EU, that the loss of our national sovereignty, the degrading of our democracy, is a price worth paying because it is good for business.

But is it really that good for business? The UK is Europe’s biggest customer, whereas we sell more elsewhere; and could do so much better on our own.

In September, an analysis by Capital Economics concluded that the UK pulling out of the EU “would not be a disaster”, as some have predicted. “Claims that millions of jobs are reliant on membership of the EU are highly misleading”, it said, adding that “they assume that all of the UK’s trade with the EU would vanish if the UK left the EU”.

Tony Parsons again: “Don’t let them tell you the British are not a proud, independent nation. Don’t buy into their stinking culture of fear.

FIFTEEN — The “IN” Campaigners’ shenanigans

One of the loudest voices calling for the UK to stay in the EU is that of the CBI.

(No, that doesn’t stand for Congenital Bloody Idiots… …although come to think of it…)

In 1987 the Confederation of British Industry called for full UK membership of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, arguing that, “…the discipline of a more stable exchange rate could help to increase Britain’s share of world trade.

The CBI was wrong; British membership of the ERM led to interest rates hitting 15% in 1992 and millions of homeowners going into negative equity, and many losing their homes.

In 1999, the CBI argued that joining the Euro would, “…deliver significant benefits to the UK economy;” including allowing British companies, “…to participate fully in a more complete and competitive single market;” and removing “…from the UK economy the harmful impact of exchange rate volatility.

The CBI was wrong; since the Euro crisis began in 2009, several Eurozone countries have suffered economic depression, while the UK, which had avoided the Euro was able to devalue its currency and has returned to economic growth.

The CBI has consistently supported transferring control from the British Parliament and courts to the EU institutions. In 2000, it stated that, “…the need for the Nice Treaty,” which transferred control to the EU institutions, was “pressing.

In 2008, the CBI stated that it, “…welcomed the attempt to clarify the role and remit of the EU,” in the Lisbon Treaty, which transferred more control from the UK to the EU.

The CBI was wrong on both occasions; the result of greater EU control is that 75% of the laws made each year which apply to the UK, are made by unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic EU institutions.

Now the CBI insists that the UK must remain in the EU. The CBI was always wrong before and the CBI is wrong now.

SIXTEEN — Turkey & refugee crisis

Contrary to the standard convention that dictates national leaders avoid visiting other countries during the run-up to elections; ‘Angular’ Merkel, “Chancellor of the Free World” (LOL!!) flew into Ankara shortly before November’s Turkish election to beg President Erdogan to slow down the flow of refugees through his country.

Of course, the truth is they are “from,” not “through” Turkey. The “flow”; Cameron’s “Swarm” was caused by Erdogan turning the tap on; simply opening Turkey’s European borders.

In return for his promise to turn-off that tap, Angular gave him everything he wanted; over 3 billion Euros, annually, and the distinct possibility of fast-tracking Turkish EU membership, giving 80 million Turks the right to travel, live and work anywhere in the EU.

This visit was hailed as a diplomatic triumph by & for Mr Erdogan, helping him to win a decisive majority, which in turn is one more step on his way to accomplish his true aim of creating another Sunni Islamist dictatorship, out of what was once the secular democracy of Turkey.

Do we really think Turkey should be a member of the EU?

My answer would be;

About as much as I think the UK should be; not at all.

Angular thinks that the nascent Islamic State of Turkey should be a member of the EU.

Turkey, that has been supporting Daesh since its inception; supplying arms to them, allowing easy movement of their new recruits into Syria, buying stolen oil from them and carrying out air-strikes on Kurdish forces opposed to them;

Turkey, that has at best, been a tepid ally, prepared to use NATO but not back NATO;

Turkey, that has been the facilitator of heroin trafficking to Europe for decades;

Turkey, that has consistently entered Syrian & Iraqi airspace, to attack Syrian & Iraqi Kurds, and yet shoots down a Russian aircraft that was in Turkish airspace for less than a minute, had already left and was never a threat;

Turkey, that is yet another reason we should get out of the EU; ASAP.

SEVENTEEN — Turkey & refugee crisis

The EU insists on the free movement of citizens of Member States, between those Member States; allowing those EU citizens to reside anywhere within the EU.

The “Schengen Agreement,” signed on 14 June 1985, adds another layer of bureaucratic complications. The “Schengen Area” has grown over the years and currently consists of 26 European countries, not all EU Members, which have abolished passport and any other type of border control at their common borders.

The original agreement was nothing to do with the EU, and included Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, along with 22 EU Members.

As it has grown it has been absorbed into the EU’s bureaucracy, and is now controlled under EU law.

Two EU Members, Ireland & the UK opted out originally and, thank heaven, remain outside.

New EU members; Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania, are legally obliged to eventually join the Schengen Area.

Schengen means that anyone, from anywhere in the world, once inside the area, can travel anywhere within the area, without any form of border check at all.

The “Syrian Refugee Tsunami” has left Schengen in tatters.

Not only are many of these refugees not Syrian; those that are, are not running from either Assad or Daesh. They have been resident in Turkey for years; since before the Civil war & Daesh.

Erdogan’s Turkey decided to release them into Europe, so that he could blackmail the EU:

To a.) Get money — done;

and b.) Expedite Turkey’s entry into the EU — nearly done.

EIGHTEEN — Refugees

The prime responsibility of our government; before Health, Education, Welfare or anything else is the Security and Safety of the country and its inhabitants.

Usually one of the advantages of being in an alliance is increased security; not so with membership of the EU.

The free movement of the citizens of EU countries throughout the EU, combined with the free movement of literally anybody within the Schengen zone has left the UK’s border security in tatters.

All are well aware of the flood of refugees and/or economical migrants, many apparently Syrians, currently flowing into what Churchill called the, “Soft under-belly of Europe”

We now know that Syrian passport offices in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour once possessed large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them. For more than 17 months these two cities have been in Daesh hands.

According to a recent report from US Homeland Security, “…it is possible that individuals from Syria with passports ‘issued’ in these ISIS controlled cities or who had passport blanks, may have travelled to the U.S.,”

“Possible”? Highly likely, even certain; I’d have thought.

And not just “…individuals from Syria;” either; really from just about anywhere in the Middle East.

James Forsyth, writing in the ‘Spectator’ on 12th December 2015 said, “When the EU is in crisis, the Commission’s answer is, inevitably, more Europe.

So, its response to the migrant crisis is to propose an EU border force that could, in extremis, take over the management of Schengen countries’ borders without permission.

Now, Britain is not in Schengen so this proposal would not apply here.

But it is worth considering just how federalising it is. Under this proposal, the Italians, say, could suddenly find the EU manning its borders. It would be a major erosion of national sovereignty.

What “National Sovereignty?” Within the EU there really isn’t any to speak of; that’s the whole idea.

Just so we are all clear about the EU’s true intentions, in their visitor centre, in Brussels, there is a plaque which reads:

National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.

Ian Traynor, in the ‘Guardian’ reports that the EU Border Force idea has French and German support, which should give it a fair wind; but Greece and Italy, the two countries most likely to be subject to these new powers, are naturally strongly opposed.

Forsyth goes on to suggest, “This proposal could have a knock on effect on the British renegotiation, in that it could reduce the time available for discussion of it at next week’s EU council. For it is hard to see the meeting passing without a row over this proposal.”

Does that really matter?

The UK’s negotiation is a farce; David Cameron has asked for trivia; he won’t get more than cosmetic tweaks and vague promises; and return to us in triumph; recommending our acceptance of his “renegotiated position.”

That is exactly what Harold Wilson did in 1975…

NINETEEN — Schengen

On the Mirror Website, on Monday 14th December 2015, Labour MP Alan Johnson is quoted as saying, If we leave the European Union … we lose that protection at our most vulnerable point — Calais to Dover — where Britain has effectively moved its border to Calais because we are members of the European Union.

We’ve done that because the French can’t be bothered to police that end of the tunnel adequately themselves.

We aren’t in the Schengen zone; France is; it is not our responsibility to police that side of the Schengen border.

The Schengen Plan, allows the free movement of anybody; EU citizen or not; once inside the Schengen Zone. The UK opted out of Schengen.

However the EU allows citizens of member states free movement anywhere within the EU

From January to June, 2015 official figures, based on surveys at points of entry, show 53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian migrants coming to the UK.

Yet in roughly the same time period, a total of 214,000 National Insurance numbers were given to Romanians and Bulgarians.

There are more accurate ways that the government can measure exact levels of migration.

Benefit claims and payments of tax are both records which the government possesses for migrants here in Britain.

But they are refusing point black to release the figures.

Jonathan Portes, Senior Fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, on 17th December, revealed that when he asked the government for this data, he was turned down point blank and denied access to the figures.

Not because the government doesn’t have the data;

Not because it would cost them anything to give it to him;

The request was turned down for political reasons.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) official response was that releasing these much more authentic migrant figures would be “…unhelpful to the negotiation process”.

Now our government is one of the main supporters of Turkey’s entry into the EU.

Which would allow Turkish citizens unfettered access to the UK;

Turkey, pop about 80 million, that has been supporting Daesh since its inception; supplying arms to them, allowing easy movement of their new recruits into Syria, buying stolen oil from them and carrying out air-strikes on Kurdish forces opposed to them;

Turkey, that has at best, been a tepid ally, prepared to use NATO but not to back NATO;

Turkey, that has been the facilitator of heroin trafficking to Europe for decades;

Turkey, that has consistently entered Syrian & Iraqi airspace, to attack Syrian & Iraqi Kurds, and yet shoots down a Russian aircraft that was in Turkish airspace for less than a minute, had already left and was never a threat;

Turkey, that is yet another reason we should get out of the EU; ASAP.

TWENTY — Negotiations

What is David Cameron’s strategy?

The whole renegotiation is a PR smokescreen.

1. Only ask for trivia. He is not asking for the ‘fundamental, far reaching change’ he promised before the election. His renegotiation will not address the EU’s deep problems.

2. Create lots of fake rows so the trivia appear to be important and he seems to be engaged in an heroic struggle against foreigners.

3. Declare victory on the trivia. Even if there is not the slightest suggestion of a victory.

4. Spin the trivial victory as part of a bigger deal — the creation of “a new type of EU membership — the British model. The opt-outs on the euro and Schengen will be combined with victory on the trivia and the promise of a new Treaty and legal changes in the future to claim that the fundamental terms of membership have changed. There was a reference to this ‘British model’ in Cameron’s Chatham House speech.

5. Combine the renegotiation with the fact that Brussels, Berlin, and Paris agree that there must be a new Treaty to save the euro. This new Treaty is sketched in the Five Presidents Report. It is due to happen after our referendum and will transfer many new powers to Brussels. (He won’t mention that bit!)

6. This new treaty will be pre-spun as a transfer of powers back to the UK; which will not happen.

7. George Osborne wants the whole thing out of the way before the end of September 2016. Downing Street special advisers, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, and their allies in Brussels are looking to see if they can declare victory around the EU Council on 19 February then have the referendum.

TWENTY ONE — Plan B

The Sun reports: “DAVID Cameron admitted yesterday there are no contingency plans in place in case Britain votes to leave the EU.”

Apparently he also said, “A Brexit is the “wrong answer.”

Which just goes to prove, what we all knew;

His so-called “Hard-fought negotiations” to get “Fundamental and Far-Reaching Reforms” are a utter sham.

He doesn’t care if he gets any reforms; just something he can spin as such.

He has never had any intention of ever campaigning for Brexit.

But, it’s worse than that;

To fail to make a contingency plan, in case of a Brexit vote,

However “Wrong” or unlikely, he thinks that might be, if true

Is outrageously irresponsible; it is neglect of his duty

There was a contingency plan in event of the Scots voting to leave the UK

This is a much more momentous decision; and we may well get a “Leave” Victory

OK, so that will probably mean Cameron is out of a job,

But a Brexit victory will cause doubts enough in the financial markets;

To not have a plan ready will double those doubts;

BREXIT will not be a simple process;

Various Acts of Parliament will have to be repealed or amended;

Including;

The European Communities Act 1972; The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986; The European Communities (Finance) Act 2001; The European Communities (Finance) Act 2008; The European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

And I’m sure I’ve missed some…

New trade deals will have to be negotiated

With EU countries, as well as others…

As I said, not to have done any contingency planning,

In the forlorn hope of conning the British public into a “Remain” vote;

Not to have even done a “Risk Assessment” and planned how to meet that risk

Is “Outrageously Irresponsible”

A dereliction of duty and an abrogation of responsibility

Stupid, in fact; unbelievably stupid…

If Cameron & Osbourne haven’t made any contingency plan

I sincerely trust Nigel Farage has.

TWENTY TWO — Renegotiation Charade

EU NEW DEAL IS A SWINDLE

From the Morning Star, 9th January; yes, I know, maybe it is a “Commie Rag”, but it was the only national daily that opposed the UK’s entry into the EEC in 1975.

It was the only National Daily Newspaper that was right then; and it’s right again!

The Editorial begins:

“Is ANYONE still fooled by David Cameron’s pretence that he is renegotiating the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union?”

“Now he has to pretend to be getting tough with the EU, fighting for a new deal for Britain and threatening to campaign for a “Brexit” should negotiations prove fruitless.”

“It’s all a fraud perpetrated on a public that is rightly sceptical about the EU and all its works.”

Cameron has absolutely no intention of supporting British withdrawal from the EU, ever.

Yes, he has gone on about “standing up for Britain” and “hard-fought negotiations” in his efforts to obtain “Fundamental and Far-Reaching Reforms;” Angular Merkel, Junkers, Rumpy-Pumpy et al will play ball, pretending that they have made significant concessions; vague promises that will soon be forgotten.

But in the end, Cameron will campaign in favour of EU membership because it serves the interests of big business.

Big business in Europe will want to keep Britain’s lucrative market within the EU framework, where the unelected European Politburo and the unaccountable European Central Bank hold sway, promote policies that favour the big corporations over the common man.

Naturally the major internationals prefer to deal with unelected bureaucrats or dictators, rather than sovereign democratic nations and those awkward elected governments!

TWENTY THREE — Ever Closer Union

In the EU Visitor Centre, in Brussels (probably in Strasbourg as well) there’s a plaque which reads:

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.”

That is the false foundation on which the United States of Europe (the EUSSR) is being built

That is the single most important aim of the politburo in Brussels

Every single EU Treaty, from the Treaty of Rome, 1958; Our Accession Treaty of Brussels, in 1972; the Schengen Treaty, 1985; the Maastricht Treaty, 1993; Amsterdam Treaty, 1997; Nice Treaty, 2001; through to the Lisbon Treaty, 2007; has been about “Ever Closer Union” and the total elimination of National Sovereignty; what they describe as, “…this supreme and catastrophic evil.”

And yet, on the Andrew Marr Show, on 10th January David Cameron talked about, about the British parliament “…currently being sovereign.”

Cameron is as much in denial about this, as he is about the threat of extreme Islam in the UK.

So much in denial, that I’m going to shout the next bit;

“OY, DAVE,” that’s me shouting, “AS A MEMBER OF THE EU, WE’VE SURRENDERED NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY; IF WE REMAIN A MEMBER WE WILL NEVER HAVE IT AGAIN!”

That is the truth;

If the UK remains a member of the European Union, we will never have true national parliamentary sovereignty ever again.

TWENTY FOUR — Refugees

Angular Merkel on December 31st 2015 said; “Our values, our traditions, our sense of justice, our language, our laws, our rules support our society and they are the basic requirement for a good common life imbued by mutual respect,”

This applies “to all who wish to live here,” she added.

Good luck with that, Angular;

With the massive influx of Islamic (chiefly Sunni) “refugees” that you’ve invited into Germany, all your “values, traditions, sense of justice, language, laws or rules,” will be threatened.

Those newcomers, whose numbers will continue to rise, do not, and as has been shown all round the world, will not share your “values, traditions, sense of justice, language, laws or rules.”

TWENTY FIVE — Flooding

EUSSR Directives never cease to amaze; but often they horrify.

Many are laughable in their stupidity;

But in recent days one in particular has proved disastrous;

Literally and stupidly, disastrous

The European Water Framework Directive, which came into UK law in 2000, is all about water quality.

It decrees that all rivers within member states must achieve “Good ecological status

Now, everybody knows that river levels will rise when there’s heavy rain, and during spring thaws.

And most people realise that the powerful currents upriver drag soil, sand, gravel and other debris with them.

This flow slows down as it gets to the flatter levels and wider river reaches.

There, as the current slows the sand and gravel is deposited; raising the river bed every time and reducing the river’s capacity

Meaning the water level rises more each time

Of course, water draining off already sodden farmland will raise levels even more

If nothing is done to deal with the rising river beds, rivers overflow, rivers “burst their banks,”

Fields, roads and homes, hundreds of homes, are flooded

Of course, flood plains & water-meadows;

Farmland that is allowed to flood; controlled by weirs and sluice-gates,

Can to some extent control the flooding;

But the compensation paid to the farmer won’t stock supermarket shelves

And floods need to be prevented, rather than just controlled

Flood prevention;

For centuries, yes, hundreds of years, rivers have been dredged

Clearing excess sand and gravel, to retain the rivers’ depth and water capacity

To prevent that flooding

At one time this was the law of the land;

Communities and land owners were fined if they failed to dredge their rivers

But the crass, deplorably destructive European Water Framework Directive has changed all that.

It decrees that dredging is ecologically wrong

That the sand and gravel, which after dredging used to be used to raise river-banks

Is now “toxic waste” and must be taken away and disposed of accordingly.

Rivers must be returned to, and kept in, their “natural” (that is flooding more & more each year) state

Yes, basically the EU has ordered us to let rivers flood!

There is massive funding from all directions, including the EU, to follow their policy that destroys homes and kills people

But don’t worry;

There is also funding for “Flood Defences”

Those plastic, metal and brick barriers erected along town & city river-banks in recent years

Ugly and pointless barriers that even the Environment Agency admits, are ineffective

There is, of course, no funding or assistance, for dredging

Just discouragement and obstruction, for the best tried and tested, (over many centuries,) method of flood prevention

Dredging,

That has virtually died out over the last 15 years

Dredging

That could have, probably would have, saved many lives and countless homes

Dredging

The European Water Framework Directive has put paid to that…

TWENTY SIX — EUSSR Army

We are in NATO, as are several other EU member states; the EU has no need of an army.

But, if the EU decides they want to have an army;

They’ll have an army;

We won’t be able to stop them;

We have no influence there.

What we need to do is ensure that the UK has abso-bloody-lutely no part in it.

Yet another reason for a rapid Brexit.

TWENTY SEVEN — Ever Closer Union

Though I’m very pleased to see David Davis write;

“The truth is we are now being asked to give up control of our own future to exercise an influence we no longer have in the interest of an institution that may be beyond reform.”

The actual truth is we have already given up “control of our own future;” we are absolutely without any influence, in an institution that is not only “beyond reform,” but has no wish to reform, except towards “Ever Closer Union.”

We must get out of this EUSSR, and regain “control of our own future” before this soviet-style institution implodes completely taking the UK with it.

TWENTY EIGHT — General

I was chatting with a friend the other day; much the same age as me, (neither of us will see sixty-anything again) he was saying that he would be voting to “Remain In.”

“Why?” says I, “Doesn’t it bother your that 75% of our laws originate in the unelected EU Commission; a politburo?”

“Well, they say that, don’t they,” he said, “But that can’t be true, surely.”

“What about the average £10 billion it costs us each year?” I ask.

“We get a lot in European grants though don’t we,” he said, “All that would stop if we left.”

“That £10 billion is net,” I replied, “Last year, we paid in just over £14 billion, and got back just over £4 billion. In addition, you’re an accountant, you’ll understand this; guess how long it’s been since the EUs accounts were signed off…”

“Oh, I know; nineteen years; that’s terrible…”

“Yet you still intend to vote to remain in?”

“Well, yes, I think so… it doesn’t really affect me…”

People ask me, “Why do you bang on about Europe all the time? There are more important things to worry about; like the NHS, the Police, Education…”

My answer; “The question of the UK’s continued membership of the EU is more important than all of those; the UK being a member of the EU detrimentally affects all of them, and a lot more.”

If you asked me, “How does the UK’s membership of the EU affect you personally?”

I would have to reply, “On the face of it, not very much at all.” Like my friend in the conversation above…

I’m not, and never have been, in business; so am not directly affected by EU regulations. But I’ve heard people referring to, “the government” telling them to do this and that; not realising that it is in fact the EU telling them to do whatever.

Being an OAP, my personal life is hardly touched by the EU, or the UK’s membership of it.

But there is always that “…not very much at all,” “…not directly;” and “…hardly touched;” which I’ll come back to.

I know that there are many people, possibly even the majority, who are what might be called, “Personal Impact Electors,” (PIES); using the criteria, “What’s in it for me?” or “How does it affect me?”, when deciding which way to vote in any election.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that view of politics; but it’s not how I decide & never will be.

I try to base my voting, in Local elections on what I think best for my community; and in General & European elections, on what I think best for the country.

My chief concern about our membership of the EU is the demise of democracy in the UK. It isn’t quite dead; but certainly dying; lingering on; the “Last Rites” already read.

It’s not just that 75% of our laws originate in the unelected EU Politburo; democracy in our local government is comatose, at death’s door, as well.

That affects me, because even though I can see what the EUSSR is doing to democracy; while we are in the EUSSR, I can’t do anything about it; none of us can.

The “PIES” aren’t bothered about this; but ought to be very bothered about my other main concern, and that is the cost.

The UK makes an average NET contribution of £10billion, every year, to the EUSSR budget. That’s about £250 million a week; how many Doctors, Nurses, Policemen and Teachers would that pay for?

But we get EU grants,” they say; and they’d be right; but, there’s a big But.

Our last annual contribution (2014) to the EU budget was £14.5 billion, and out of that the UK got just £4 billion back in grants, leaving £10.5billion disappearing into the black-hole that is the EUSSR economy.

The “PIES” should understand that that is their taxes; contributing to such worthwhile things as the massive pay-rise, back-dated 6 months, recently granted to EUSSR officials; or the bi-annual move of the entire European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg and back; this inexplicable parliamentary migration has taken place every year since it was formed in 1979. Each move costs 114 million Euros each year; that’s about 4 billion to date…

Since George Osbourne took over an ‘empty’ treasury in 2010, we have shovelled £55billion into that black-hole; if we hadn’t had to, he may not have been forced into the unpopular austerity decisions that the “PIES” are constantly moaning about…

This is where that, “…not very much at all,” “…not directly;” and “…hardly touched,” come in.

I am amongst the many affected by the benefits squeeze.

We’re all affected by there being fewer police officers.

And as we get older we all will be affected by an ailing NHS, more & more.

Oh, and regarding EU over-regulation; my wife is upset that with her new vacuum cleaner, the housework takes twice as long as it used to; and, believe me, that affects me as well!

TWENTY NINE — General

Whatever benefits the UK has gained from being in the EU in the past; and I can’t think of many; they’ve been accompanied by; the UK making a NET contribution of £11billion every year to the EU budget.

And 65% to 75% of our laws coming, not from our elected Parliament in Westminster; not even from the elected European Parliament, but from the unelected European Politburo (they chose to call it a Commission) in Brussels.

The elected European Parliament cannot propose legislation.

It is only able to approve or reject legislation proposed by the unelected Politburo and as such, it’s an utterly toothless institution.

The European Commission’s rulings bypass Westminster; ensuring laws voted through the European Parliament are forced upon Britain.

EU Commissioners are forbidden from acting in their nation’s interest; and before taking office must take an oath;

“…neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or any other institution, body, office or entity”

It is a legal requirement that each commissioner is chosen on the ground of his or her “European Commitment”

Furthermore our limited influence in Brussels ensures European laws can be implemented even if all British MEPs voted against them.

All treaties of the European Union clearly set out the principle of Member States continuing to seek “Ever Closer Union”, which means the EU gradually evolving into a single unified state, with the Member States reduced to mere provinces of a Federal United States of Europe.

Just so we are all clear about the EU’s true intentions, in their visitor centre, in Brussels, there is a plaque which reads:

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.”

The only way to prevent the UK from becoming a European province is to Get the UK Out of the EU.

THIRTY — The Renegotiation Charade

Eurosceptic backbenchers, and the rest of us, want their ministerial allies to be free to speak out immediately;

But, under threat of dismissal, they must wait until Cameron seals his deal;

Or more to the point;

Announces that he has won “Fundamental, Far-reaching reforms”

That means they will have to hold their fire until after the EU summit next month;

Or the following one in March,

Or whenever Cameron decides that whatever paltry promises his desperate grovelling (sorry his “Hard Fought Renegotiation”) has achieved, are all he’s going to get.

All he is going to be able to spin as those “Fundamental, Far-reaching reforms”

Naturally, that gives the “Remainers” a distinct, unfair advantage,

Europhile ministers can, and will make the case for Europe, or try to, over the next six to 10 weeks,

Without any, weight-for-weight ministerial opposition

In addition, Cameron himself will have a gap of three or four days, after making his “Deal”, before presenting it to the cabinet.

A gap in which he can spin his “Deal” completely unanswered.

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary,

Who once paraded vaguely Eurosceptic credentials

Has now said he could not “…envisage arguing for leaving,” while the PM did the opposite

The Foreign Secretary has also repeated the ridiculous claim: “Britain benefits from the free trade agreements that have been negotiated by the European Union with third countries. We could not guarantee that renegotiating such agreements with the UK would be a priority for all of those third countries if we were outside the EU.”

So those “third countries” obviously would suddenly lose all desire to sell their goods to the UK if we left the EUSSR.

Yea, right, of course they would!

Downing Street will, without doubt, wheel out other pro-EU ministers over the next few weeks, lying through their teeth about how wonderful membership of the EUSSR has been for the UK

While Ian Duncan Smith and his allies must remain gagged

Cameron’s decision leaves one crucial group of Cabinet ministers with a dilemma

The “Fence-sitters” are those whose hearts are believed to be with the Eurosceptics but whose heads tell them it might be in their personal interests to stick with Cameron.

Their numbers include;

Theresa May, the Home Secretary;

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London;

Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary;

Sajid Javid, the Business Secretary;

John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary;

and Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary.

The “Fence-sitters” could determine the result of the referendum,

By undermining Cameron’s arguments about the merits of his “new deal”,

Once the ministerial gags are removed

If Theresa May, after six years as Home Secretary, said the only way to bring immigration down to manageable levels was to leave the EU, it could be a game-changer.

Boris Johnson saying the City of London would prosper outside the EU, would sway many undecided voters.

And Sajid Javid talking up the trade deals that could be struck if Britain went alone, would also make a strong point

But, and it’s a big “But”;

People are realising that a free vote is not always as free as it looks,” one prominent Tory Europhobe admitted. “We hope they will do the right thing but some may be tempted to stick with Cameron if they think he’ll win.”

If any of the “Fence-sitters”…

Theresa May, despite her serious concerns regarding immigration…

Or

Boris, despite knowing that the City of London would prosper outside the EU…

Having heard Cameron report on the “Fundamental, Far-reaching EU reforms” he has achieved,

Was to announce that, after all they would be supporting him in the “Remain-In” campaign

They could do serious, if not irreparable damage to the Leave campaign

In the end, the “Fence-sitters” may decide that their best bet is to remain loyal to Cameron.

But there’s something else they have to consider…

When Cameron leaves Number 10, HE won’t choose his successor.

The Conservative Party members will,

And a recent survey by the ‘ConservativeHome’ website found that 67% of the Tory Part membership want Brexit and only 25% want the UK to remain in the EUSSR.

The Tories may well elect a Eurosceptic leader next time, which makes the dilemma facing the ambitious May and Johnson very acute indeed.

How much do they want that Tory Party leadership?

Let’s hope it’s enough to persuade them “come-out” against David Cameron now

THIRTY ONE — General

Speaking at King’s College, London, on 12th January, Lord (Nigel) Lawson declared;

“There is not a downside to Brexit; If there is, it is trivial; We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

He said that the country would recover control of its destiny and stop having to send a net £10billion every year to Brussels.

The former Chancellor also insisted that British trade would prosper outside the EU.

For the past 15 months, the UK has exported more to countries outside the EUSSR than to those in it.

Lord Lawson, who is leading the Tory campaign to quit the EUSSR, said that UK concerns about red tape and meddling by Europe are being routinely ignored.

He added:

“The EU is a political project whose objectives we do not share. That objective is to create a United States of Europe. The EU is economically damaging and profoundly undemocratic.”

Referring to the Council of Ministers, he said that on the 72 occasions when the UK has voted against a measure in the Council, it has gone on to become law.

This included 40 times since David Cameron became PM in 2010

This is significantly more than any other country in the EUSSR.

Lord Lawson said: “That is a fact. A score-line of 0–72 is not particularly brilliant and that is how it will continue.”

With the polls neck and neck, Lord Lawson said he did not have the ‘faintest idea’ what the result of the referendum will be.

Anyone who pretended otherwise was ‘foolish’, added the peer.

But he said that if the British were being asked now to join the EU, they would vote No.

He said what people overwhelmingly wanted was to become a self-governing nation again which would decide its own future.

The much-vaunted claim that the EU had helped to secure peace in Europe since the Second World War, Lord Lawson dismissed as “…arrant nonsense” saying this was the work of NATO

He also attacked claims by the Prime Minister and the ‘remain’ campaign that staying in the EUSSR was “…vital for national security.”

The peer said:

“We would be just as able to deal with terrorism outside; In many ways more so; Our membership of NATO is nothing to do with our membership of the EU.”

“Five Eyes [UK intelligence sharing with the US, Canada, Australia & New Zealand] is nothing to do with the EU.”

THIRTY TWO — The Renegotiation Charade

So, as I understand it; having completely failed to get the apparatchiks of the EUSSR to acquiesce to any of his pathetic pleadings for something he could spin as “Fundamental, far reaching change,” all Mr Cameron can hope to ask the British people in his 2017 referendum is for a mandate to remain in the EU until the terms of this suggested new treaty are clear.

Apparently this new treaty will create a two-tier EU, split between the idiots clinging to the doomed Euro, and the rest, the “Associate Members;” not quite stupid enough to want the Euro; just enough to want to remain mere provinces of the Federal States of Europe.

We are told that when the details of the new treaty are revealed, if Cameron manages to get a “Remain” vote, there will have to be another referendum…

According to Christopher Brooker, Cameron’s “EU colleagues have enabled him to turn a cynical short-term fix into what looks like a victory for all he asked for, leaving us, just as he always wanted, still firmly part of the EU.”

Well I’m not falling for any “short-term fix”

There is nothing here about getting our lost democracy back; even as “associate members” of the EU(SSR), 75% of our laws will come from the unelected Politburo/Commission.

Even as “associate members” of the EUSSR, Our Annual net contribution will still be averaging £10 billion and rising; money we could be spending on Education, the NHS & Defense.

Even as “associate members” of the EUSSR, we will still have no control over our own borders, and immigration will still be swamping our essential services.

Even as “associate members” of the EUSSR, we still won’t be able to make our own trade deals, and EU central regulation will still be suffocating our small businesses.

We don’t have to give Cameron a “mandate to remain in the EU until the terms of this suggested new treaty are clear.”

We don’t want or need two referendums.

We should vote “Leave” in the first one.

THIRTY THREE — The Renegotiation Charade

When I read in a BBC News report that, “Mr Cameron said at last month’s EU conference that he was a “step closer” to getting the reforms to “fundamentally change” the UK’s relationship with the EU. A final deal is widely expected to be struck at February’s EU summit.”

I was reduced to thinking, “What utter Bo***cks! (rhymes with rowlocks)

With the pathetic scraps Cameron as been begging for, which he isn’t going to get;

He hasn’t begun to make even a “baby step” closer to anything approaching “Fundamental Change.”

Even if the EU suddenly shocked everyone by rolling over and giving him everything he is asking for;

It would still NOT be “FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE!” I’m shouting again

At the start of his farcical negotiations, on Tuesday, 10th November 2015, David Cameron he made a speech outlining his four, just four pathetic trivial “Demands.”

Remember Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin, after hearing these four “demands,” asked, “Is that it?”

First Cameron was going to “demand” that the EU allow us to impose just a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work and other benefits;

Whereas for real “Fundamental Change” what the UK needs is complete control of our country’s borders.

His second “demand was that the EU provide greater protection for non-Eurozone countries to ensure they cannot be outvoted by Eurozone countries;

What UK needs for actual “Fundamental Changeis independence to make our own decisions; where no other countries, Eurozone or non-Eurozone, have any vote at all.

Then he was going to “demand” that the EU give the UK an opt-out from the EU’s commitment to “Ever-Closer Union”;

What we have now is already much too-close a union;

For true “Fundamental Change” what the UK needs is no “Union,” at all; close, distant or otherwise.

His last great “demand” was to be that the EU give parliaments more powers to club together to block EU legislation;

For genuine “Fundamental Change” what the UK needs is a complete end to the EU legislating for the UK at all.

THIRTY FOUR — The Renegotiation Charade

Don’t be fooled by the Government’s renegotiation smokescreen.

On 11th March 1975, in Dublin, the EEC heads of government agreed to a deal with the UK, following Harold Wilson’s renegotiations, prior to his manifesto promised referendum.

And Wilson then declared;

“I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.”

On that basis, he urged the British electorate to vote, “Remain In”

And they did…

Prediction;

On 19th February 2016, in Brussels, the EU heads of government will agree to a deal with the UK, following David Cameron’s renegotiations, prior to his manifesto promised referendum.

And Cameron will declare;

“I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.”

Or words to that effect;

And on that basis, he will urge the British electorate to vote, “Remain In”

Please, do not be fooled by the Government’s renegotiation smokescreen.

David Cameron & the Conservative Party have made promises;

1. In 2005; “Our aim should be to take back control of employment and social regulation.”

2. In 2009; “The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels.”

3. Also in 2009; We will “Limit the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level.”

4. In 2014; “If an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave.”

5. In 2015; There will be “Proper, full-on treaty change”

6. Again in 2015; “We will push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.”

7. And again in 2015; “Further reform of Structural Funds”

NONE of these have been part of Cameron’s renegotiations

NOT ONE of the above made it onto his wish-list

His woefully weak wish-list was four trivial “demands”;

1. A four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work and other benefits;

2. Greater protection for non-Eurozone countries to ensure they cannot be outvoted by Eurozone countries;

3. An opt-out from the EU’s commitment to “ever-closer union”;

4. That the EU give parliaments more powers to club together to block EU legislation;

We can’t know for certain what crumbs the EU will drop into Cameron’s begging bowl

But we can be sure his humiliating grovelling, sorry, “hard-fought negotiations,” will get something;

Some paltry, pathetic thing that he’ll be able to spin as a success;

As “Fundamental, Far-reaching Change

That’s when he’ll say;

“I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.”

Or words to that effect…

THIRTY FIVE — Immigration

Immigration is for many people, a major reason for Voting to Leave.

From January to June, 2015 official figures, based on surveys at points of entry, show 53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian migrants coming to the UK.

Yet in roughly the same time period, a total of 214,000 National Insurance numbers were given to Romanians and Bulgarians.

There are more accurate ways that the government can measure exact levels of migration.

Benefit claims and payments of tax are both records which the government possesses for migrants here in Britain. 
 But they are refusing point black to release the figures.

Jonathan Portes, Senior Fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, on 17th December, revealed that when he asked the government for this data, he was turned down point blank and denied access to the figures.

Not because the government doesn’t have the data;

Not because it would cost them anything to give it to him;

The request was turned down for political reasons.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) official response was that releasing these much more authentic migrant figures would be “unhelpful to the negotiation process”

THIRTY SIX — Remainers’ Lies

The “Remain-in” campaigners are prepared to use any tactics to try and stem the rising tide of Brexit believers.

Including lies

At the very start of his renegotiation charade, David Cameron deliberately started a myth.

That myth was that, if he was unsuccessful in his “Hard-fought renegotiations”

If the unelected officials of the EUSSR failed to agree to “Fundamental, Far-reaching reforms;”

He might campaign for an “Out” vote; a Brexit vote,

Few of us ever believed the myth; we realised that what he was asking for was so pathetically trivial, that even if the politburo Euro-rats [I tried to write “Eurocrats,” but spellchecker insisted on “Euro rats”; who am I to argue] had rolled over and agreed to the lot; the result wouldn’t have come even close to “Fundamental, Far-reaching reforms”

But now that myth is now quite utterly dead-in-the-water.

Cameron started that myth quite deliberately & with absolutely no genuine intent, other than to hoodwink British voters

“Mens Rhea”; a Latin term, translates as “Guilty thought”; and is used in criminal law to mean Dishonest Intent; Cameron’s false implication that he might ever “…lead a Brexit campaign,” had “Mens Rhea” written all over it

Chris Grayling, Leader of the House of Commons; on 13th January, wrote a carefully worded article in the Telegraph, in which he said,

“Most people in Westminster know that I hold strong Eurosceptic views. It is time for Britain to vote again on its future in Europe. But I also strongly believe that David Cameron is right to seek new terms for our membership before that vote happens.”

“I am someone who believes that simply staying in the EU with our current terms of membership unchanged would be disastrous for Britain.”

“That’s why I have always believed that it is imperative that his renegotiation takes place and delivers as much potential change as possible.”

“It is in the interests of all Eurosceptics and of our country.”

“I want Britain to choose between a changed relationship and leaving, and not between the current situation and leaving.”

“We will know then how far other EU states are willing to go to meet the Prime Minister’s demands for change and how much difference that renegotiation can make.”

Peter Dominiczak, Political Editor, introduced the article thus;

“Mr Grayling is the first member of Mr Cameron’s Cabinet to openly suggest that Britain should vote to leave the EU if Brussels refuses to submit to the reforms being demanded by the Prime Minister.”

Well, not really, Mr Dominiczak, that is exactly what Mr Cameron implied, when he dishonestly suggested that he might campaign for a Brexit vote; starting the myth above…

We know that Anti-EUSSR Ministers have been gagged until Cameron has completed his Renegotiation Charade;

So how-come the Leader of the House has been allowed to write thus, without censure from Number 10?

Can we be sure Mr Grayling is going to hold to his “strong Eurosceptic views” after he has heard Mr Cameron spin his achievement of “Fundamental, Far-reaching reforms”?

Or is this another Myth?

THIRTY SEVEN — Remainers’ Lies

The “Remainers” with their “Stay-in-however-bad-it-gets” campaign tell lies

They will tell you that the UK cannot survive alone;

That we cannot stand on our own two feet.

They warn that if we leave the EU, businesses will up-sticks and leave the UK.

Do not believe these lies; they’re just scare stories.

They said the same during the euro campaign — they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

The chief executive of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, has pledged to keep building cars in the UK;

Even if we vote to leave for Brexit

Toyota employs thousands of staff in the Midlands and North Wales, and Mr Toyoda has confirmed that he wants to “deepen our roots” in the UK.

Toyota lists, on its web site, the reasons why it invests in the UK;

These include;

A ‘strong tradition of vehicle manufacturing in Britain’,

The ‘large domestic market for our product’,

And

An ‘excellent workforce and favourable working practices’

They don’t mention EU membership.

Firms want to invest in the UK because it is a great place to do business.

We have a skilled workforce, a great legal system;

And English is the language of business.

These are all advantages we had before we joined the EU –

And which we still will have after we leave

When we regain control over our economy and over trade policy, investment into the UK will increase

Just as it did when we decided not to join the euro

THIRTY EIGHT — Remainers’ Lies

The “Remain-in” campaigners are prepared to use any tactics to try and stem the rising tide of Brexit believers.

Including lies

Barack Obama’s former classmate, the US Trade representative, Michael Fromen, in an attempt to scare us, poured cold water on the idea of the US agreeing a trade deal with a post-Brexit UK.

But US Republican Presidential hopeful, Jeb Bush countered,

“Great Britain is a sovereign nation, and they must make this decision about their relationship with Europe on their own. The US should… …not bully an ally. That said, if Great Britain made that decision (Brexit) of course the US would work with them on a trade agreement.”

And the motive for Fromen’s scare tactic became clear when it was revealed that he & his wife both used to work for the EUSSR; he was a member of the “Forward Studies Unit” of the European Politburo.

As well as using trying to frighten us, the “Remain-in” campaigners will cheat.

The EUSSR is already spreading propaganda about how great membership of the EUSSR has been for the UK, and will be spending huge amounts of our money to try and influence voters.

We already know that Cameron is planning to use tax-payers money to send a dossier to every UK household; “informing” them of the “Wonders of EUSSR membership;

This will, without doubt, include triumphant news of;

The “Fundamental, Far-reaching changes” he has achieved, following his “Hard-fought negotiations in Europe.”

More truthfully, the “Pathetic scraps of trivia that were reluctantly dropped into his begging-bowl, as he grovelled around Europe.”

But, we can’t expect Number 10 to trouble anyone with the truth at this stage, can we;

We also now know that after dithering for weeks about whether or not to allow Ministers in his Cabinet to speak out in favour of Brexit, he has now announced that they will be able to; AFTER he has completed, and reported back on his negotiations.

The crucial point is that they cannot speak in favour of Brexit yet.

It is only after he has predictably proclaimed his “Triumphant success in gaining Fundamental, Far-reaching changes,” that they will be allowed to speak in favour of Brexit, if they still wish to.

Of course, Ministers who toe the part line, are free to speak against Brexit as much as they wish, whenever they wish…

Dr Liam Fox, Conservative MP for North Somerset, is the latest MP to publicly come out in support of the Leave campaign;

And we are told to expect more to join him in the coming months;

There are rumours that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and Theresa May are just waiting to announce their support for Brexit.

But, beware of rumours; remember; the “Remain-in” campaigners cheat;

Those “Rumours” could easily be exaggerated, or downright lies

We know that polls show that the difference between “Remain-in” and “Leave” voters is “too close to call”, and that there are a lot of “Undecided’s”

What would be the effect on those “Undecided’s” if a senior politician, rumoured to be “Eurosceptic”, suddenly announced that, having seen, the “Fundamental, Far-reaching changes” Cameron has achieved, following his “hard-fought negotiations in Europe;” they now intend to vote “Remain-in”?

No doubt, some “Undecided’s” would follow.

The more “Rumours” we hear about how “Eurosceptic” some of these senior Tories are, the more “Undecided’s” could be swung this way.

Let’s wait and see if those rumours are true or lies.

Writing in GQ, Tony Parsons points out that,

“The liberal establishment, from Downing Street to Broadcasting House, will argue for Britain to remain in the EU, that the loss of our national sovereignty, the degrading of our democracy, is a price worth paying because it is good for business.”

But is it really that good for business?

The UK is Europe’s biggest customer, whereas we sell more elsewhere; and could do so much better on our own.

In September, an analysis by Capital Economics concluded that the UK pulling out of the EU “would not be a disaster”, as some have predicted. “Claims that millions of jobs are reliant on membership of the EU are highly misleading”, it said, adding that “they assume that all of the UK’s trade with the EU would vanish if the UK left the EU”.

Leaving the EU will not be a step in the dark, but will be a giant leap forward.

Leaving will increase the UK’s freedom to play a more prominent part on the world stage.

This is why we must Get the UK Out of the EU as soon as possible.

Tony Parsons again: “Don’t let them tell you the British are not a proud, independent nation. Don’t buy into their stinking culture of fear.”

THIRTY NINE — the Remainers’ Lies

The “Remain-in” campaigners are prepared to use any tactics to try and stem the rising tide of Brexit believers.

Including lies

There are rumours that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and Theresa May are just waiting to announce their support for Brexit.

And now we hear, “…claims that dozens of Tory ministers are ready to back Brexit”

But, beware of rumours; remember; the “Remain-in” campaigners cheat;

Those “Rumours” could easily be exaggerated,

Or downright lies

We know that polls show that the difference between “Remain-in” and “Leave” voters is “too close to call”,

and that there are a lot of “Undecided’s”

What would be the effect on those “Undecided’s” if a senior politician, rumoured to be “Eurosceptic”, suddenly announced that, having seen, the “Fundamental, Far-reaching changes” Cameron has achieved, following his “hard-fought negotiations in Europe;” they now intend to vote “Remain-in”?

No doubt, some “Undecided’s” would follow.

As we now know, “Philip Hammond has said that he “can’t envisage” campaigning for Britain to leave the EU should David Cameron secure a new relationship with Brussels. The Foreign Secretary’s declaration is a major boost for the campaign to keep Britain inside the EU. He had previously warned that he would vote to leave if the UK was not given more control over its own affairs.”

The more “Rumours” we hear about how “Eurosceptic” some of these senior Tories are, the more “Undecided’s” could be swung this way.

Let’s wait and see if those rumours are true or lies.

FORTY — the Remainers’ Lies

So, after dithering for weeks about it;

Cameron has now announced that Ministers in his Cabinet will be allowed to speak out;

Against the Party-line, in favour of Brexit;

But, as I pointed out a few days ago

Only AFTER he has completed, and reported back on, his negotiations.

The crucial point is that they CANNOT speak in favour of Brexit yet.

Of course, Ministers who toe the Party-line are free to speak against Brexit as much as they wish,

Whenever they wish…

As soon as they wish…

And of course, are encouraged to do so

It is only AFTER David Cameron has predictably proclaimed the;

“Fundamental, Far-reaching changes” he has achieved,

Following his “Hard-fought negotiations in Europe;”

That his Cabinet opponents can speak out

Of course, the truth is Cameron will only have collected;

Poor pathetic scraps of trivia, reluctantly dropped into his begging-bowl;

Following his grovelling crawl around Europe.

But, it is only AFTER Cameron has announced his success, or failure, that Ministers will be allowed to speak in favour of Brexit, if they still wish to.

There are rumours that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and Theresa May are just waiting to announce their support for Brexit.

But, beware of rumours; remember; the “Remain-in” campaigners cheat;

Those “Rumours” could easily be either exaggerated, or downright lies

We know that polls show that the difference between “Remain-in” and “Leave” voters is “too close to call”, and that there are a lot of “Undecided’s”

What would be the effect on those “Undecided’s” if a senior politician, rumoured now to be “Eurosceptic”, suddenly announced that, having seen, the “Fundamental, Far-reaching changes” Cameron has achieved, following his “hard-fought negotiations in Europe;” they now intend to vote “Remain-in”?

No doubt, many “Undecided’s” would follow.

The more “Rumours” we hear about how “Eurosceptic” some of these senior Tories are, the more “Undecided’s” could be swung this way.

Let’s wait and see if those rumours are true or lies

Let’s wait and hear what the “Eurosceptic” Cabinet Ministers have to say, once they’re allowed to speak;

After Cameron has spun his worst…

FORTY ONE — the Remainers’ Lies

The EU-funded CBI campaigned for Britain to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism which was a disaster.

The EU-funded CBI campaigned for Britain to scrap the pound and join the Euro, which would have been another disaster.

The EU-funded CBI cheated its membership surveys on the Euro.

The EU-funded CBI is doing the same now in its campaign for the UK to stay in the EU on any terms.

“Vote Leave” revealed that the CBI’s EU survey, in which it claimed that “8 out of 10 firms say UK must stay in EU,” is highly misleading.

“Vote Leave” complained to the British Polling Council; one of the senior members of the BPC immediately accepted that the CBI survey is ‘pretty dodgy.’

“Vote Leave” published leaked minutes from the CBI President’s Committee which showed that the CBI’s leadership is NOT pushing for EU reform and instead is ‘stepping up’ its plans to campaign for the UK to stay in the EU.

The EU-funded CBI does not represent British business.

A Federation of Small Businesses survey found that 41% of its members would vote to leave the EU.

Similarly, in a recent ‘Business for Britain’ poll of Small & Medium Enterprises, over 40% of respondents stated that the EU hinders their business, compared to 20% who said it helped.

Over two-thirds of businesses reject the fundamental logic of the Single Market and want Britain to control its own trade agreements, which is incompatible with EU membership.

The EU-funded CBI represents a small group of very powerful multinational companies that spend billions lobbying politicians and officials in the secretive world of Brussels.

They represent the EU Commission to the UK media. Also, people should always remember that many multinational businesses can be destroyed by Brussels with regulations — they must support the EU, or at least keep quiet. Most multinationals kept quiet or spoke in favour of the euro too, from fear of reprisals.

The EU-funded CBI should not be trusted.

Many prominent businesspeople have contradicted the scaremongering of the CBI and said that investment plans would not be damaged by a ‘leave’ vote.

JCB chief executive Graeme Macdonald said that leaving the EU;

“Wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference to trade with Europe,”

and that there has been;

“Far too much scaremongering” on risks to jobs and trade.

Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of one the largest US firms, General Electric, told the Telegraph that;

“It’s important the UK has good relationships around the world, but I don’t really think that its place in the European Union makes that much difference.”

Nissan announced a £250 million investment in their Sunderland plant.

Nissan joins other car manufacturers including Vauxhall Motors, Bentley and Rolls Royce who have committed to investing in the UK regardless of the referendum result.

FORTY TWO — the Remainers’ “Case”

I’ve yet to hear any cogent arguments from the “Remain In” brigade, as to why the UK should remain in EUSSR shackles;

All we seem to hear from them are negative comments and scare stories about Brexit.

The main proponents for the “Remain In” campaign call themselves “BSE;”

No, no, not Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy!

Though the acronym wasn’t the PR choice par excellence, was it?

They claim that the main disadvantages of limiting free travel throughout Europe include are;

“Young people finding it harder to work, travel and study abroad; less access to public services and benefits for Britons living abroad; economic damage; the UK border moving from Calais to Dover.”

Let’s examine those;

First; “Young people finding it harder to work, travel and study abroad;”

Before looking at that in detail; what’s all this about “Young” people?

Our disastrous membership of the EU affects us all; not just the young.

But the “Young” is the demographic that is the primary target of BSE propaganda;

That’s where they think their strength lies; hence their wish to extend suffrage to include 16 & 17-year-olds.

So let’s say, “People finding it harder to work abroad;”

When I was a young man, long before the UK had joined the EEC, I worked in both France and Spain;

OK it was just seasonal work, in vineyards & orange groves, as hippies did; but I knew people with proper jobs in other countries;

Just because there were formalities to go through did not present any great difficulties.

Doing away with the ludicrous system which allows anybody from any EU country to live & work in any other, without any sort of control, would make working in say Germany, no more difficult than working in India or Dubai now.

“People finding it harder to Travel abroad:”

Yes, you’d need passports to travel in Europe, just as you do to go to the States; putting Disneyland on a par with Disneyworld; not exactly “harder.”

Foreigners would need a passport to travel to the UK; and some form of permit to work here; formalities, not difficulties, unless you’re a terrorist…

“People finding it harder to study abroad;”

Prior to our membership of the EEC, many students studied abroad; as already mentioned, fulfilling some formalities is not difficult.

In addition, many students, from all over the world, seemed to have no trouble coming to study in the UK; even with travel controls, they will continue to study here in their thousands; just as Chinese, Indian and American students do now. A report in The Times, 2nd January 2016, stated, “Of the 2.3 million students in the UK in 2013–14, 310,190 were from outside the EU.”

“Less access to public services and benefits for Britons living abroad;”

This may well be true, but Britons living abroad make a conscious decision to do so; why should they be entitled to UK public services & benefits, if they choose not to live here?

And if the necessary services and benefits aren’t available to them in the country of their choice; it would indicate that perhaps they had made the wrong choice.

Less access to public services and benefits for non-Britons living here would also be true.

“The economic damage;”

That’s a very loose phrase that I assume to refer to restrictions on the ability of those from abroad coming to work in the UK; to fill gaps in our labour force.

Let’s be clear; those of us in the “Leave” camp are not against Immigration per se; what we want is Immigration Control;

To allow in those we want and encourage in those we need, from anywhere in the world;

To stop those we don’t want and detect & detain those who wish to do us harm, wherever they come from.

“The border moving from Calais to Dover;”

I fail to see how that can be described as a “Disadvantage”;

Dover is exactly where our border, and border control, should be.

Calais represents France’s, and the struggling Schengen Zone’s border;

Those camped there trying to illegally enter the UK are France’s problem;

France allowed the camp to come into being; it’s their job to look after it and its occupants.

FORTY THREE — A little help

But in the Spirit of New Year, I decided that the “Remain In” people needed a little help…

The main proponents of campaign for the UK to continue its disastrous membership of the EU appear to be a group who refer to themselves as “BSE;”

No, no, I’m sure that’s not a reference to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy!

Though the “Mad Cow” acronym, however apt, wasn’t the PR choice par excellence, was it?

It actually stands for the blindingly stupid slogan; “Britain Stronger in Europe.”

If we look closely at that slogan we can see why they need help;

It is almost as wrong as it could possibly be.

First, “Britain”;

Our country’s name is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”,

Shortened to “The United Kingdom,” or “The UK”

“Britain” means England & Wales, just two of the constituent parts of the UK

“Great Britain” came about with the addition of Scotland; not meaning terrific or special; just larger than “Britain”

Second, “Stronger in Europe”;

Though geographers may consider the UK to be a part of the continent of Europe, we’re not really IN it, are we?

There’s about 25 miles of sea between us and “The Continent.”

Even the most ardent Europhile will speak of travelling TO Europe; after all that’s where the “Eurostar Express” goes to isn’t it, through the “Eurotunnel,” right?

Of course BSE doesn’t actually mean “Europe”

They mean that we are supposedly “Stronger” within the “European Union;” that’s not “Europe;”

And what does “Stronger” actually mean?

Physically “Stronger”? Obviously not;

Militarily “Stronger”? Again, obviously not;

Diplomatically “Stronger”? No;

Economically “Stronger”? Patently not;

Democratically “Stronger”? Emphatically not;

Sorry; unable to think what on earth they mean by “Stronger” I’ll just have to leave it…

But “Stronger” than whom exactly?

Are we stronger than Belgium? Possibly;

Are we stronger than Luxembourg? Probably;

But, in the EU, are we stronger than Belgium AND Luxembourg?

No, definitely not, not in the EU, because of their two votes to our one.

Or do they mean we are “Stronger” remaining in, than we would be if we left the European Union?

In which case their slogan should reflect this, by including the word “Remaining”

So, in full the slogan should be “The UK is stronger remaining in, not out of the EU”

The new acronym for those stupid enough to believe that, would then be;

TUKISRINOOTEU!

Pronounced; Tookies-Wrinnoo-too!!

How cool is that!

See, I said I’d help…

But, we really need to leave the European Union — ASAP

FORTY FOUR — Cost of EUSSR Membership

Over the past decade Britain has paid over £150,000,000,000 to the EUSSR budget.

We send about £350,000,000 to Brussels every single week.

This is about half the English schools budget, four times the Scottish schools budget, and about 60 times what we spend on the NHS cancer drugs fund.

Every year the North East sends £496,000,000 to the EUSSR. This is roughly a quarter of the region’s schools budget and nearly ten times the highways maintenance budget. In total, the North East has paid £12,500,000,000 to the EU since the UK joined in 1973.

Every year the Yorkshire region sends over £1,000,000,000 to the EUSSR, which is 24 times what is invested each year in building new flood defences. Since the UK joined the EUSSR in 1973, Yorkshire and the Humber has paid a staggering £27,700,000,000 to Brussels.

Every year the East of England sends nearly £2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the EUSSR. This is roughly four times what the region spends on its railways. In total, the East of England has paid £50,000,000,000 to the EUSSR since the UK joined in 1973.

If we vote to ‘remain’, it is a vote for the permanent and increasing haemorrhage of all that money; wasted in Brussels.

It will get worse. UK taxpayers will be paying the huge bills caused by the Euro’s crisis, and even further increases to pay for ‘Angular’ Merkel’s open-door refugee/economic-migrant “policy.”

Of course, all this money would be better spent on our Hospitals, Schools, Police and Defense.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for the continued supremacy of EUSSR law over British law.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for continued EUSSR control (or perhaps EUSSR utter lack of control) over migration policy.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for continued EUSSR control & regulation of how public services work, and how businesses, especially small businesses operate.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for the continued denial of democracy; that though we once spread democracy throughout the world, we’ve binned it for ourselves in the EUSSR.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for permanent EUSSR control of UK trade.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for Britain having no power to make our own trade deals and no vote at the World Trade Organisation.

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for EUSSR judges striking down UK laws using the new Charter of Fundamental Rights, which Tony Blair, when Prime Minister, promised it would have, “…no more legal effect than The Beano;” but is already being applied by the European Court of Justice, and gives EU judges far more power over Britain than the US Supreme Court has over US states.

This is not about your view on human rights.

It is about whether the EUSSR controls human rights in Britain or whether we, the British public and courts, control human rights, within our own country.

In an excellent article in GQ recently, Tony Parsons wrote, “The case for the UK remaining in the EU will be made by the same people who assured us that Britain should ditch the pound sterling for the euro. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.”

A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR means the UK being constantly outvoted.

The nineteen Eurozone countries now constitute a majority in the EUSSR that can routinely outvote Britain. We now only have 8% of the votes on vital EUSSR decisions. Since 1996, Britain has strongly opposed over fifty measures in the Council of Ministers. Britain has been outvoted on every occasion and every one of those measures has now become UK law.

FORTY FIVE —5 Questions for Tookies-Wrinnoo-too (? see above)

Dear “Remain In” People,

Five questions for you

Writing in his blog recently;

John Redwood posed some questions that he quite rightly suggests you “Remain In” campaigners really need to answer;

So here goes, with five questions about the Euro:

1. “Do you believe that the UK should ever join the Euro?”

2. “Has the Euro gone wrong?”

3. “Why has the Euro area spawned so many recessions and mass unemployment?”

4. “What would have happened if the UK had joined the Euro, as many of you demanded, in the 1990s?”

5. “What did you learn from the bitter experience of recommending the Exchange Rate Mechanism to the UK and seeing it destroy our jobs and economy?”

I’m looking forward to reading your answers…

We constantly hear some of you saying it is time you set out your case.

You regularly chastise each other for failing to make your case.

You now have plenty of airtime, & FaceBook time;

But all you appear to do is try to ridicule the “Leave” cause;

Or seek to spread misleading suppositions, limp scare stories and downright lies about what might happen if the UK voted to leave

So Britain Stronger in Europe — Just what is your case for remaining in?

FORTY SIX — 4 Questions for Tookies-Wrinnoo-too

Dear “Remain In” People,

Four questions for you

Writing in his blog recently;

John Redwood posed some questions that he quite rightly suggests you “Remain In” campaigners really need to answer;

So here goes, with four about the Free Movement & Our Borders:

1. “Do you think the UK should join Schengen?”

2. “Has Schengen been a success?”

3. “If, as it seems, Schengen has failed, what do you want to replace it with?”

4. “How do you suggest the UK would be able to control her own borders outside Schengen, if we still sign up to Freedom of Movement?”

I’m looking forward to reading your answers…

We constantly hear some of you saying it is time you set out your case.

You regularly chastise each other for failing to make your case.

You now have plenty of airtime, & FaceBook time;

But all you seem to do is try to ridicule the “Leave” cause;

Or seek to spread misleading suppositions, limp scare stories or downright lies about what might happen if the UK voted to leave

So Britain Stronger in Europe — Just what is your case for remaining in?

FORTY SEVEN — 3 Questions for Tookies-Wrinnoo-too

Dear “Remain In” People,

Three questions for you

Writing in his blog recently;

John Redwood posed some questions that he quite rightly suggests you “Remain In” campaigners really need to be asked;

So here goes, with three about the Common Fisheries Policy:

1. “Has the Common Fishing Policy been a success?”

2. “Why has the UK lost most of its fishing industry under EU regulation and control?”

3. “Why did it take so many years even to stop the absurdity of throwing dead fish back into the sea?”

I’m looking forward to reading your answers…

We constantly hear some of you saying it is time you set out your case.

You regularly chastise each other for failing to make your case.

You now have plenty of airtime, & FaceBook time;

But all you seem to do is try to ridicule the “Leave” cause;

Or seek to spread misleading suppositions, limp scare stories or downright lies about what might happen if the UK voted to leave

So Britain Stronger in Europe — Just what is your case for remaining in?

FORTY EIGHT — 2 Questions for Tookies-Wrinnoo-too

Dear “Remain In” People,

Two questions for you

Writing in his blog recently;

John Redwood posed some questions that he quite rightly suggests you “Remain In” campaigners really need to answer;

So here goes, with two questions about trade:

1. “Do you really think Germany would want to start a trade war with us if we leave, given the fact she sells twice as much to us, as we sell to them?”

2. “Do you really think the German government is lying when they say they would not impose new tariffs on our exports to them, as they don’t want us imposing tariffs in retaliation?”

I’m looking forward to reading your answers…

We constantly hear you saying it is time you set out your case.

You regularly chastise each other for failing to make your case.

You now have plenty of airtime, & FaceBook time;

But all you seem to do is try to ridicule the “Leave” cause;

Or seek to spread misleading suppositions, limp scare stories and downright lies about what might happen if the UK voted to leave

So Britain Stronger in Europe — Just what is your case for remaining in?

FORTY NINE — A Question for Tookies-Wrinnoo-too

Dear “Remain In” People,

A question for you

Writing in his blog recently;

John Redwood posed some questions that he quite rightly suggests you “Remain In” campaigners really need to be asked;

So here goes, with just one question:

“If you don’t like the Euro, Schengen or the Common Fisheries Policy, what is the point of belonging to this institution?”

It’s like belonging to a football club when you don’t even like the game!

I’m looking forward to reading your answer…

We constantly hear some of you saying it is time you set out your case.

You regularly chastise each other for failing to make your case.

You now have plenty of airtime, & FaceBook time;

But all you seem to do is try to ridicule the “Leave” cause;

Or seek to spread misleading suppositions, limp scare stories or downright lies about what might happen if the UK voted to leave

So Britain Stronger in Europe — Just what is your case for remaining in?

FIFTY — Remainers’ Lies

“If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it.”

This old political maxim has been variously attributed to Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Stalin & Lenin;

Whoever said it first;

The supporters of the continued UK membership of the EU have taken it to heart;

They tell lies.

That’s because, in order to argue their case at all, they’ve got to;

Quite simply, they can’t afford to tell us the truth.

Just as those that support Brexit are a ‘cross-party’ group coming from all across the centre of the political spectrum;

Those ‘Remainers;’ demanding we remain part of the EU, are a mixed bunch, too.

At one extreme we find the ‘Remainers’ among the privileged & well healed;

Usually associated with very big business;

The major global corporations that enjoy the cheap, mobile labour, brought by ‘free-movement;’

At the other extreme are most of the ‘far-left;’ that decry ‘national sovereignty; wanting the dissolution of nation states;

There are exceptions, of course; on our joining the EEC, Tony Benn quite correctly described it as;

“The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.”

Both the far-left loonies & the neo-con conglomerates, for their own differing motives, actively encourage easy labour migration within the EU and mass immigration from the ‘third world’

Of course, when it comes to debating the idea of Brexit, this is their weakness.

Well, they can’t tell the truth, can they?

Imagine if the CEO of a major international conglomerate, telling the truth, was to say;

“The EU is a good thing because it guarantees Free Movement of cheap labour, so if British (or French or German) workers demand a decent wage, I can easily ship-in and employ Croats or Bulgarians (or, soon hopefully, Turks) instead; they’ll work for much less and my profits will go up. My share-holders will be happy. Those British (or French or German) workers will be unemployed, but why should I care? They can always go anywhere else in the EU to find work.”

That wouldn’t get many Referendum votes, would it?

Or imagine if Jeremy Corbyn, telling the truth was to say,

“The EU is great because it will ensure the end of the UK as a Nation State; National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.”

A real vote catcher that one; I don’t think.

So, the main proponents of continuing the UK’s membership if the EU, HAVE to tell lies;

And nearly always scare-mongering lies at that…

One such scare-mongering lies we often hear from the “Remainers” is the claim that financial firms would leave the UK if we left the EU.

They said the same during the euro campaign — they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Businesses come to the UK for a number of reasons — our skilled workforce, strong legal system, access to professional services, the English language and our time zone.

These are all advantages we had before we joined the EU — and which we will still have, in spades, after we Vote Leave.

Another of the regular scare-mongering lies is;

“Over three million jobs are at stake if Britain leave the EU.”

Originated by Lib-Dem Danny Alexander, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in June 2014;

He claimed that this was based on,

“The latest Treasury analysis,” adding: “That is the measure of the risk that isolationists would have us take.”

In August, 2014, this claim (Lie) was debunked by Her Majesty’s Treasury, as the result of a Freedom of Information request. They responded with, “The full source of (Alexander’s claim) was a Treasury assessment done in 2003; not an estimate of the impact of EU membership on employment; but a very rudimentary piece of analysis, that approximately three million jobs were involved in our trade with the EU.”

Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EU, all our trade with those 27 other countries will immediately stop.

Thoroughly debunked you might think;

Yet in one of his disastrous TV debates with Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg revived & enlarged on it when he suggested that if we left the EUSSR, we would be a;

“…sort of Billy No-Mates Britain; well, it will be worse than that; it will be a Billy No-Jobs Britain,”

Yes, that’s right: according to the then Deputy Prime Minister, we’d all lose our jobs if we left the EUSSR!

Perhaps it’s worth noting that both Alexander’s & Clegg’s careers have been inextricably linked to the EUSSR.

Clegg’s political life began in Brussels, first at the Politburo (sorry, European Commission) itself, then later as a member of the European Parliament.

Alexander spent eight years as director of communications at the European Movement and its successor, the Britain In Europe campaign.

In the latter guise, this was the main organisation that lobbied for Britain to ditch the Pound in favour of the Euro:

By the way, in the EU Visitor Centre, in Brussels (probably in Strasbourg as well) there IS a plaque which reads:

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.”

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Dixie Hughes’s story.