“Project Fear” by “Cameron & The Remainians” Part 1
I have called this “Project Fear” because that is the crux, the be-all and end-all of the ‘Remainers’ campaign; trying to put the British electorate in fear of Brexit.
Rather than arguing the positive benefits of EUSSR membership (whatever they may be) or defending David Cameron’s pathetic parcel of reforms; Remainers, from the top down tell lies in order to scare voters.
That is “Project Fear”
I will be adding to this as often as I’m able…
Feel free to copy & paste and post wherever; if you wish…
Though attribution is nice, it’s not necessary…
You might also be interested in;
“50 other Anti EUSSR FB Posts” — HERE
“The EU — How we got to where we are” — HERE
“Rhetorical Gymnastics” — HERE
“Europe’s Mass Migration Misfortune” — HERE
2nd March
A certain Dr Andy Williamson writes about the forthcoming referendum, pontificating as if he was some sort of expert; he isn’t. He is apparently an academic who, by his own reckoning, knows considerably more than the rest of us. He has even written books to enlighten us with his superior wisdom. Judging by his inability to write complete sentences; I don’t think I’ll bother, thanks.
Every morning, after turning out the horses, I muck out the stables; in a nearby field there is a fine friendly bull called Featherstone. I mention this because I can recognise that which I clear from the stables, and try not to step-in in Featherstone’s field.
As regards Andy’s pontifications, I know what they are; I’m just not certain if they are of the bovine or equine variety…
However, one of his first comments I can’t argue with;
“First, we have the re-negotiations that just finished in Brussels. I don’t know what game Cameron was playing with this but nothing in there has any material impact on anything that actually matters. Other than, perhaps, the line in the sand on further political integration and this could have been negotiated any time. It was a side-show.”
However, by saying “I don’t know what game Cameron was playing…” Andy displays incredible ignorance. The “game” Cameron was, and still is playing, is an obvious con; simple as that.
Andy has then penned a list of ten things about Brexit that he thinks we should be told.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
These are his ten; in each case, he starts with what he says is a claim made by Brexit campaigners, which he follows with his learned comments, which I then answer, as best I can, addressing my points to him, of course:
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“We’ll have control over our own laws. No. We won’t, we will still need to harmonise with Europe. The only difference between now and then is that at the moment we get to influence those laws. If we leave we just have to adopt them (See Norway).”
Andy, You are making the silly assumption that we will blindly follow the same negotiating route as Norway; there is absolutely no reason why we should, or would; and we won’t.
The UK’s future relationship with the EUSSR and the rest of Europe will be the result of our own negotiation, not Norway’s.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“British courts can make the final decision. More complex this one but, in short, no. They can’t. At least not any more than now. The European Court of Human Rights (the Daily Mule’s biggest enemy) has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Justice is the final arbiter of EU law (not national law)… see point 1.”
You’re right in that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EUSSR, and that the ECJ is the final arbiter of EUSSR law, not national law; BUT; yes, it is a big but; the ECJ can and regularly does rule as to whether any national law complies with EUSSR law; if the ECJ rules that it doesn’t, penalties follow for “non-compliance.”
Currently EUSSR law supersedes UK law.
By repealing the European Communities Act 1972, which establishes the primacy of EUSSR law over UK law, Brexit would end that.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“We can control our own borders. Er… We already do. You remember that passport thing you have to show the man?”
Er… No, we don’t control our borders. “Control” is a relatively simple concept to define; but seems beyond Dr Andy’s comprehension. Think of a tap, Andy; turn on the tap and water flows; turn it off and the water stops; that is “control.” If the washer is removed (by the EUSSR) the water flows; whether the tap is on or off; no control. Looking at passports is just like tasting the water to see if it’s potable.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“We can control immigration. In theory, yes, we could. We could pull up the drawbridge and fill in the tunnel too. But it won’t happen because we lose more than we gain.”
Back to that definition of “Control,” Andy; it doesn’t mean “Stop.” That’s not too hard to understand is it? Back to that tap; assuming it has a washer, turn it on a little, and you get a trickle; turn it full-on, and you get a deluge; control. By “Controlling Immigration” we mean denying entry to people we don’t want, and encouraging those we do, from anywhere in the world; simples.
By taking back control of our borders, we can have a fairer immigration system where we will give priority to the brightest, the best and the most in need from across the world, and deny entry to cheap labour, any who would over-burden our already over-stretched services and known criminals.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“Staying in makes terrorism more likely. One of the more facile claims, this is so brilliantly stupid that it is almost genius. Staying in the EU makes us a hotbed for terrorism whilst leaving means we’re all safe. There you have it! The only problem is, it’s not true. First of all, see point 4 above. Then consider that terrorists are just like multi-nationals — they don’t respect national borders, they don’t play fair and they don’t care about you.”
Neither facile nor stupid; Andy, this is actually blindingly obvious.
As we know, at least three of the Daʿesh attackers in Paris were accepted into Greece, the Schengen border, as refugees with Syrian passports. From there they travelled to Paris completely unchecked and unrecorded. Similarly the al-Qaeda-in-the-Arabian-Peninsular fighters who carried out the Charlie Hebdo murders, travelled through Europe freely. It could be said that the EUSSR, far from protecting France from those attacks, actually facilitated them. There is nothing about the Home-grown terrorist that is affected either way by our membership of the EUSSR; except perhaps our ability to deport them. But Daʿesh is currently taking advantage of the EUSSR’s well-known, wide-spread incompetence; exploiting the unprecedented migrant/refugee crisis to infiltrate European civilisation; bringing their own brand of Wahhabi-Salafist Sunni mayhem with them
The incredible incoherence and ineptitude of the EUSSR’s response to the crisis is proving to be a “Gift Horse” for them. Or rather, a “Trojan Horse;” given the way Daʿesh is exploiting the catastrophic human tsunami.
The result is that Daʿesh has been able to use the migrant routes to disperse who-knows-how-many fighters throughout Europe, with instructions, and sufficient training, to carry out attacks similar to those in Paris last year. It cannot be known how many are in Europe already; the Paris attackers were proof that some are. Even if the figure is as little as .01% of that 1.5 million; that’s 150; it only took eight or so to bring mass murder to Paris…
Add to that the numbers of the, majority Sunni, refugees/migrants who variously sympathise with or actively support Daʿesh, and you have some idea of the nightmare scenario facing British intelligence officials, and other security organisations, trying to distinguish potential terrorists from genuine asylum seekers, and you have an idea of the threat facing us, members of the EUSSR, right now…
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 those two cities, along with those “large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them,” have been in Daʿesh 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”? “May have”? Highly likely, even certain; I’d have thought. And not just “…individuals from Syria;” either; really from just about anywhere in North Africa and the Middle East; and having those passports; once inside the Schengen zone they can travel anywhere…
The ease with which Daʿesh is managing to infiltrate the migrant smuggling routes helps to explain a recent alarming Europol report, which stated that Daʿesh has already set up secret training camps across Europe to prepare terrorists to carry out “special forces-style” attacks against the UK and other EUSSR countries.
“There is every reason to expect that IS (Daʿesh) or other religiously inspired terrorist groups will undertake terrorist attacks somewhere in Europe again, intended to cause mass casualties among the civilian population.”
Frans Timmermans, the European Politburo’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said; “Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.” Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.
On continental Europe, the Schengen Plan allows for the unchecked, unrecorded, passport-free movement of anyone, from Greece or Italy, to Sweden, France or Spain. Of course, that includes their luggage; and weapons; and explosives…
The fact that, “terrorists are just like multi-nationals; they don’t respect national borders, they don’t play fair and they don’t care about you.” Is obvious to us all, but the requirement for them to have & show passports and have their vehicles subject to search must help a bit!
And in time, a large number of those refugees/migrants/terrorists will be issued with EUSSR passports; if the UK are still members of that rotten organisation, we will not be able to stop them coming here.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“We’ll renegotiate free trade deals to replace the EU. We won’t. Certainly not quickly at least. We’ll trade with the EU as a member of the EEA so we get pretty much the same as now but we lose the power to influence any future changes. Again, see Norway. And the US has already made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated and rapidly sinking UK. But if you believe we can do instant deals why don’t you start with Scotland. As it will undoubtedly leave if the UK leaves the EU. As eventually will Northern Ireland. And then Wales… starting to feel like the ugly kid at the school disco yet?”
First, at risk of repeating myself; we are not Norway. There is no reason why we should join EEA.
No, the United States has NOT “…made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated and rapidly sinking UK.” Just one former employee of the EUSSR Politburo, Michael Fromen, now an employee of the Obama administration, who happened to have once been Obama’s class-mate, said something like that; but a Republican has said, quite rightly that; “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.”
In the words of Lord Nigel Lawson; “We would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which establishes the primacy of EU law over our own UK law. The morass of EU regulation, much of which is costly, unnecessary and undesirable, would become UK regulation; which we would then be free to accept, repeal or amend as our national interest requires. And we would continue to trade with the EU, as the rest of the world does today; almost certainly assisted by a bilateral free trade agreement, which they need far more than we do.”
And Norman Lamont; “Trade between countries does not depend on people behind desks in Brussels, but on willing customers and willing sellers. Switzerland is not an EU member yet it exports more to the EU per head of the population than we do. Britain is Germany’s largest market for cars, not because we are both in the EU but because British motorists believe German cars are of high quality. The scaremongers say that if Britain left, the EU would put tariffs on British goods. Since the EU exports a lot more to us than we do to them, such a policy would be economic suicide as we would be forced to retaliate. What would happen to German cars or French agricultural products? Then it is argued that we would lose out because we would have no say in the regulations in Europe. But China, the US and Japan all sell successfully into Europe without having the slightest say. We are told that outside the EU, London as a financial centre would be under threat. This too rings hollow. There is more US than EU turnover on the London Stock Exchange. Outside the EU, it should not be difficult for Britain to negotiate a free-trade agreement similar to or even better than the proposed EU/Canada deal, which will ultimately see 100 per cent of tariffs on industrial goods and 93.8 per cent of agricultural tariffs eliminated for both Canada and the EU.”
Former Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, said that it is in the interest of the EUSSR to have free trade with the UK as “…the European economy needs the UK market, close cooperation and trade.”
Then you wander off into the land of stupid, Andy; telling fairy stories about Scottish, Northern Irish & Welsh independence.
Scotland had its referendum; however much the SNP may bitch about it, the Scots voted to remain a part of the UK. All that has changed since then is that the price of oil has plummeted; making the arguments against Scottish independence stronger. Brexit won’t change that.
In Wales, Brexit is ahead in the polls. In Northern Ireland, the republicans are against Brexit, while the Unionists are in favour. Rather than Northern Ireland seeking independence, it is much more likely that Irexic would rapidly follow Brexit; in a close race with Nederexit.
Andy, I bet you know exactly what it’s like to be the ugly geek at the school disco, but I fail to see the relevance.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“We’ll be strutting our stuff as world power again. Newsflash! The UK is a world power. It has a seat on the UN Security Council. It punches enormously above its weight on the international stage. This is in part because of its connectedness to Europe and its power within the EU. Leave and what are you left with? There is momentum building to review the UNSC membership, what do you think are the odds that an isolated UK will still be there?”
First Andy, I’ve seen nothing about “Strutting our stuff” but you’re right when you say, “The UK is a world power. It has a seat on the UN Security Council. It punches enormously above its weight on the international stage.” But you go wrong when you claim this is anything to do with the EUSSR. The threat to our seat on the UNSC, and France’s, comes directly from the EUSSR, which wants it for itself. That alone is a good reason to get out.
You then ask, “Leave and what are you left with?” Well that UN Security Council seat; a reclaimed WTO seat; a senior position in NATO; an independent Nuclear deterrent; Five-Eyes intelligence sharing; the World’s fifth (soon to be 4th) largest economy and Armed Forces & Intelligence agencies that are among the best & most respected in the world. I think that’s enough to be going on with, Andy.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“The economy will thrive if we’re outside the EU. Seriously? It’s not even worth bothering trying to answer this one! The statement is just so blatantly devoid of logic. We’re not Norway. we sold off most of the family silver years ago. And what’s left is rapidly being outsourced and sold off too. And that great shining generator of wealth (for a small few), the financial sector? That will move to Frankfurt, did you ever see a bank with loyalty? (OK, I accept that this could be seen as a plus). In short, if we leave, we get to live through a fire sale at the sunset of a once great economic and political power.”
Yes, seriously, Andy; Recently it was trumpeted that 36 bosses of FTSE companies had signed a letter opposing Brexit, all 100 FTSE companies had been asked to sign; which means 64 chose not to.
Leading companies such as Unilever, Toyota, Vauxhall, Bentley, General Motors and JCB have said that their investment will not be damaged if we leave. Most British businesses are negative about the UK’s membership of the EUSSR.
The overwhelming majority of British businesses reject the premise of the Single Market and have done so for over a decade. ICM polling in April 2004 found that 73% of British businesses thought that Britain would be more prosperous and secure if it took powers back from the EUSSR, including the power to make our own trade agreements. Polling by Perspective Research Services in August 2015 found that, by 2:1, SMEs think the EU is a hindrance rather than a help. More than 70% of SMEs want the British Government rather than the EUSSR in charge of employment law, health and safety, and trade negotiations. 69% of SMEs agree that the UK can trade and cooperate with Europe without giving away permanent control to the EUSSR.
We have the 5th (soon to be 4th) biggest economy in the world; we are the 2nd economy in the EUSSR, soon to be #1; we don’t need the EUSSR anywhere near as much as they need us; they sell much more to us than we do to them; and we sell more to the rest of the world than we do to the EUSSR. The EUSSR and its Euro are in trouble and it’s not going to get better anytime soon. It has been likened to the Titanic; it’s sinking; its crew is bailing like mad, but the end is inevitable.
It’s not just rats that leave a sinking ship; wise people do, too
And Andy, the suggestion that the Financial sector “…will move to Frankfurt” is just pathetic tosh. London, having overtaken New York at the end of 2015, is the number one financial trading hub in the world, that does more business with America & Asia than with Europe or the EUSSR. There is no other EUSSR represented in the top ten; Frankfurt at #17 is the next highest-rated in Europe.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“The EU is incompetent, badly run and a drain on resources. Yes. It is. It is beyond incompetent in many cases. But we’re stuck with it one way or the other — leaving does not change that. It might be hard to change it but at least it’s possible from the inside (now more than ever). What can we do from outside? It’s also worth pondering that many of the problems with supposed-EU dictates lie in the local implementation (remember, it was the UK’s fault it didn’t impose the moratorium in immigration in 2004, as Germany and others did).”
Andy, what on earth do you mean by “We’re stuck with it”? We’re not stuck with it; we’re leaving.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“What’s it ever done for us anyway? Nothing much. Other than working time directives and other ways that protect your rights at work, protect your children. Then there’s consumer protection and European peace. Not to mention the wholesale transition of Eastern Europe from volatile authoritarian states into thriving democracies. Maybe you don’t care about any of those things. But you should.”
Even if I agreed with you, which I don’t; what the EUSSR has done or not done for us is, at risk of sounding ungrateful, irrelevant; that’s history. I would just point out that Great Britain gave Magna Carta, Parliamentary Democracy, Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, Railways and many other advantages to vast swathes of the world; but they quite rightly got rid of us when they could.
But, as for your ridiculous claim that the EUSSR brought European peace;
Andy, the claim that the EUSSR is the source of peace within Europe is historically illiterate, scaremongering claptrap.
Peace in Europe has had nothing to do with the EUSSR; that is entirely down to NATO, aided by the nuclear deterrent.
When the Prime Minister of Poland offered to back Cameron’s “Deal”, in exchange for help in protection from Russia; it was NATO forces and NATO bases they asked for, not some EUSSR Rapid Reaction Force!
Then you bring up the “wholesale transition of Eastern Europe from volatile authoritarian states into thriving democracies.”
What you actually mean is the conversion of subservient states of the USSR into subservient states of the EUSSR. You appear to have forgotten that it was EUSSR meddling, attempting another such conversion, which sparked the Ukrainian crisis.
But your earlier mention of “Volatile Authoritarian States” made me think of Turkey;
Turkey, to whom Angular Merkel has promised a “fast-track” EU entry;
Turkey, whose entry into the EUSSR, our government strongly supports;
Turkey, whose entry would allow 80 million Turkish citizens unfettered access to the UK;
Turkey, that if its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, gets his way will soon be a Sunni Islamic Republic;
Turkey, that has been supporting Daʿesh 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 NATO ally, prepared to use NATO but not to back NATO;
Turkey, that has been the facilitator of heroin trafficking to Europe for decades;
Turkey, whose aircraft violated Greek airspace 2,244 times in 2014;
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 17 seconds, had already left and was never a threat;
Turkey Andy, that is yet another very good reason we should get out of the EUSSR; ASAP.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The other day I saw a couple of old Project Fear Lies being rehashed.
One was: “Being in the EU makes it cheaper to import vital goods from the EU, which means lower prices for every family.”
The only way food bills would go up is if David Cameron or whoever succeeds him as Prime Minister put tariffs on food imports from the EUSSR.
Any prime minister who did that shouldn’t be prime minister and if it won’t happen then it just shows the claim is false.
This ludicrous suggestion also completely ignores the fact that the biggest increase to food bills is the EUSSR’s discredited Common Agriculture Policy.
Also regurgitated was the old scare-mongering lie that; “If we left the EU, 3 million jobs will be lost in Britain.”
This was first touted 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.”
That was an out-and-out lie.
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.”
What the treasury was referring to was a report by the then-director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, Martin Weale, which the old campaign for Britain to join the euro used to threaten the public.
As Arron Banks has pointed out; then as now, saying jobs are linked to trade with EUSSR members is quite different from saying jobs are dependent on EUSSR membership.
Martin Weale himself described the Europhiles’ interpretation of his work as “absurd”.
“It’s pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts…
Nobody could plausibly believe the figures [and] there is no reason why being outside the EU should necessarily involve mass unemployment.”
Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EUSSR, all our trade with those 27 other member-countries will immediately stop.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The EUSSR’s back is against the wall; but it won’t go down without a dirty fight
Since its inception in 1956, what we now call the EUSSR has tried to control events and, then, when that proves impossible, ignore them.
To judge by the new panic over migration, those twin “strategies” would seem to have failed
That failure raises questions: does the widespread belief that the open borders policy is finished make it more or less likely that Britain will stay in the EUSSR?
And could the ideal of the EUSSR itself survive Brexit?
And could we care less if it can’t?
We had cheers and no tears at the demise of the USSR; why would we fear the end of its E-clone, the EUSSR?
Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, has made the obvious point that the EUSSR cannot take everyone who wishes to migrate to it. He is under serious pressure at home, where Marine Le Pen threatens the old French political class.
He has opened up a rift with Germany, criticising Angular Merkel’s unilateral decision to take a million refugees from Syria. The assaults by Muslim men on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve has been widely reported in France, and resonated deeply; but not as deeply as in Germany, where Mrs Merkel is in trouble.
For a Europe now split by arguments about migration, Britain’s demands; Dave’s Dodgy Deal; footling and irrelevant though it is; is an additional pain in the backside that they could do without. With a world economic crisis brewing to boot, things are looking grim for the EUSSR.
I don’t know whether, as Mr Valls seems to fear, it will survive the migration crisis, but I’m sure it wouldn’t survive a British exit.
This is in itself a compelling reason to vote to leave.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Mr Cameron hopes a Europe-wide change on migration policy could be sold to British voters as a triumph for himself, and as proof it is safe to continue to sacrifice our sovereignty by staying inside. That is an epic deceit.
The EUSSR will always take immigrants, and, as Brussels has signalled, it will expect Britain to take its quota of them.
The British people don’t all mind immigration, but they very much do mind being unable to control it.
That will not change.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Meanwhile, as the numbers arriving via Turkey have shown little let-up, three EUSSR commissioners were in Ankara in what has turned into quasi-permanent negotiations with the Turkish government aimed at getting them to stem the flow.
The EUSSR-Turkey pact shows little sign of delivering and the EUSSR also cannot agree on how to fund the €3bn (£2.3bn) price tag promised to the Turks, although Germany wants to pay Turkey more. A joint statement from the German and Turkish governments following Berlin negotiations last Friday referred to the €3bn bill as merely a “first” payment.
Pressure on Greece also highlighted further divisions in an EUSSR torn several ways over the refugee crisis. Italy, Luxembourg and the European commission all talked down the prospects of punishing Greece or expelling it from the Schengen system.
“There is no plan to exclude Greece from anything,” said Natasha Bertaud, the commission spokeswoman on immigration. She confirmed, however, that an EUSSR mission was in Macedonia last week exploring how to strengthen the vulnerable country’s border with northern Greece.
Following Austria’s announcement of immigration curbs, countries on the Balkan route between Greece and Austria have followed suit, meaning that hundreds of thousands could end being kettled up in Greece unless there is an EUSSR policy breakthrough.
Although the EUSSR’s border agency Frontex has no mandate to operate in Macedonia, member governments have sent a total of 57 police and immigration officers to the country.
Athens responded angrily to the pressure. The migration minister, Yiannis Mouzalas, said Greece was being scapegoated in an EUSSR “blame game”. “The European crisis will be a humanitarian crisis in Greece with thousands of trapped refugees and migrants,” he warned.
Greek officials pointed out that they have so far spent €2bn managing the migration wave. “That’s money we really don’t have,” said one. “Tell me: where’s the European solidarity?”
The Syriza-led government says that ring-fencing the Eurozone’s weakest link would be tantamount to turning it into a huge refugee camp at a time of acute social hardship.
Echoing those fears, analysts said suspension from the border-free zone could easily reignite scenarios of ejection from the single currency, which Athens only narrowly averted last summer. “It’s a symbolic act,” said economics professor Theodore Pelagidis, a fellow at the Brookings think-tank. “It would be interpreted by investors that Greece could face the danger of being ejected from the Eurozone in the not so distant future.”
Regional experts said next month’s EUSSR summit between heads of state would be critical. By then, officials deployed by Brussels will have completed a Schengen evaluation report expected to play a decisive role in determining whether Greece should remain in the zone.
“The February meeting will give us a better sense of whether the EUSSR-Turkey deal is delivering,” said Mujtaba Rahman, head of European analysis at Eurasia group, a risk consultancy. “The real power lies in Germany. For Merkel, it is really important to deliver a substantial reduction in refugee numbers by the time of local state elections in mid-March,” he said.
There was a widespread perception, he said, that Greece had not done enough to process migrants properly, including setting up camps or hot spots where refugees could reside before their relocation. “Germany and others have become very frustrated with the lack of progress,” he said. “Now they are at risk of having a solution imposed upon them.”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Lord Rose, the former chairman of Marks & Spencer and head of the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign, with the brazen use of some deeply suspect statistics, claimed that Brexit would cost the average household £3,000 a year.
Based on a profoundly unscientific analysis of outdated figures by the pro-EUSSR CBI (which to its eternal shame once lobbied furiously for us to join the Euro), the calculation was instantly derided as ‘cloud-cuckoo economics’.
But the intention was clear: use any tactic, however dishonest, to scare voters rigid about the risks of leaving.
It is a pitiful spectacle that demeans Rosie and his fellow campaigners.
Before taking a decision which will shape our political destiny for a generation or more, the British public deserves a mature debate on the facts; not a puerile barrage of dodgy statistics.
The figure, which was originally produced by the CBI, has been strongly criticised by independent fact checking organisations.
They have said that the figure is “misleading” and “not based on any real evidence”.
Despite the controversy over the figures Lord Rose told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The CBI did this work, I’m quoting numbers that the CBI has given us. I have no doubt there will be numbers flying both sides.
“I won’t withdraw it, it was quoted yesterday by Paul Dressler, the head of the CBI. The CBI is a reputable organisation, (LOL) they represent British industry they wouldn’t be putting out numbers if there was no veracity to those numbers (PMSL) and no, I won’t withdraw that number.”
Will Moy, the head of Full Fact, said after an analysis of the figures “those very clear, simple sound-bites start crumbling away”.
He said that the £3,000 is the CBI’s upper estimate so “cannot possibly be exactly correct”, and said that the research behind the figures is based on research that “tends to find benefits to being in the EU”.
Lord Rose also said that debates over migration should not be allowed to “dominate” the upcoming referendum on EU membership.
Why not, Rosie, it is THE major issue for many people.
He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “I understand the imperfections of Europe, I’ve traded in Europe as a businessman for 30 or 40 years — but by and large it serves us well.”
Not exactly a glowing reference, Rosie; I think that’s what used to be called, “Damning with faint praise.”
The former Marks & Spencer boss acknowledged the EU was “imperfect” but argued that its benefits to the UK outweigh its costs by a factor of 10 to one and warned voters that Britain faces “the risk of the unknown” if it leaves.
Lord Rose told LBC: “The EU is not perfect. I have always been a bit of a Eurosceptic. (No, you haven’t) But, I say to myself, it is the reality of what we have got today versus the risk of tomorrow. What we don’t know is, what is the risk?
“We are not in the Euro, we are not in the Schengen agreement, we haven’t got open borders, we have got some protections, we are not going to go into the Euro and we do get massive benefits from being in the EU.”
So, “…not in the euro,” — lucky because it’s in its death-throws;
“…not in the Schengen agreement,” — also lucky because it’s crumbling
And “…haven’t got open borders,” — also lucky; they just facilitate the travel of terrorists & their weapons.
Those are not “imperfections”, Rosie, those are unmitigated disasters
Then you say, “…we do get massive benefits”
Do tell, Rosie, what are these “Massive benefits”?
After all, you also say, “We know the facts because we are in the EU with its imperfections.”
We know the imperfections/disasters; just what are those “Massive benefits”?
And, Rosie, before you mention the “single market”
That’s another disaster;
A Civitas report, which analysed trade statistics, has found Britain’s membership of the EUSSR has failed to have a significant impact on export growth.
Academic Michael Burrage, who wrote the report, found the bloc has boosted the exports of non-EUSSR countries more than its members, with Britain recording slower export growth than any of the other founding nations.
Growth of exports between member states during the common market was 4.7 per cent but has fallen to 3 per cent in the single market, the research said. UK export growth fell from 5.38 per cent to 3.09 per cent over that period.
Exports between the 12 founding members of the single market are 14.6 per cent lower than if they had continued to grow between 1993 and 2012 as they had done under the common market, the report adds.
Mr Burrage said: “While the single market cannot be counted a success in export terms for the EU as a whole, for the UK it must be counted at the very least a massive disappointment, and not far short of a disaster.”
Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said: “The unquestioning mantra that the single market has been good for British trade is wrong and should be challenged as this research makes crystal clear.”
Lord Rose’s media round continued in bumpy fashion later as that was the day he forgot the name of his Britain Stronger in Europe campaign — four times.
Interviewed on Sky News he first identified himself as the chairman of grocer Ocado — which he is but was not the context of the interview.
He immediately corrected himself to “Stay in Britain…er… Better in Britain.” He then suggested the interview start again.
Trying again, he introduced himself as Stuart Rose from the “Better in Britain campaign” before having a final go and arriving at the “Better Stay in Britain campaign.”
It’s easy, Rosie, BSE, you know Mad Cow disease…
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The Euro-rats of the EUSSR Politburo want to milk the UK’s growing economy by slapping a VAT-style tax on goods and services to fund an EUSSR-wide Unemployment Benefit Fund.
The plan would add millions British shoppers’ check-out tallies every year to pay for benefits and job creation schemes in High-Unemployment Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy.
Other options being considered by the Politburo include a windfall levy on GDP, which, because the UK has Europe’s second biggest economy, would hit us disproportionately hard.
The proposal is just the latest plot by other European nations to raid the UK for cash to pay for their own problems, coming just weeks after Germany said it wants to tax UK motorists to subsidise the growing bill for its 1.1million migrants.
British taxpayers already shell out millions every year to cover the benefits bills for other European states.
The new plot was unveiled by Italian finance minister Pier Carlo Padoan during an extraordinary meeting of the EUSSR’s employment committee in Brussels yesterday.
During a speech outlining how the 28-nation bloc should respond to growing unemployment in Mediterranean countries the economist told MEPs that member states should be asked to stump up for a controversial jobs creation fund.
The cash from the pot, dubbed “unemployment insurance,” would be used to fund training schemes for the short-term unemployed and also go towards out-of-work benefits.
He said: “Who would finance this fund? Clearly it would have to come from member states.”
“They could be public resources, so resources from member states’ budgets, or from collection instruments, by that I mean taxation instruments.”
“The important point is that there are national contributions proportional to contribution capacity, GDP for example.”
Mr Padoan said Eurozone members would be expected to contribute to the scheme “first and foremost” but did not rule out asking the UK for cash as well.
He told the meeting: “Of course if we could have an instrument which went beyond the Eurozone that would be useful, I however will not go into this at the moment.”
It’s probably best you don’t “…go into this at the moment,” Pier, there’s a Brexit referendum coming up; voters might notice.
“In general terms;” Wise, Pier, keep it general, “If a country doesn’t want to be part of this scheme then it won’t make contributions; nor of course will it reap the benefits.”
Eurozone unemployment has risen from 7% in 2008 to about 11% now, in the aftermath of the Euro crisis; but in Mediterranean countries including Spain and Greece actually unemployment rates are about 25%.
UKIP’s employment spokeswoman Jane Collins said the UK should resist any demands from Brussels to pay into the scheme.
She said: “We already pay child benefit to children who do not live in the UK.”
“We already pay unemployment and in work benefits to EUSSR migrants who come to the UK for jobs, education and housing.”
“And we have seen a decline in real wages thanks to an oversupply of unskilled workers which has put our own people on the scrap heap.”
Earlier this month Germany provoked outrage with a similar proposal to levy a fuel duty on British motorists to help cover the cost of the growing migrant crisis.
The country’s finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, in a desperate attempt to fix their colossal mistake of inviting in & uncontrollably welcoming so many migrants, said the EUSSR should be able to tax motorists for every litre of petrol sold on our shores, with the proceeds going towards helping states cope with the resultant massive influx.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The PM claims that his deal is ‘legally binding’ and will change the EUSSR Treaties in a few years. That is claptrap.
It is impossible for the EUSSR’s leaders to create a legally binding agreement now, which is to be delivered in many years’ time.
The only thing that is ‘legally binding’ is a change to the Treaties.
This has not happened. It may never happen. It requires the agreement of all 28 countries, often after referendums. We do not even know who the leaders will be in a few years’ time — never mind what they will agree to.
The European Court of Justice is in charge of exactly the same things after the deal as it was before the deal.
The ECJ will be able to chuck David Cameron’s deal in the bin (being sure to use the right bin) the day after the referendum vote; and Cameron knows this.
As the former Director General of the Legal Service of the EUSSR Council said, “There is no possibility to make a promise that would be legally binding to change the treaty later.”
This means that the Prime Minister might not even get the insignificant change he is boasting about.
The PM claims he has got ‘guarantees’ similar to the Danes in the 1990s. This is a poor precedent to choose, because the ECJ has comprehensively trashed the supposed cast iron guarantees given to the Danes.
The ECJ will trash our deal too.
The PM claims that the deal will be ‘lodged with the UN.’ This is a PR gimmick.
Sending documents to the UN does not give them any legal status. Furthermore, the ECJ has made clear that it’s not bound by the UN, not even by Security Council resolutions.
The PM claims his deal will have a significant impact on immigration. Even a top economist at the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said it will not. Most EUSSR migrants come to work; not to claim benefits; so the trivial tweaks to benefits rules will not affect them. Further, they are unworkable given Iain Duncan Smith’s changes to the welfare system.
His reform package was dealt a further blow after leaked documents revealed that German chancellor Angular Merkel told EUSSR leaders at last week’s Council not to worry about the Prime Minister’s demand for Treaty change.
She stated that, “…on the question of amending the Treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them.”
The French PM said of the negotiations, “…just because it went on for a long time doesn’t mean anything happened.”
French MEP Sylvie Goulard described the deal as, “Legally dubious and politically dangerous.”
The Prime Minister’s deal is not worth the paper it’s written on. EUSSR courts and EUSSR politicians can rip it up straight after the referendum.
The only way to get real change in our relationship with the EUSSR is to get out now
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The man or woman in the street probably doesn’t think much about Sovereignty. Yet the true meaning of this word will be at the heart of the referendum campaign on whether we should remain in, or leave, the EUSSR.
It is the debate we should have had in 1972, when Parliament passed the European Community Act.
The then Conservative government led by Edward Heath treacherously evaded the issue; and that is putting it politely.
On the Andrew Marr Show, David Cameron dismissed the presenter’s question about whether we, the British people, would regain sovereignty if we were to vote to leave the EUSSR, arguing: “That might give you a feeling of sovereignty, but it would be an illusion of sovereignty.”
Cameron went on to say that the real meaning of sovereignty was “…the ability to get things done”
That utter boll*cks was a pathetic response from a man who got a first-class degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford.
Sir Noel Malcolm, that great university’s most distinguished historian of such matters, set out the truth in his 1991 work, “Sense On Sovereignty”: “What qualifies a state as sovereign is a matter of plenary and exclusive competence, of enjoying full authority internally and not being subordinated to the authority of another state.”
On that basis, the British Parliament and Government are not “Sovereign.”
This was laid bare with devastating clarity by the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, when he gave his reasons for joining the campaign to leave the EU: “As a minister, I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer. It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things that we were elected to do. Every single day, every single minister is told, “Yes Minister, I understand, but that is against EU rules.” I know it. My colleagues in Government know it. And the British people ought to know it, too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.”
And with that, David Cameron’s response to Andrew Marr was exposed by his close friend as not just pathetically inadequate, but as the complete opposite of the truth, a lie: for it is within the EUSSR that Britain has “…the illusion of sovereignty.”
Funnily enough, it was an earlier Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, who told the truth (but in a private note) to his party leader Harold Macmillan, in 1962, when that Conservative Prime Minister was preparing the ground to apply for membership of the Common Market:
“These organs have supra-national powers which override those of the national constitutional bodies, and which are also incapable of challenge in the national courts of the member states.”
As the late Hugo Young, in his masterly history of the UK’s involvement with the EUSSR, “This Blessed Plot,” observed: “No more limpid statement of lost independence is to be found from beginning to end of this history.”
Young was a strong supporter of British EUSSR membership, which made his book’s revelations about the process by which Edward Heath persuaded Parliament to pass the 1972 European Community Act all the more telling: “Phrases were dreamed up that could mean all things to all men and women. “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”, the government White Paper said.”
“So “essential” glided into the vocabulary of reassurance. It offered the government deniability. For who could ever say the promise had been broken?”
Young’s forensic account went on: “This tendency continued in the House of Commons debates of 1971–2. Ministers did not lie, but they avoided telling the full truth. They refrained from stating categorically that the law of the European Community would have supremacy over British law.”
“This was a conscious, much deliberated choice. Spelled out in a clause that had to be openly debated and passed, Community supremacy would have had explosive possibilities.”
At this point it’s worth remembering the oath taken by a court witness, “I swear to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth.” Back then Ministers may not have lied, but in avoiding, “…telling the full truth,” they certainly perjured themselves; as many still do today.
Young also spoke to one of the parliamentary draftsmen who crafted this legislation: this unnamed law officer recalled that he had been told to “…tread carefully,” as full and open admission of what was being done to parliamentary sovereignty would have been “…so astounding,” as to have put the whole Bill in danger.
As we know, it passed; though later, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who was the government law officer in charge of the process, wrote in a private letter to a colleague: “I remain at least plausibly exposed to the charge that less of our thinking than was appropriate was explicitly exposed to the House of Commons.”
This was Howe-ese for, “…we pulled the wool over their eyes.”
As another brilliant Oxford academic, Professor Iain McLean, points out in his book, “What’s Wrong With The British Constitution?”, a few years later, in 1975, when Harold Wilson (like Cameron, for the purely political reason of appeasing his own party) launched a referendum on the UK membership of what was then the Common Market, the campaigners for exit, “…threw away not just the ace of trumps but their entire trump suit … by concentrating on the European Parliament and ignoring the European Court of Justice and the effect of the 1972 Act.”
It is those, declares Professor McLean, which, “…have destroyed British parliamentary sovereignty.”
I was one of those Exit campaigners; we didn’t know; we’d been lied to.
The government at the time put out a leaflet which asked, “Will Parliament lose its power?”, and answered its own question with “No, no important new policy can be decided in Brussels … without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”
That would have been the case if the British Government were able to exercise a veto against any “important new policy” and if all such proposals required unanimity at the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
But since the passing of the Single European Act in 1988, so-called qualified majority voting has been the method by which these matters are settled.
Over the past two decades there have been 72 occasions on which the UK has opposed a measure in the Council of Ministers. On every single one of those occasions, we have been outvoted.
This is the true measure of the extent to which we are really, as Cameron claims, ‘exercising influence in Europe’.
And the scale of this torrent of unwanted measures from Brussels has become vast. As the Conservative minister Dominic Raab said yesterday: “More than 60 per cent of UK laws are now made in, or derive from, the EUSSR. Can we realistically expect such laws to reflect what Britons want, now they are the product of haggling with 27 governments and a European Commission of 33,000 civil servants?”
Some of these laws actually cost lives. Britain’s most prolific cancer researcher, Professor Angus Dalgleish, has said that the EUSSR’s “Clinical Trials Directive” had increased the cost of his experiments more than ten-fold.
And he pointed out last month that “…the unfathomable amount of EU regulation and bureaucracy has led to a third less clinical studies taking place in Britain. We were world-leading in these studies, but because of EU regulation, we now lag behind the United States.”
As with other more mundane matters, such as the EUSSR-led requirement which affects how we are allowed to dispose of our household rubbish, it is absurd to exchange our autonomy for a marginal share of ‘influence’ on the other 27 countries of the EUSSR; when no British voter could care how the citizens of, say, Luxembourg, dispose of their household refuse.
As Sir Noel Malcolm suggested, in the wake of David Cameron’s shameless manipulation of the English language: “The word “sovereignty” is more trouble than it’s worth. Leave-campaigners should use “self-governing democracy”, which makes the same point.”
“Indeed, it would be refreshing to hear the other side say explicitly why they are against democratic self-government.”
Yes, why are they?
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Simon Sweeney, Lecturer in international political economy, University of York:
Obviously a “Life of Brian” devotee, has produced a list
“What did the EU ever do for us?”
I’ll give the guy, Sweeney, his due; at least he’s making the argument…
But some of these are a stretch, to say the least.
And some of them would indicate that perhaps it’s time Mr Sweeney left the ivory tower of academia, and took a look at the real world.
So to his list — — with my comments;
“Providing 57% of our trade”; — — That’s plain silly; we traded with the EEC before we joined and we’ll trade with them after we leave. We have a large trade deficit with the EUSSR so they need us more than we need them. We sell more to the rest of the world than we do in Europe
“Structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline”; — — Just a portion of our own money being returned to us, but with instructions from Big Brother on where it must be spent.
“Clean beaches and rivers”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR; and the Water Directives, in forbidding dredging, are the main reason flooding is getting worse year on year in the UK
“Cleaner air”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR; the Clean Air Act was in 1956..
“Lead free petrol”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“Restrictions on landfill dumping”; — — Down to the EUSSR, really? Would probably have happened anyway
“A recycling culture”; — — Down to the EUSSR, really? Would probably have happened anyway
“Cheaper mobile charges”; — — Down to the EUSSR, really? Would probably have happened anyway
“Cheaper air travel”; — — Down to the EUSSR, really? Would probably have happened anyway
“Improved consumer protection and food labelling”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia, who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“A ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives”; — — Perhaps; big deal…
“Better product safety”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia, who are not in the EUSSR who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“Single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance”; — — And so many rules & regulations that put SME’s out of business; thus ensuring less competition for multi-nationals, the EUSSR’s friends…
“Break up of monopolies”; — — Hasn’t happened; won’t happen
“Europe-wide patent and copyright protection”; — — Down to the EUSSR, really? Would probably have happened anyway; but we do have world-wide patent & copyright protection
“No paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market”; — — as stated, more use to them than us; Terrorists & their weapons can travel anywhere
“Price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone”; There are NO currency exchanges throughout the Eurozone!! Why would you exchange a Euro for another Euro?
“Freedom to travel, live and work across Europe”; — — Terrorists & their weapons can travel anywhere; illegal migrants camp at Calais
“Funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad”; — — Always existed before we joined the EUSSR, and still exist throughout the world
“Access to European health services”; — — causing health-migration, which is costing our NHS dear.
“Labour protection and enhanced social welfare”; — — A meaningless claim
“Smoke-free workplaces”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“Equal pay legislation”; — -Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“Holiday entitlement”; — — Achieved by USA, Canada, Australia who are not in the EUSSR; nothing that we wouldn’t have managed without the EUSSR
“The right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime”; — — a right?
“Strongest wildlife protection in the world”; — — if that is down to the EUSSR, how come it is so piss-poor in many member states? The RSPCA; RSPB; WWF all predate the EUSSR
“Improved animal welfare in food production”; — — Not in some EUSSR countries; and I think it was British protests that stopped “veal-calf” crating in France & Germany; so not down to the EUSSR
“EU-funded research and industrial collaboration”; — — Just a portion of our own money being returned to us, with instructions from Big Brother on where it should be spent. And much of European Scientific Research, like CERN, is NOTHING to do with the EUSSR
“EU representation in international forums”; — — That is a definite negative; our WTO seat gone and our UNSC seat under threat
“Bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO”; — — the EUSSR is hopeless at this; two years to secretly negotiate a very dodgy deal (TTIP) with the US; still not done yet!
“EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty”; — — pathetic, being lead by the nose into sanctions against Iran
“European arrest warrant”; — — draconian illiberal device, that put a British Teenager in a Greek prison; uncharged and eventually released. Used by the UK very few times; EUSSR citizens have committed 55,000 crimes since it was instituted in 2004, the EAW has been used by the UK 700 times
“Cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence”; — — None of that did much good in Paris — twice! Schengen & the EUSSR ‘free movement’ have, between them facilitated terrorist activities in Europe; the UK has “5-Eyes Intelligence.” Intel sharing with, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand; as well as Intel sharing with the EUSSR
“European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa”; — — there is no evidence of this at all. the EUSSR did nothing throughout the entire Balkans episode; it’s meddling in a non-EUSSR country was what sparked off the Ukrainian crisis; the EUSSR has done nothing in Syria or Iraq; yes, it participated in the removal of Gaddaffi, but that went well didn’t it. The existence of the EUSSR, and the UK’s membership of it, didn’t stop Putin annexing Crimea, did it? And it didn’t stop Russia pushing to the forefront in Syria, did it?
“Support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond”; — — Not down to the EUSSR; it itself is not democratic; it is run by an unelected politburo, which initiates ALL its laws… And if Mr Sweeney thinks our support for democracy stems from being a member of the EUSSR; his knowledge of history is seriously lacking.
“Investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital” — — sorry, meaningless claptrap
Then the big finish:
“All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed”. — — The claim that the EUSSR is the source of peace within Europe is historically illiterate, scaremongering tosh. Peace in Europe has had nothing to do with the EUSSR; that is entirely down to NATO, aided by the nuclear deterrent.
“It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.” — — Or to put it another way; transferred 13 servile states of the USSR to become servile states of the EUSSR; it was EUSSR attempts at morphing Ukraine in this fashion that started the current crisis there.
Having gone down the entire “What have they done for us?” list; we come to the crunch; Simon, it really doesn’t matter, what they’ve done for us; it’s irrelevant; it’s time to get out.
As an imperial power, we gave half the world Magna Carta, Parliamentary Democracy, Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus and … Railways. Yet when the time was right, those countries got out from under; some amicably; some not; and many somewhere in between. But what ‘we had done for them’ was, quite rightly irrelevant.
“Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation;” — — which it has continuously and vigorously encouraged,
“And worsened by its own systemic weaknesses,” — — which it refuses to change.
“It is taking measures to overcome these.” — — no, it isn’t. It refuses to reform; did Cameron’s farcical negotiation tour teach you nothing?
“We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value.” — — our net contrition in 2014 was 10billion; we’ve reflected; and no it isn’t good value. Unfortunately that is not all we “pay” We have given up our democracy, control of our borders, our fishing industry and now steel…
“We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.” — — Didn’t Cameron’s farcical negotiations show you anything? We have no “part to play” we just have to do as we are told…
Well, Simon Sweeney, despite your position; you are obviously unaware, or you are lying when you say, “We may not lose all of the above,” because, as you should know; if Brexit happens, every single major or petty, EUSSR regulation and directive will remain in place. But, for the first time in over 40 years, our own elected government will decide which are kept, amended or repealed. And do you know what? If we don’t like what they decide we will be able to vote them out again.
That is democracy.
In his final speech to parliament back in 2001, after 50 years as an MP, Tony Benn listed the five questions he believed a Democratic government should ask itself:
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can they get rid of you?”
He added: “If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
As Boris Johnson wrote; “It is important to remember: it isn’t we in this country who have changed. It is the European Union.”
It has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable, rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Brussels.
When Boris first went to Brussels in 1989, well-meaning officials were trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure called Qualified Majority Voting.
And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to “lock” Germany into Europe with the euro; and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.
As new countries have joined, we have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty; every one of them representing an extension of EUSSR authority and a centralised control in Brussels.
According to the House of Commons library, around 50 per cent of UK legislation now comes from the EUSSR; and remember that this type of legislation is very special.
It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible; since it can only be repealed by the EUSSR itself.
Ask how much EUSSR legislation the Politburo has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none.
That is why EUSSR law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards.
We are witnessing a slow, inexorable and invisible process of legal colonisation by the EUSSR as it infiltrates just about every area of public policy.
Then, importantly, the EUSSR acquires supremacy in any field that it touches; because it is one of the planks of Britain’s membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EUSSR must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
It was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EUSSR.
We are now way beyond that stage.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the ECJ has taken on the ability to vindicate people’s rights under the 55-clause “Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”, including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to “pursue a freely chosen occupation” anywhere in the EUSSR, or the right to start a business.
These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced.
Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter.
Alas, that opt-out was not legally durable; it died. And now there are real fears among British jurists about the activism of the court.
The more the EUSSR does, the less room there is for national decision-making.
Sometimes these EUSSR rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating, such as the rules that meant that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.
Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians; as with immigration.
That enrages them; not so much the numbers as the lack of control.
That is what is meant by “loss of sovereignty;” the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives.
Democracy matters; and it’s worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population. And now the EUSSR wants to go further.
There is a document floating around Brussels called “The Five Presidents Report”, in which the leaders of the various EUSSR institutions map out ways to save the Euro.
It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that the UK will be unaffected.
There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to leave, because all the fundamental problems remain: that they have an ideal that we do not share.
They want to create a truly federal union, when most British people do not.
We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, they will be exaggerated.
We heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.
There is a risk that a vote to leave the EUSSR will cause fresh tensions in the union between England and Scotland.
On the other hand, most of the evidence suggests that the Scots will vote on roughly the same lines as the English.
We’ve been told that a Brexit would embolden Putin, though it seems to me he is more likely to be emboldened, for instance, by the West’s relative passivity in Syria.
Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have.
This is rubbish. Only 4 per cent of people running the Politburo are British, when the UK contains 12 per cent of the EUSSR population.
It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed.
But why should that be impossible?
We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future.
We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service.
Are we really unable to do trade deals?
The real risk is to the general morale of Europe, and to the prestige of the EUSSR project.
Some say that we should take that seriously.
I’m not sure I really do…
We’re told that the people who run the various EUSSR institutions are honourable, and have the best of intentions; they just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed.
What they’ve achieved is a clone of the old USSR; we weren’t too upset when that folded; but we’re assured that we should be concerned this time…
Hopefully the EUSSR will see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with the UK, but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.
Whatever happens, The UK needs to be aware of Europe; but on the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed; with Europe — but not of Europe.
We have spent 500 years trying to stop continental European powers uniting against us.
There is no reason, if everyone is sensible, why that should happen now, and every reason for friendliness.
Ours is a truly great country that is now going places at extraordinary speed.
We are the European, if not the world, leaders in so many sectors of the 21st-century economy; not just financial services, but business services, the media, biosciences, universities, the arts, technology of all kinds
Of the 40 EU technology companies worth more than $1 billion, 17 are British;
We still have a dizzyingly fertile manufacturing sector.
Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets all over the world.
This is a moment to be brave, to reach out — not to hug the skirts of Nurse the EUSSR, or fear Big Brother in Brussels.
Not a Leap into the Dark, but Stride into the Light.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Some time back, David Cameron was reported as saying; “We’re members of NATO, we’re members of the UN, we’re members of the IMF, I care about Britain being able to fix stuff; whether it’s stopping pirates off the African coast, whether it’s closing down illegal migration routes, closing down smugglers, whether it’s standing up to Vladimir Putin with sanctions, whether it’s the sanctions we put in place to get Iran to abandon its nuclear plan; having that seat in the EU, just as being a member of NATO is a vital way that we project our values, our power and our influence in the world.”
Actually, Dave, as your recent choreographed negotiations proved, being a member of the EUSSR thoroughly diminishes our ability to “project” anything; the unelected Politburo doesn’t care what we think, and all the 27 other leaders merely resent us.
Our membership of NATO, the UN, the IMF etc have far more effect on our soft power that our membership of the ailing & senile EUSSR.
And “…the sanctions we put in place to get Iran to abandon its nuclear plan;” were misguided and useless.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s first Supreme Leader issued a Fatwa, declaring the manufacture, stockpiling and use of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, to be contrary to Islamic law. The current Supreme leader has reaffirmed that Fatwa.
And I’d have thought everyone was well-aware that if the Supreme Leader issues a Fatwa, it is obeyed.
Looking back at the Iran-Iraq War could give some indication as to whether this can be believed. Then, even under 6 years of regular & indiscriminate chemical attack from Iraq, the Supreme Leader publicly opposed retaliation with weapons of mass destruction of any kind.
Maybe Iran’s Supreme Leader’s decision then, not to reciprocate, is an indication that actually Iran has not been trying to develop nuclear weapons; that their nuclear research has been about power stations all along.
Of course our diplomacy is forever based on “Saudi Arabia = Good & Iran = Bad” (link) so naturally Iran must have been lying
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Dave also warned that leaving the EUSSR would not signal an end of freedom of movement, Mr Cameron said: “If we were to leave the EU and we were to try to insist on full access to the single market, like Norway has for instance, every other country that’s got that sort of deal has had to accept the free movement of people and a contribution to the EU budget.”
Then we wouldn’t seek that “sort of deal,” would we, Dave?
I don’t see Canada, India, China or anywhere else, outside Europe allowing free movement of EUSSR citizens, or making a contribution to the EUSSR budget
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
It is sad but unsurprising that those who want to keep the British people within the confines of the European Union are using what they call “Project Fear”.
This is designed to make the British people afraid of change. They began with a ridiculous story that migrant camps in Calais would move overnight to Kent if we vote to leave the EUSSR.
It backfired spectacularly when the French government denied it, but we can expect more.
One of the main scare stories is that our trade with the EUSSR, and the jobs associated with it, will be lost if we vote to leave. Let’s just take a reality check on that.
At the moment, we import far more from the rest of the EUSSR than we export. For every £3 worth of exports we sell them, we buy £5 worth from them. Are we really to believe that Chancellor Merkel would tell BMW or Mercedes to stop selling cars to us if we were to leave?
Would President Hollande tell Beaujolais producers not to sell wine to the Brits? Of course not, the arguments are nonsense.
Likewise, Project Fear will tell us that investment in the UK will dry up if we leave. Yet major international companies are already making clear that they invest in the UK because of our better economic conditions and the quality of our workforce.
For example, the announcement by Toyota’s chief executive, Akio Toyoda, that it will keep making cars in Britain even if voters opt to leave the EUSSR is of tremendous importance.
Not only will Britain not suffer from Brexit, it could provide major economic opportunities. We would lose the heavy burden of regulation imposed upon us by Brussels, but we would also be able to negotiate trade deals with countries where the EUSSR does not currently have them. This includes the USA, China, India, Australia and New Zealand.
This would enable us to benefit from the rapid growth in these wider global markets rather than depend on the sluggish Eurozone.
And all this is without considering the windfall of the £10billion net contribution that would return to the UK treasury, even if we paid the full level of subsidy to groups such as British farmers, which we must.
This is not something to fear, it is an opportunity to thrive.
The other great and possibly most ridiculous scare story from Project Fear is that we would be less safe and secure outside the EUSSR.
They say we would not have the same intelligence cooperation with other EUSSR countries if we were to leave.
Really?
Britain has the best intelligence services in Europe and a unique relationship with American intelligence.
Are we really to believe that the French and German governments would reduce cooperation in the fight against terrorism and put their own citizens at greater risk just to punish Britain for leaving the EUSSR?
It is just not credible. In fact, the opposite is true. At the moment, we are seeing a huge influx of migrants into continental EUSSR countries from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Countries such as Germany, in which they are arriving, have no idea whether they will turn out to be genuine refugees, economic migrants, Islamist sympathisers or part of terrorist networks.
The stark truth is once they get citizenship from any EUSSR country they will have a right to come to the UK if we remain a member.
Up to 3 million migrants are expected to have arrived in the EUSSR by the end of 2016.
The Government’s renegotiation has not asked for any changes to the free movement of people and we will get no changes.
As former Commission President Barroso said, “…it will make no difference to the mass migration we have seen to Britain.”
Change is inevitable. The choice will be for either membership of the EUSSR that will continue to integrate its institutions and policies in the drive for ever closer union or it will be for a Britain that is able to make its own laws, control its borders and determine its own future.
I believe that a country that cannot make its own laws and control its borders is not a free and independent nation.
I want Britain to be free to take advantage of new economic opportunities and independent of outside controls.
We must not give in to the fear mongers.
It is time to take control.
Time to leave and be free.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“Have you watched a halal or kosher butcher slaughter a cow? The animal has a knife drawn across its throat while still fully aware, and bleeds to death. Its legs judder, its neck twists and it panics. Why should we place the sensibilities of religious people above the rights of an animal to as painless a death as possible?”
On 2nd February, David Cameron said he will keep halal meat “safe in Britain” and would never impose restrictions on religious slaughter; saying, “Let me make it absolutely clear, that while I am Prime Minister of this country, halal is safe in Britain.”
That sounds like a “Dave promise.”
He’ll probably ban it in a couple of weeks then
He also said he was concerned by “intolerance” towards Muslims in some parts of the UK, and pledged to “stamp out once and for all the intolerance that blights people’s lives.”
But one has to wonder if that includes intolerance towards bikinis, gays & drinking alcohol; as displayed in some of our cities.
I’m afraid not; he went on to say: “Really tackling Islamophobia means making absolutely sure that no Muslim is held back from living their life or reaching their goals, simply because of the faith they follow.”
Let’s be sure we’ve got that right; he intends to make sure that “…no Muslim is held back from… …reaching their goals.”
Not all, but some Muslims in this country have violent Jihad as “…their goal.”
Many more ordinary Muslims have the total installation of Sharia as “…their goal.”
Thank heaven that was another “Dave Promise” and therefore quite hollow…
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
A diplomatic row erupted between Britain and Germany after a senior Angular Ally, Gunther Krichbaum, was accused of threatening a trade war if Britain quits the EUSSR.
The German MP is seen by some as Mrs Merkel’s anti-British ‘attack dog’ and has a history of verbal conflict with UK representatives.
His warning came in a clash with senior Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who accused the German politician of ‘threatening’ Britain.
Sir Bill said Britain had fought Germany in two world wars to keep its freedoms and was not going to surrender them to a German-run Brussels now.
Mr Krichbaum last night rejected Sir Bill’s claims.
However he has previously attacked David Cameron and the ‘in-out’ referendum.
In January 2013, Krichbaum accused Mr Cameron of trying to ‘blackmail’ the EUSSR; in May 2014 he mocked the ‘flip-flopping’ PM and derided his attempt to exempt Britain from the EUSSR’s pledge for ‘ever closer union’ as a ‘desperate attempt to appease UKIP’; and in November 2014, he said Mr Cameron would get a ‘bloody nose’ if he curbed immigration without permission from Brussels.
But his timing on this occasion, so close to the referendum is provocative.
The row had started earlier at a formal meeting when Sir Bill declared: ‘Our people no longer trust the democratic structures of the EUSSR. We are not going to be in the second tier of a two tier Europe effectively run by Germany.’
Mr Krichbaum and Sir Bill had a sharp but courteous disagreement then, but the gloves came off when they argued face-to-face afterwards.
Krichbaum claimed Britain’s economy would be devastated as a result of lost EUSSR trade deals, saying: ‘You won’t be able to survive; trading conditions will not be in your favour.’
Sir Bill retorted: ‘Yes we can. We’ve been doing it for generations. We have a multi-billion-pound trading deficit with the EUSSR: you run a multi-billion surplus. You need to sell us your cars and trucks. What do you take us for? Do you think we are incapable of running our own affairs?’
It was at this point that lawyer Mr Krichbaum, 51, a member of Mrs Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrat party retorted: ‘There is the question of tariffs.’
Indignant Sir Bill replied: ‘You’re not threatening me, are you?’
The Conservative MP told his German adversary: ‘There is history between our two countries. We have had to battle for our freedom over the last century. We should not and will not be governed by EUSSR majority voting dominated by Germany.’
A defiant Sir Bill explained afterwards: ‘Mr Krichbaum’s reference to trade tariffs was a clear threat. It is basically Germany telling the British to get lost; it’s in their DNA to want to be on top.’
Mr Krichbaum last night denied he had ‘threatened’ Britain and accused Sir Bill of ‘lying.’
He said: ‘I did not make any threats — that is a lie. Bill Cash has his own agenda because he wants to leave the EUSSR. I said that if Britain leaves the EUSSR it will no longer have access to the single market and that will add costs to British industry and make exports less competitive. That is why much of British industry wants to stay in the EUSSR.’
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
David Cameron’s contemptuous instruction to his MPs to ignore their constituents’ views on Europe in the coming referendum has deservedly backfired spectacularly.
The Prime Minister claimed he was only urging them to vote with their consciences, but there was more than a hint of arm-twisting menace aimed at those considering backing the ‘leave’ campaign. Most MPs believe their career prospects are dependent on toeing the party-line; and the Tory High Command is desperate for a vote to stay at any cost; but the vast majority of Conservative party members are anti the UK remaining a member of the EUSSR.
Win or lose the Referendum; Europhiles will not do well in the next Conservative Party Leadership contest.
Without the activists who go out, time & time again, in all weathers to give time, effort and money to the cause of getting their candidate elected, he wouldn’t have a majority and wouldn’t be Prime Minister.
Despite what he appears to think, he has no divine right to rule and if he thinks he can dismiss the views of those who helped to put him in Downing Street, he may well find himself in for a nasty shock.
The anger and disillusion among lifelong Conservatives cannot be overstated.
There is a palpable sense of betrayal among those who thought the Prime Minister was serious when he promised to secure a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with Europe.
He even hinted he might lead the ‘out’ campaign if he didn’t get significant reforms; a hollow promise he had no intention of fulfilling. In the event, his cynical, weak-as-dishwater demands failed to address any of the big issues and his attempts to frighten people into voting to stay are intelligence-insulting on an intergalactic scale.
Now he is trying to bully his MPs into backing him, even if that means riding roughshod over the sincerely held beliefs of thousands of men and women who are the lifeblood of the party at a local level.
Perhaps the implosion of the Labour opposition has convinced Cameron that he does have a divine right to rule. But that still doesn’t give him the right to treat his own party’s foot-soldiers with derision.
The eternal problem is that, secure in office, Cameron now represents the political class who run Europe and not the people who pay his wages, or stuff his election leaflets into envelopes.
He has gone native, seduced by all those lobster suppers and grand summits.
So what changed him from a professed Eurosceptic to a stooge of the anti-democratic Brussels elite?
Perhaps he sees his next career move as succeeding Juncker as Politburo President; or the first President of the United States of Europe…
It could be his rich reward for blackmailing the British people to stay in the corrupt EUSSR.
On reflection, I suppose we should never have expected anything else. All politicians, with a few honourable exceptions, are eventually seduced by the system. Parliaments are packed with careerist placemen and opportunist pygmies on the make, feathering their own nests and lining their pockets at taxpayers’ expense.
This self-serving, self-regarding insularity isn’t confined to Westminster. It is endemic within so-called Western democracies; from Brussels to Washington.
In Brussels, they don’t even have to pay lip service to public opinion.
No one ever accused the EU of being a democracy.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve has dismissed Mr Cameron’s attempts to restore sovereignty to the UK as ‘pointless’.
The PM had hoped to prop up his failing renegotiation by publishing legislation which would allow UK courts to block certain EUSSR laws.
However EUSSR law remains supreme in the UK, and that any attempt to change that would be in breach of the EUSSR Treaties.
Judges in the European Court of Justice could override whatever legislation we’d passed, because that is the way in which the EUSSR operates.
David Cameron was banking on this to be his rabbit out of the hat, but it is clear that his new sovereignty law won’t restore any powers to the UK; this was no rabbit; Dave didn’t even have a hat.
The only way to stop EUSSR judges controlling UK laws is for the UK to Leave the EUSSR.
The former Politburo President, José Manuel Barroso, has said that the PM’s emergency brake will not reduce the number of migrants coming to Britain.
Even he knows the PM’s renegotiation is trivial, and won’t change anything.
The final package won’t bring powers home, won’t cut the cost of Brussels and won’t fix the fundamental flaws at the heart of the European Project.
The only safe option is Brexit.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Official figures reveal that the UK sold £89 billion more of goods to the EUSSR than the EUSSR sold to us in 2015.
The stats also show that the UK exported more to the rest of the world than to the EU for the second year in a row, with the gap between the two widening from £1.7 billion in 2014 to £17 billion last year.
The shift in trade patterns is clear: in 2006 the EU accounted for 62% of British exports, but last year it accounted for just 47%.
This blows apart the argument that UK trade would suffer if we leave.
We will sign a free trade agreement with the EUSSR as it is in both parties’ interests, ensuring that trade continues with our European partners.
With 90% of world demand in the next 10–15 years generated outside the EU, we must unshackle ourselves from a stagnating Eurozone and put ourselves in the best position to benefit from that growth.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The EUSSR’s Common Agricultural Policy is iniquitous towards developing countries; has caused increased prices at our checkouts and in constituting less than 2% of EUSSR output whilst consuming 40% of the budget, manifestly inefficient.
Its Common Fisheries Policy has all-but destroyed the UK fishing industry and is consistently ruining fish stocks in the North Sea.
EUSSR Water Directives, by discouraging dredging, are largely responsible for the ever-worsening flooding of UK rivers.
The chaotic EUSSR Refugee/Asylum Policy, exacerbated by Angular Merkel’s “Come straight to Germany” invitation, has got the continent suffering refugee mayhem.
The EUSSR is legislating over an ever wider range of policy areas, now including human rights, and with the UK ever more frequently outvoted. 75% of UK law comes from Brussels; originating in the EUSSR’s unelected Politburo; the EUSSR Commission.
EUSSR Law supersedes all UK statutes; and the European Courts of Justice can & does overall British courts. In its every ruling the ECJ takes into account the EUSSR ‘leit-motif’ “Ever Closer Union.”
There is currently no effective means of checking the one-way ratchet of growth-strangling EUSSR regulation, and to make matters worse the EUSSR is now devoting most of its energy, and budget to trying to save the Euro, a flawed, and now doomed project from which we are thankfully exempt.
The EUSSR’s share of global trade is diminishing, and the people who prophesy dire consequences for the UK, as a result of Brexit, are the same people who prophesied dire consequences for the UK if we didn’t join the Euro.
They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
The EUSSR is not just undemocratic; it is wasteful, expensive and corrupt.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
I put this up before, but it bears repeating;
In his final speech to parliament back in 2001, after 50 years as an MP, Tony Benn listed the five questions he believed a Democratic government should ask itself:
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?”
He added:
“If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The idea of an ‘emergency brake’ that can be applied ‘the day after the referendum’ is false. It is, moreover, clearly, palpably, demonstrably false.
For a long time, it was understood that social security was one of the few areas of government policy where there was no EUSSR competence. It’s true that, in recent years, the Brussels institutions have sought stealthily to extend their jurisdiction into the field, generally using the tendentious argument that free movement of labour (which really is in the treaties) implies free access to welfare (which isn’t). Some EUSSR lawyers and officials argue that reciprocal benefits claims are implicitly part of the EUSSR’s acquis communautaire: the name given in Brussels to the EUSSR’s accumulated mass of jurisdiction.
Now either these Eurocrats are right or they are wrong.
Either the treaties guarantee EUSSR nationals the right to claim welfare in each other’s countries or they don’t. If they do, then no political agreement on an ‘emergency brake’ is possible.
Only a treaty change will do, and no treaty change is being proposed.
Any deal to apply such a brake ‘the day after the referendum’ (assuming we voted to remain) would be struck down as soon as an EUSSR national from another country tried to claim benefits here. It wouldn’t even need to be struck down by the European Court of Justice; our own judges would disapply the measure, obedient to the 1972 European Communities Act, which gives EUSSR law precedence over British law.
Alternatively, welfare is not part of the acquis communautaire.
At least, not yet; Belgium’s Commissioner, Marianne Thyssen, is very keen to create common rules on welfare, what she calls a ‘social union’; but Euro-integrationists have put that plan in the fridge, next to several other controversial measures, until after the UK referendum.
If social security is not an EUSSR prerogative, then there is no need for any agreement at all. Britain could simply start treating EUSSR nationals like other foreign nationals with regard to benefits payments. We could do it tomorrow. We could have done it last year.
Either Westminster is still in charge of welfare policy, in which case the PM doesn’t need anyone’s permission to change the rules;
Or Brussels is, in which case any alteration requires a treaty change which, as all sides now accept, won’t happen for many years.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Even the leader of the “Labour In For Britain” campaign has admitted that David Cameron’s proposal to limit benefits for EU migrants will do nothing to cut immigration. Alan Johnson MP, former Home Secretary, told Radio 4: ‘The issue of in-work benefits is not a draw factor’.
David Cameron’s “emergency break” proposal to restrict benefits to European Union workers will do nothing to curb migration, Alan Johnson has said.
The former Home Secretary said that he supported the principle of preventing EU migrants claiming in-work benefits for four years, but did not believe in-work benefits were a “draw factor” for migrants.
Asked if the measures would restrict migration, he said the benefits curb “was never going to do that”.
Speaking this morning, Mr Johnson, the chairman of Labour In for Britain, added that the question of immigration was a “sideshow” in the referendum on Britain’s membership.
“There are all kinds of factors why … people choose to move around the European Union to work, I don’t think that’s one of them.”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Former prime minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, who leads the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group of MEPs, warned British voters against turning the UK into a “dwarf” by voting to leave the EU.
He said: “Let me very clear. I think it would be a huge mistake if Britain would leave the EU. Not so much economically but most of all geopolitically”
“I think Britain without Europe it’s a dwarf, let’s be honest, we Belgians we know that we are dwarves, but maybe they are going to know it also.”
No, Guy, we would still be a senior member of NATO; we would still have a permanent seat on the UNSC; and we would reclaim our seat at the WTO. There is no danger of the UK usurping Belgium’s unenvious, long-held position as the Dwarf of Europe.
Guy continued, “On the other hand Europe without Great Britain doesn’t count, it’s not a counterweight against China, against Russia, against the US.”
Really not so much of a “Dwarf” then, Guy, if by the UK leaving, the EUSSR suddenly “…doesn’t count”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
This emergency brake thing is a SCAM that takes us for fools. The whole row is bogus.
Think about it.
Either welfare rules are set by Parliament or they are set by Brussels.
If they are set by Parliament, the PM could change them without asking anyone’s permission.
If they are set by Brussels, they can only be changed through a new treaty, which all sides agree is not going to happen any time soon.
The idea that a deal with Eurocrats is needed so we can apply this brake after our referendum is nonsense.
Either we do not need their permission or we need to change the treaties.
In any case, as Government officials have admitted, a ban on benefits would make no difference to the number of EU workers coming to Britain.
What a bloody charade. This wasn’t a real battle. It was more like a haka before a rugby game.
The idea is that, if there is enough shouting and arm-waving and eye-rolling, we would get the impression of tough talks.
What we got the impression of was an orchestrated, choreographed and stage-managed charade; a complete fraud.
Nothing serious was being asked for, and nothing serious granted. We wanted a real change in our relations with Brussels.
We wanted British law to trump EUSSR law on our own soil. We wanted the freedom to sign trade deals with old friends such as India and Australia. We wanted to be part of a common market in Europe, not a common government.
David Cameron never asked for these things. And even the things he did ask for, curbing Euro judges, opting out of Brussels rules on employment, changing the Common Agricultural Policy, limiting migration, were dropped when it became clear that Eurocrats would not play ball.
If you think about it from their point of view, why should they play ball?
They know that the PM will campaign to stay in whatever happens.
He even told the chief Eurocrat, Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker, that he would use the referendum to “dock” Britain in the EUSSR.
And they know too that he is desperate for a deal this month.
So why make any concessions? They can save those for if we vote to leave. That is when the real bargaining will start.
If this is how Eurocrats treat us now, imagine how they would treat us if we voted to stay.
If they are not prepared to give ground when their second-largest contributor is about to vote on leaving, think how much nastier they would get once we had run up a white flag.
We know that the migration and euro crises are getting worse.
We know if we stay we will get dragged into them.
Without meaning to, the PM has done us a favour; he has shown that we cannot get a better deal from the inside.
We can see that there is going to be a car crash a little further down the road as the debt crisis spreads and borders are trampled underfoot.
An emergency brake is not going to help.
We need to vote to leave, so we can take back control of our steering wheel before we hit the pile-up.
David Cameron yesterday was very clear as he championed his deal with the EU. He admitted that if today our country was not in the European Union, that he would vote for us to join.
That’s right. This Prime Minister would support the UK joining a European Union that would make the majority of our laws.
He would support joining an organisation with a daily membership fee of £55million.
This Prime Minister would vote to give away control of our territorial waters including nearly 200 miles of the North Sea.
He’d hand over the British Parliament’s sovereignty and make us subject to EU law that supersedes our own, even if it is against our national interest.
Mr Cameron would want to subjugate our own Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice.
He would handicap our country by allowing only foreign bureaucrats to negotiate trade deals on our behalf, rather than our own elected government.
And most damningly of all, he would vote to open up our borders to nearly half a billion people.
That is the kind of vision that David Cameron has for Britain. It amounts to a complete and total surrender of this country as a self-governing nation.
His vision certainly isn’t mine. I believe in Britain. And I know millions of you out there believe in this country as well.
Reject this pathetic deal. It is mere window-dressing from an establishment who just don’t think we have what it takes to run our own affairs. David Cameron and his friends in the establishment want to hoodwink the public into thinking that significant reform is possible inside the EU. It fundamentally is not possible — and it never will be. This deal proves it once again.
I believe in a future for our country where we make our own laws, negotiate our own global trade deals and control our own borders, a Britain where we start putting our own national interest and the British people first.
David Cameron, by championing this pathetic deal, has shown that he just doesn’t believe we are good enough to blaze our own trail in the world.
Those of us who believe in this country and what we can achieve must come together, win this referendum and get our country out of the EU. Together we can do it.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
By leaving the EUSSR, the UK would be free to make its own free trade deals with commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Currently, any free trade deal has to be made with the consent of the EUSSR. As emerging economies grow in strength, we believe, having the ability to make free trade deals will be beneficial to Britain’s economy.
As the vast majority of SMEs, the backbone of the UK economy, do very little or no trade with the EUSSR, by leaving the EUSSR, there will be a significant reduction in red tape. This reduces the cost on businesses and allows businesses to trade and innovate more freely. Such a benefit would have a positive effect on the UK’s economic growth.
We are currently one of the largest contributors to the EUSSR budget. We believe the net contribution to the EUSSR, could be better used by keeping it in the UK, funding infrastructure projects in the UK ranging from Roads to Hospitals.
By regaining our sovereignty, the UK will be able to make decisions that are good for the British people without interference from technocrats in Brussels. Our democratically elected members of Parliament are answerable to the electorate and so by leaving the EUSSR, this will help to reinforce our democratic principles.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The emergency brake sounds tough and was yesterday hailed as a ‘significant breakthrough’ by Number 10 — but it is likely to have little impact on the number of EU workers pouring in. The brake will not apply to the free movement of people. Germany, among other states, long ago made it plain this would be unacceptable.
Instead, it will relate only to the payment of certain benefits to EU citizens. Specifically, migrant workers will not be able to claim tax credits for the first four years they are in the UK.
In one sense, then, it is a repackaged version of the Prime Minister’s original referendum demand to block EU citizens from getting handouts for the first 48 months they are here. But the crucial difference is that it will not be permanent.
The brake will be enforced only if Brussels agrees the numbers coming to the UK are too high and are putting too much strain on public services.
Eurocrats agree that the current level of net migration from within the EU is too high at 180,000, though disagreements remain over how quickly the brake can be implemented after the referendum.
Government insiders say the brake will be structured in such a way that it does not apply to British workers.
But when the net migration rate falls, the brake will be removed.
This in itself poses a series of questions to which there are currently no answers.
Chief among them is would benefits immediately become payable again once the brake was lifted? Or would an EU worker who was already in the UK still have to wait for four years?
Most crucially, what level of net migration does the EU consider too high?
Given that David Cameron remains committed to reducing net migration from both inside and outside of the EU to the ‘tens of thousands’, surely anything above 100,000 would be politically unacceptable.
In any event, the brake won’t reduce the ‘pull factor’ to the UK, because the introduction of a ‘living wage’ of £9 by 2020 and changes in the personal tax allowance that will increase the basic pay of low-paid workers sharply.
For a migrant worker on the minimum wage with no dependents, the drop in wages if tax credits were stripped away would be less than £8 a week.
Weekly take-home pay would continue to be 156 per cent higher than in Poland and 353 per cent higher than in Bulgaria.
A senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility has suggested limiting migrants access will do little to stem the flow. Asked what the impact might be, Sir Stephen Nickell told MPs: ‘Not much.’ Some ministers are also scathing.
One Government insider said: ‘This does nothing to address the main issue: the numbers coming in and the fact we don’t have control of our borders.’
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The European elite see Brexit as about the future of the EUSSR, far more than the future of the UK.
Britain must not be seen to prosper after the break-up as, if it were to do so; others would surely follow it out of the EUSSR, which would be the end of the dream of the Euro-rats.
When we say that the Euro has undoubtedly proven to be a disaster, we grab the European jugular; we call into question the European elite’s religious view that the EUSSR is the future, whereas most of the rest of us know that it is the past.
After years of negligible growth, and ineptly trying to handle two worsening crises confronting it at the same time (over the Euro and refugees), it is actually very easy to foresee its demise.
With their masks off, the project itself called into question, Europe’s leaders will make it clear that they will always yearn for and believe in a united, politically-intertwined Europe that simply will never successfully exist.
To not believe this dogma is to be a heretic, and treated as such.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Yet another major employer has stated that it will continue to invest in the UK and employ people regardless of the outcome of the referendum. The chief executive of Hitachi, which has its global rail headquarters in the UK, described Britain as an ‘open’ country and cited the ‘language…the long history between Japan and the UK…and excellent leaders’ as reasons for committing to the UK.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The Leave campaign does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal, as we see no need to pay any money into the EU once we have left.
Canada, Australia, Mexico trade well with the EU without having to pay for the privilege.
Once the voters have chosen to leave, there are two options.
The UK could invoke Article 50 under the Treaties and enter a negotiation lasting up to two years — or more — to decide which agreements we wish to keep and what we wish to change. That would be playing the EU’s game and may take longer than is desirable.
The UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act to make clear that as from the Exit vote all EU laws and rules in the UK depended on the authority of Parliament and no longer derive from the Treaties or the European Court.
All present laws and rules would continue for the time being.
Armed with that change the UK would then be able to negotiate which agreements and rules need to remain to facilitate our trade and economic relations with the EU, and which can be amended or repealed if the UK wishes.
I would expect the rest of the EU to want to keep the trade agreements, mutual market access, pipeline, transport and other agreements.
The EU for its part would have to accept that in other areas the UK is free to legislate as it wishes — over borders, benefits, environment, energy and much else.
The UK could simply rely on World Trade Organisation membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed.
In practice both sides will wish to do better than this. Germany has already made clear they don’t want extra tariffs like a 10 percent tariff on cars, so the resulting deal will be similar to the current position — WTO plus.
The UK would reassure former partner countries that we wish to sort out the matters where we are still involved — mainly trade — on an amicable basis to a sensible timetable, but reserve the right to get on and sort out matters like borders, welfare and criminal justice where the act of leaving restores sovereignty.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
John Redwood; Two of the main reasons to leave are to get our money back and to control our own borders. Mexico with a free trade agreement, Canada and 160 other countries around the world trade with the EU but do not pay contributions to the EU budget, and do not accept freedom of movement. So will BSE stop the lies that we would need to in order to trade?
We do not want some half way house agreement leaving us partially in. We wish to restore our own democracy. Our trade with the EU is not at risk and we do not have to opt in to some associate membership in order to buy and sell cars or wine or legal services.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Working people have been sold a lie over the past 30 years, ever since Jacques Delores got up at a TUC conference and promised full employment.
Like everything else about the EUSSR, the idea of a “Social Europe” is a con. It’s a myth that social legislation saves jobs. Social Europe hasn’t saved one job in Greece where unemployment levels are currently at 60%.
UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins said: “The wheels have well and truly fallen off the myth that jobs are at risk from leaving the EU.”
“Of course big businesses will support us staying in, because they can afford the lobbyists to keep competition out of the markets and love the cheap labour it gives them.”
“But for the rest of us, leaving the EU means growth, opportunities and lower prices as markets are freed up for real competition.”
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
“Financial markets are underestimating the “Pandora’s Box” effect of a British exit from EU,” Barclays has warned, echoing fears that the EUSSR, rather than the UK, would suffer the worst consequences of a “Brexit”.
Barclays have said that investors had failed to grasp the sheer “breadth” of the referendum, calling it one of “the most significant global risks of the year” which could lead to the disintegration of the European project.
“The referendum is generally seen as a ‘UK’ issue, when it is better seen as a European issue” said Philippe Gudin of Barclays.
The bank has pointed out that the “…political and institutional reverberations of a ‘leave’ vote were far greater than any economic fall-out.” In particular, their analysts have highlighted that the “emotionally charged” immigration debate could see the UK leave the EUSSR.
Surveys show that concerns about immigration have surged to become the most important issue facing the EUSSR. According to voters, since the start of 2015, fears about immigration eclipse those about the economy, terrorism, and unemployment
Should Brexit occur, it would, “…embolden other member states who are struggling to control immigration and unleash a fresh wave of turmoil in the crisis-hit continent,” said Barclays.
“The UK would present continental opponents of immigration with a politically potent example of how to deal with one of the thorniest and most emotionally charged trans-national issues confronting European voters”.
If Britain voted for exit and “politics in the EU turned for the worse, the UK may be seen as a safe haven from those risks, putting significant downward pressure” on the Euro, said Marvin Barth of Barclays.
“In that environment, Scottish voters could be even less inclined to leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU.”
Barclays’ analysis comes after the chief economist of Deutsche Bank said Brexit would be “devastating” for the continent and consign Europe to a second rate world power.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
David Cameron & the Remainers claim that the UK will lose out by leaving the EUSSR; based on the assumption that somehow the UK’s decision to leave would be very costly for us,
There’s only one real example of this sort of decision in the past.
That was in relation to the UK’s decision to stay out of the euro.
We were told: ‘If you don’t go into Euro, London, as a financial capital would be diminished.’
That didn’t happen;
The City of London’s financial market has gone from strength to strength since the single currency was introduced.
So why would similar threats regarding Brexit be true?
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
The Common Fishing Policy ranks alongside the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Energy Policy, the Schengen Plan and the Euro in the pantheon of great disasters orchestrated by the EUSSR.
The Common Fishing Policy has destroyed our fishing industry and done huge damage to our fish stocks, by allowing factory ships from the other EUSSR member states to take so much of our fish.
Once out of the EUSSR, the UK will regain control of our fishing grounds.
A UK domestic policy would be more successful at husbanding our fishing grounds and by giving priority to UK vessels, saving & revitalising our fishing industry.
If Norway, Iceland and Canada can do it, so can we.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Cameron & the Remainers try to make Farmers fear that Brexit will mean an end to Farm grants & subsidies;
Another part of “Project Fear;” that is a scare-mongering lie
There is no reason why the subsidies would end.
Currently those subsidies are a measly portion of the billions the UK shovels into EUSSR coffers; begrudgingly handed back in the guise of “European Generosity”
When the UK leaves the EUSSR, we will have our own money to spend; all the money we’ve had to send to the EUSSR, back under our own control.
A UK government, following Brexit will be able to continue existing subsidy levels; even discussing with farmers if they need more or if they want the money paid in some different way.
Outside the EUSSR, the UK can have a rural policy that looks after rural areas and is sensitive to UK needs.
Outside the EUSSR, the UK will be able to set her own environmental standards, and reward farmers and landowners for looking after our great countryside and allowing others to enjoy it.
Outside the EUSSR, the UK will be free to adopt modern technologies and innovations we think will help farmers and their customers.
Outside the EUSSR, the UK will regain her seat on The International Plant Protection Convention, and will have a stronger voice in combating plant disease worldwide.
Outside the EUSSR, the UK will also be free to modify the water and planning laws, including the Water Directives, which have disastrously worsened flood problems and got in the way of tried-and-tested methods of water management.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
What is a Euro-rat?
First, I didn’t coin the term “Euro-rat;” the rightful claimant for that honour is the Microsoft Word Spell-checker; I once tried to type Eurocrat; got a red under-line, with the suggestion “Euro-rat.”
Who am I to argue?
Biography of a typical Euro-rat
Jonathan Faull, (born 20 August 1954) is a British official in the EUSSR Politburo (European Commission), which he joined in 1978, when he was 24;
He studied law at the University of Sussex and has an MA from the “College of Europe” in Bruges.
Our esteemed former Deputy-Prime Minister, Nick Clegg was also an alumnus; he met his wife there.
The number of “College of Europe” marriages is not insignificant, and has led one commentator to observe that it is an enthusiastic motor for European “horizontal integration.”
According to ‘The Times’, the “College of Europe, is to the European political elite what the Harvard Business School is to American corporate life. It is a hothouse where the ambitious and talented go to make contacts.”
‘The Economist’ describes it as “an elite finishing school for aspiring Eurocrats.”
The ‘Financial Times’ writes that “the elite College of Europe” is “an institution geared to producing crop after crop of graduates with a lifelong enthusiasm for EU integration.”
European Commissioner for Education Ján Figeľ described the college as “one of the most emblematic centres of European studies in the European Union.”
The ‘BBC’ has referred to it as “the EU’s very own Oxbridge.”
Nicholas Hirst in the “The Bruges Mafia” described it as “the leading place to study European affairs” and as “the elite training centre for the European Union’s political class.”
‘Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’ has referred to the college as “a Euro-federalist hot-spot.”
‘The Global Mail’ has described its students as “Europe’s leaders-in-waiting.”
In 1995 Jonathan Faull was appointed “Director for Competition Policy at the Directorate-General for Competition.”
In 1999 he was appointed “Deputy Director-General of the Politburo” (European Commission) and “Spokesman and Director-General of for the Directorate-General of Press and Communication.”
In 2003 he was appointed “Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs” (later the “Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security”).
In 2010 he was appointed “Director-General of the Directorate-General for Internal Market and Services.”
In 2012 he became “Director-General of the Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union” which was formed from the Directorate-General for Internal Market and Services.
On 24 June 2015, the EUSSR Politburo (European Commission) announced that he would become the Director-General of a to-be-created “Task Force for Strategic Issues related to the UK Referendum” as of 1st September 2015
This is the man who lead the EUSSR renegotiations with the UK…
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
From Carole Malone in the Mirror of 28th February; ever-so slightly edited:
So, did you notice it?
The moment David Cameron started trying to change the UK from a quasi-democracy into a dictatorship?
[“Quasi-democracy” because until Brexit we won’t be a real one…]
Dave, who promised we could have an honest and open referendum debate on the EUSSR, has this week launched a bullying, vindictive, state-controlled campaign to make sure we stay in.
He’s threatening to sack MPs and ministers who refuse to support him.
He’s so determined to get his way, civil servants have been told to withhold EUSSR papers from Eurosceptic ministers.
He’s bribing those who are wavering with promises of titles, jobs and power.
He’s cut off lifelong friends because they dared to defy him and do what they believe is best for the UK rather than what’s best for the Cameron legacy.
He cajoled a bunch of retired admirals and generals into signing a letter to support “Remain” even though one of them says he didn’t agree to it and another says that he was pressured. (And where is it military leaders get a say in politics? Aah yes — dictatorships).
And then there’s “Project Fear”
He’s encouraging big business bosses into signing letters saying we’ll be ‘dead-in-the-water’ if we leave the EUSSR.
He’s warning jobs will go; even though Britain has its lowest unemployment for a decade; while within the Eurozone unemployment has soared to an 11 per cent average; 25% in some parts.
He’s getting banks to tell us we’ll be broke.
His “pet” people are scaremongering that the cost of flights, food and petrol will all skyrocket.
Why does he need to do all that if the EUSSR is so great?
Cameron promised we could make up our own minds in this referendum but somehow voters; desperate to know the REAL implications of Stay or Leave; are being force-fed sound-bites from Project Fear with no real facts to back them up.
Voters get nothing positive about why membership the EUSSR is so good for the UK; but character assassinations of any gainsayers.
And the biggest joke this week?
Cameron warning our national security will be at risk if we leave, just as we’re told that, thanks to the migrant crisis, the EUSSR is just days away from total collapse and its leaders have no idea what to do about it.
And these are the people to whom we’re supposed to entrust our national security?
The other thing that’s happened is we discovered many of our politicians are gutless, self-interested cowards who wouldn’t know a principle if they fell over one; people who haven’t just put their own interests and careers above their beliefs but, more importantly, above what is best for the people of this country.
Look how many of them, who for years have been Eurosceptic, have fallen into line behind Cameron because they know to oppose him will be career suicide.
I’m talking about Theresa May, Philip Hammond and Oliver Letwin; politicians whose anti-EU views are legend but who have sacrificed their beliefs on the altar of self-interest.
Do Hammond, May and co have no shame in betraying those who elected them and expect their honesty?
At least Michael Gove and Boris Johnson have the guts to say they want out, even though it could end lifelong friendships with the PM and lead to political oblivion.
Gove in particular knows what he’s done could be catastrophic for him professionally and personally but believes it’s good for the UK.
But instead of being praised by Tory cowards who don’t have the guts to follow his lead, he and Boris are being slated as traitors.
But who are they traitors to?
Is it the Dave, desperate to protect his legacy?
Or is it, his cronies in Westminster?
It’s not us, the voters;
For us, the traitors are those who loudly trumpeted their Euroscepticism prior to the General Election, yet now slough it off so easily; claiming to have been persuaded by “Dave’s Dodgy Deal;” those “Fundamental, Far-reaching Changes” (LOL) achieved by Cameron in his “Hard-fought Negotiations” (PMSL).”
Cameron needs to be careful.
Brits don’t take kindly to their politicians trying to scare them sh*tless.
Nor will we be bullied into staying in a rotten, corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic, dying institution that doesn’t give a stuff about our interests; just our money.
We really need to leave the EUSSR — ASAP
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
In a Democracy the voter is sovereign.
The most important characteristic of any democracy is that it should be possible for voters to evict those who act in their name.
The EUSSR fails that test. Real power in Brussels rests in institutions like the unelected Politburo that are accountable to nobody.
David Cameron promised to reform our relationship with the EUSSR, and then put those reforms to the British people in a referendum.
The beauty of referendums is that they remove power from politicians.
Dave’s vote = My vote = Your vote = Boris’s vote
“Dave’s Deal” doesn’t begin to, “…reform our relationship with the EUSSR;”
Even when facing the chance of the UK voting to leave, the EUSSR won’t entertain the idea of any reform at all.
I believe we will be better off out of the EUSSR, and will be voting to leave.
In the event of a successful Brexit vote; contrary to his wishes, Dave will go down in history as the Prime Minister who finally empowered the British people.
And if we get it right, 23rd June 2016 will go down in history as UK Independence Day…
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
In a Democracy the voter is sovereign.
The most important characteristic of any democracy is that it should be possible for voters to evict those who act in their name.
The EUSSR fails that test. Real power in Brussels rests in institutions like the unelected Politburo that are accountable to nobody.
David Cameron promised to reform our relationship with the EUSSR, and then put those reforms to the British people in a referendum.
The beauty of referendums is that they remove power from politicians.
My vote = Your vote = Dave’s vote = Boris’s vote
“Dave’s Deal” doesn’t begin to, “…reform our relationship with the EUSSR;”
Even when facing the chance of the UK voting to leave, the EUSSR won’t entertain the idea of any reform at all.
A few of the largest multinationals disagree with us about the EUSSR, but we shouldn’t be surprised. An uncompetitive Europe benefits established players at the expense of new market entrants. Many of the same voices predicted apocalypse if Britain refused to join the euro; they were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
Brexit is for the challenger, the start-up, the business of tomorrow, rather than just protecting the incumbent.
And by a huge margin, small and medium sized firms say that EUSSR regulation makes it harder for them to hire. And a growing number of large businesses have stated that Britain would flourish, or at least not be disadvantaged by leaving the EUSSR.
It makes no sense for us to bind ourselves to a political bloc that is in decline; we should be free to trade with the fastest growing markets and to attract talent from around the world.
I believe we will be better off out of the EUSSR, and will be voting to leave.
In the event of a successful Brexit vote; contrary to his wishes, Dave will go down in history as the Prime Minister who finally empowered the British people.
And if we get it right, 23rd June 2016 will go down in history as UK Independence Day…
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
WILL VOTE TO LEAVE THE EUSSR
EUSSR supporters made a big push on science in the lead up to Christmas.
The Independent posted three articles on the same day claiming that Brexit would cut the UK off from funding, excluding it from European science networks and deal a mortal blow to British research.
Now, of course the BBC is joining in the same fraudulent campaign
It would be extremely worrying if those stories were true, but they aren’t; they are lies.
The European Research Area (ERA) includes countries like Iceland, Norway, Turkey and even Israel, which is not even actually in Europe in the physical sense.
The ERA has nothing to do with EUSSR membership, and it is time to put that lie to bed.
Science teams in the UK could expect to collaborate with European partners in the same way as other non-EUSSR nations.
Non-EUSSR countries pay into the European science programmes sums that are proportional to their economic size and the participation they expect to gain; an independent UK would do the same.
Hopefully, in time, more scientists will realise that Brexit poses no threat to our place in the ERA system because its funds are administered on the basis of merit, rather than political allegiance.
The myths/lies of exclusion and relegation are born largely from political and ideological motives.
The main force behind them is the ‘Scientists for EU’ group, itself set up by two leading campaigners from the equally political ‘Scientists for Labour’.
They suggest that, even if the EUSSR might not be quite so vindictive, (or actually even able,) as to terminate science links with Europe’s leading scientific powerhouse, they might decide to “de-privilege” the UK in terms of our funding allocation. However, the merit-based system mentioned above is overseen by an all-scientist Scientific Council, which includes representatives from non EUSSR member-states.
For ‘Scientists for EU’ to suggest that EUSSR officials might conspire to undermine this system and its own declared objectives, just for the sake of exacting retribution on the UK, is really a fairly serious accusation, which as well as being false, doesn’t present the bloc to which they are so devoted in a remotely favourable light.
Not that regarding Science, or any other matter, the EUSSR deserves any kind of “favourable light.”
The EUSSR meddles, and some of that meddling laws actually cost lives.
The UK’s most prolific cancer researcher, Professor Angus Dalgleish, has said that the EUSSR’s “Clinical Trials Directive” has increased the cost of his experiments more than ten-fold.
And he pointed out last month that, “…‘the unfathomable amount of EU regulation and bureaucracy has led to a third less clinical studies taking place in Britain. We were world-leading in these studies, but because of EU regulation, we now lag behind the United States.”
Five UK universities feature in the top twenty universities worldwide, no other EUSSR country is on that list.
The idea that EUSSR scientists would refuse to cooperate with Europe’s leading scientific centre, due to their imagined offence at the British public voting for Brexit, is so improbable as to be laughable.
Pro-EUSSR commentators make their biggest error, and further display their ignorance, when they cite great enterprises like CERN, the European Space Agency, and the European Southern Observatory as examples of the great things scientists have been able to achieve thanks to the EUSSR.
Indeed, editorials by ‘Scientists for EU’ are often illustrated with images of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, with one of the articles in The Independent explicitly threatening that participation in this great project would be threatened by Brexit.
The truth is, Switzerland-based CERN is completely separate from, and has nothing to do with the EUSSR.
It is an international organisation, of which the United Kingdom was a founder member, way back in 1954.
At CERN, the EUSSR merely has the same observer status as Japan or UNESCO.
Similarly, the European Space Agency (ESA), which just launched Major Tim Peake into space; on a Russian spacecraft no less; is an intergovernmental organisation.
It has never been an agency of the EUSSR.
British involvement in these great and long-standing institutions would continue after Brexit and it is lying to suggest otherwise.
In short, European science is bigger than the EUSSR.
Scientists who are concerned about their future in a country freed from the EUSSR’s political straitjacket need to ignore the Scaremongers & Liars, examine the evidence and understand that as a leading centre for scientific excellence the UK would remain at the beating heart of European science, Brexit or no Brexit
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
Richard Branson; “I think it would be the start of most likely the breakup of the European Union.”
All good so far, Richard, anything else?
He suggested that the EU has helped stopped wars breaking out within the bloc.
No, Richard, that was NATO; currently the EUSSR looks more likely to cause strife “within the bloc.”
He then added: “Having a European Union — there are so many benefits and I just hope sense will prevail when it comes to having the vote on it.”
So many benefits, Richard?
I wonder if you could list them; without mentioning your business, of course… Richard?
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
One of the loudest voices calling for the UK to stay in the EUSSR 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 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 EUSSR 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 EUSSR.
The CBI was wrong on both occasions;
The result of greater EUSSR 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 still insists that the UK must remain in the EUSSR.
The CBI was always wrong before and the CBI is wrong now.
Lord Digby Jones, a former head of the CBI, does not share its views; on 22nd December 2015, he wrote in The Times;
“We are faced with an unelected ruling elite in Brussels that still can’t balance its books, where the culture is still one of marching valiantly towards 1970 and where criticism is condescendingly seen as heretical.”
The EUSSR-funded CBI cheated its membership surveys on the Euro.
The EUSSR-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 EUSSR 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 EUSSR.
The EUSSR-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 EUSSR-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 EUSSR-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.
…………………………………o0O0o………………………………….
24th February
Soon after becoming the UK Farming Minister, George Eustice was asked to sign off the final appeal decision relating to a farmer’s support payment for the year. The farmer’s wife had always done the paperwork on the farm, but she had sadly died of cancer.
With everything going on in his life, he had missed the deadline for submitting his application form. At each stage of the appeal process, people said the same thing: that they felt tremendous sympathy for the farmer but due to strict EUSSR rules he must forfeit his entire payment for that year.
Mr Eustice disagreed, and as the farmer had just lost his wife and, after all, deadlines are arbitrary, sent back an instruction to pay him.
A few days later, a group of worried looking lawyers and officials trooped into the minister’s office to explain the intricacies and risks of breaking the EUSSR regulations and to invite him to reconsider; the argument went on for the next six months.
The reality of working within EUSSR law is that trying to do the simplest of things becomes curiously complicated and often impossible. Some 80 percent of legislation affecting DEFRA comes from the EUSSR with about 40 percent of all EUSSR regulations affecting the UK falling within DEFRA’s remit.
It is all pervasive:
How many farm inspections there must be in a given year;
What proportion of those inspections must be random;
How much a farmer must be fined if he makes a mistake;
How much he should be fined if he makes the same mistake twice;
The precise dimensions of EUSSR billboards and plaques, announcing “EUSSR that farmers are forced to put up by law;
The maximum width of a gateway;
The minimum width of a hedge;
The maximum width of a hedge;
What type of crop must be grown;
Whether a cabbage and a cauliflower are different crops or should be deemed the same crop.
The list goes on forever and it’s stifling.
Compliance with this plethora of farming regulations is enforced through a complex and rather dysfunctional system of penalties called “disallowance”.
Auditors working for the EUSSR Politburo can levy fixed percentage fines against the UK government on the entire CAP budget for perceived breaches in the enforcement or administration of regulations.
When there is disagreement, there is a mediation process but it is designed so that the Politburo holds the cards.
The combined effect of having complex, all pervasive regulations and a draconian and unpredictable system of fines creates an atmosphere of perpetual legal jeopardy in a department like DEFRA.
Every farming minister is condemned to hear the words “disallowance risk” every day of their working lives.
No one really knows where they stand because it all depends on what a particular auditor on a given day might retrospectively decide.
However hard we try to abide by the rules, it is inevitable that the British tax payer will be routinely stung by fines.
This makes people risk averse and afraid to consider doing things differently or to try something new.
Politicians go through phases of blaming the civil service for these problems. That’s unfair. They are not making it up.
This country is hit by fines of around £100 million a year for a multitude of trivial, perceived mistakes; few of which actually matter much in the scheme of things.
In addition, the government has already changed guidance so that all EUSSR directives must be copied out word for word and have introduced a system of regulatory budgets.
Of course, we can and do argue for reform of the system and will continue to do so, but when you have 28 member states, each with completely different agricultural structures and each with totally different political make ups, coherence will never be a strong point of a Common Agricultural Policy.
And what of the farmer whose wife had died of cancer? The minister overruled everyone and paid him.
Now, perhaps the UK will be fined again, but what you have done?
We don’t need to put up with this sort of nonsense anymore. There must be a better way of doing things.
Rather than being free to construct new ideas and fresh ways of doing things, our policy officials spend their days fretting about whether they are complying with this or that regulation. If we have the courage to take back control, we would be free to think again and could achieve so much more for our farmers and our environment.
………………………………………………………………………………
William Hague has warned members of the Tory party not to allow divisions over the EU referendum to stop them winning the next General Election.
Lord Hague said the party was now “more evenly divided” than it had been during the debate over whether the UK should join the Euro during the 1990s.
And the former Conservative leader urged the current leadership to bar ministers from the Cabinet if they resorted to “personal attacks” during the campaign.
His comments come after several senior Tories declared their support for a “Brexit” including Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith.
The former foreign secretary told the Telegraph that many Tories had found the decision “agonising” and voters would hear “utterly contradictory statements” about issues such as security and the economy from Government ministers in the next few months.
He said the Tories are the party that will have to deal with the consequences of either a vote to remain or to leave and will have to work together whatever the outcome.
Lord Hague said Tory ministers should campaign only during their spare time, praise each other and not resort to criticising individuals in order to avoid a schism.
He added: “It should be understood that there will continue to be a place in the Cabinet for ministers on both sides of this argument, but not for those who stooped to personal attacks or stoked a feud.”
“So even if the result is to stay in the EU, the talented minister who argued eloquently for leaving should know he or she will have a good job in the Cabinet; the minister who criticised their colleagues should know their future role is being the new special representative to warlords in the Khyber Pass.”
In the Commons on Monday, David Cameron made his displeasure at Mr Johnson’s decision to back Brexit clear in a scathing attack on the London mayor.
The Prime Minister said his own pledge to step down at the general election meant he had “no agenda” other than the interests of Britain — a dig at Mr Johnson’s leadership ambitions.
………………………………………………………………………………
Around 33,000 bureaucrats are employed by the European Politburo, which is the EUSSR’s civil service.
Bureaucrats in Brussels have demanded they are not referred to as “bureaucrats” but as “European civil servants.”
In a bizarre outburst, bureaucrat, Margaritis Schinas, Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief spokesman reacted furiously after a journalist used the term “Euro-bureaucrat” in a press conference.
That sounds a bit childish; maybe “Euro-brat” would be more apt
Schinas, who leads the European Commission’s “Spokesman Service,” said he did “not like” the term “bureaucrat” and would not accept being described as one.
At the briefing in Brussels, Mr Schinas, a former Greek MEP, threw his toys out of his pram and said:
“Thank you for repeating that we are bureaucrats in our faces. I have told you repeatedly that we do not like that term for the European civil service… We do not think bureaucrat is the way to describe our job.”
“Each time you will use the term bureaucrat,” the senior “Euro-prat” said, “I will answer back that we are civil servants working for the interests of all 28 member states.”
Mr Schinas became angry after he was asked by an Italian reporter about the behaviour of Mr Juncker’s chief of staff Martin Selmayr, who bureaucrats in Rome have accused of briefing against them.
The row comes after the senior “Euro-twat” Selmayr, admitted that he had misled journalists at a briefing on the British renegotiation last week.
After confessing that he had not told the truth, he said:
“That was a tactic.”
“I have tactics, when I speak to journalists I don’t speak because I’m a nice guy. I want to achieve something.”
“You write it, somebody reads it. I instrumentalise you.”
“Instrumentalise”?
No, that’s manipulate, you lying Euro-rat.
………………………………………………………………………………
Cameron is surprisingly reticent about discussing what I like to think of as “Dave’s Dodgy Deal.”
He knows that it won’t change anything about our relationship with the EUSSR.
He knows that it won’t solve the problems the British people see in the EUSSR.
Therefore it is vital that we continue to questions and scrutinise his reform package.
Michael Gove has given an interview to the BBC in which he makes clear that the Prime Minister‘s deal is not legally binding.
As Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Gove is in charge of the UK’s legal system. He states that the European Court of Justice is not bound by the deal because there has not been any Treaty change. Indeed, Downing Street admits that EUSSR courts must only take “Dave’s Dodgy Deal” the deal ‘into account’.
The Prime Minister’s reform package carries the same legal weight as an unsigned contract. EUSSR politicians and EUSSR judges could easily ignore the deal and rip it up straight after the referendum.
The European Parliament continues to be helpful; one MEP has warned that the deal is not legally binding, and is but “a fluffed up political promise”
The only way to take back control is straightforward; Brexit.
………………………………………………………………………………
Some business leaders; bosses of FTSE 100 companies, have signed a letter calling for the UK to stay in the EUSSR, despite the fact that the PM’s deal does nothing to help British business.
These big corporations are heavily supported by the EUSSR and have spent millions lobbying EUSSR politicians to get the rules made in their favour. They have also received huge grants from Brussels, we now know that some of the businesses whose bosses signed yesterday’s pro-EUSSR letter have received grants from Brussels to the tune of £94 million; so it is no surprise they want to stay in the EUSSR.
However, it is telling how few businesses have responded to Downing Street’s call to sign up. Last week it was reported that that 80 of the FTSE 100 companies would sign the letter, yet only 36 have; which also means 64 decided not to.
Leave aside that more than a dozen of the 36 bosses (who “earned” £181million between them last year!) are not even British.
Forget that most of the rest are a motley crew of slippery PR men, Cameron cronies and avaricious bankers, with a smattering of chancers who feathered their nests by selling UK firms to foreigners.
There’s one damning factor that unites them with all the most vociferous champions of our EUSSR membership, including the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Economist
Almost to a man and woman, they zealously urged Britain to join the catastrophic euro, which has spread misery and mass unemployment from the Atlantic coast of Spain to the Aegean shores of Greece
Thank God, this country didn’t listen to them then. Why should we now?
………………………………………………………………………………
Priti Patel, one of the Cabinet members supporting Brexit, is calling on the UK to strengthen its ties with countries outside the EU.
Ms Patel addressed the British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs on why women should take a leading role in the debate on the UK’s future in the EUSSR.
The Employment Minister wants the UK to take back control of negotiating trade deals, and to create an immigration system which welcomes the brightest and best from around the world.
David Cameron yesterday tried to convince MPs that he had won a good deal for Britain. In doing so, he made a number of spurious claims; such as that his reforms are ‘legally binding’, that he has delivered a ‘special status’ for the UK and that we will no longer have to bailout Eurozone countries.
The PM’s deal has not changed our relationship with the EU. His deal is 99% the same as what we have already. European courts and politicians will still be in charge of our borders, our courts and our economy. The deal is not legally binding and can be ripped up by EU judges after our vote.
………………………………………………………………………………
Project Fear’s Lies
“If we leave, there’ll be 3½ million jobs at risk”. Not true. The jobs depend on trade, not membership, and the trade will continue. We buy far more from the EU than they buy from us — so if 3½ million UK jobs depend on EU/UK trade, it follows that five or six million continental jobs depend on it too. They need us. We should be worrying about the jobs we’re losing now, as a result of EU membership. Ask the steel workers, who lost their jobs because of the EU’s energy policies, and failure to counter Chinese dumping.
“We need to be in the Single Market for trade”. Not true. The largest sources of imports into the EU are Russia, China and the USA. They’re not members of the Single Market — they don’t even have preferential trade deals. Yet they sell huge quantities of goods into the Single Market. Dozens of countries around the world trade successfully with Europe — and so will Britain after Brexit.
“Even if we leave, we’ll still be subject to EU rules”. Not true. Pro-EU campaigners constantly talk about “the Norwegian model”. But Norway is a quasi-associate-member of the EU. After Brexit, the UK will be an independent nation, like Canada or the USA or China or South Korea. They don’t obey EU rules. Nor will we.
“We need the EU because the UK is too small to negotiate trade deals alone”. Not true. Little Switzerland and tiny Iceland have managed to set up their own trade deals with China — but neither UK nor EU has a China trade deal. The USA has bilateral trade deals with 20 countries, and every one of those countries has a smaller economy than the UK. As a G7 country, the UK is well able to make its own trade deals.
“The EU is vital for our security”. Not true. The EU is the problem, not the solution. EU open borders have allowed terrorists and eastern European crime syndicates free access to our country. “Free movement of people” appears to include free movement of jihadists and Kalashnikovs. Security starts with proper border control.
“We’ll lose the benefit of police cooperation in Europol”. But the EU already extends police cooperation to 18 non-member countries. It is inconceivable that that would not extend to UK. And of course we still have Interpol.
“Even after Brexit, we won’t be able to control immigration”. Yes we will — as an island nation, we can control our borders. But if we stay in, we can expect Germany to give EU passports to a million migrants, who can come and live on a street near you. The EU is keen to admit Turkey, which would be the biggest and poorest EU state, allowing 75 million Turks the right to come to the UK.
“Business leaders say we should stay in”. Many do — but many say the opposite. And many who say they want to stay in, like the big banks, are subject to EU commission influence and patronage.
“Farmers won’t survive without their regular CAP cheques.” Farmers will be Better Off Out. Virtually all countries have their own farm support régimes. The UK had a perfectly good farm support policy before we joined the EU in 1973. After Brexit, we’ll have a farm support mechanism designed in Britain for British farmers, not one designed in Brussels for French farmers. And we currently pay around £6 bn a year into the CAP, and get only £3 bn back — so there’ll be plenty of funding available.
“With all its faults, hasn’t the EU at least kept the peace in Europe for seventy years?” No, The peace has been kept by NATO, by thousands of US troops in Germany, by nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction. In the immediate post-war years the proto-EU, with the Coal & Steel Community, helped to ensure peace, but as William Hague has said, “The EU is a 1970s solution to a 1950s problem”.
………………………………………………………………………………
21st February
The Sun reports, “In an embarrassing blunder, 60 activists from a group led by senior MP Nick Herbert” issued a letter saying they “fully support the deal the PM has negotiated”, before Dave had announced his “Triumph.”
The article suggests that, “Bungling pro-EU Tories penned a letter praising David Cameron’s renegotiation deal; before they knew what was in it.”
But, I think the Sun has got hold of the Wrong-end-of-the-Stick
I reckon “Dave’s Dodgy Deal” had already been agreed; the “Conservatives for Reform in Europe” lot did know what was in it, and the “Bungling” was a timing clanger dropped by Cameron & the other Euro-rats involved in the orchestrated, choreographed & stage-managed charade; sorry, those “Hard-fought negotiations”
One can imagine the briefing before Dave set off to “Fight for Britain;”
“Right, chaps; we’re going to be having some dinner, then it’ll be “Hard-negotiating” (laughter);
“Probably one-on-ones all night (more laughter);
“You know the sort of thing; a bit of dozing in chairs, a few tense words with the TV people, before returning to doze a little more…”
“Then an English breakfast, with some “tough one-on-one” discussions; probably about football mainly;”
“Then a “Full-on, Frank working lunch;” that could go on a bit…”
“You’ve all got the hand-out?”
“Right, remember; don’t send the letter to the press until after lunch…”
“And definitely, on the Welfare thingy, don’t mention the bit about seven years instead of four…”
“That’s my rabbit-out-of-a-hat, we’ve got to save that; it’ll carry the day…”
“Toodle-Pip”
So, with a few stern, warrior-like words with the assembled media, off he went.
We had the overnight negotiations; I do hope he had enough shirts…
And then breakfast; full English, but with lots of solemn foreign sound-bites;
Then of course that lunch, which obviously proved to be a bit too “Full-on;”
Probably by this point, Dave and the Euro-rats were all feeling a tad “over-convivial;”
Perhaps even a little fuzzy;
Anyway the “Far-reaching” bonhomie meant Lunch carried on into a “Hard-fought” dinner;
Alcohol can do that;
Perhaps the strain of “Steadfastly fighting Britain’s corner” through all four courses, caused Dave’s memory fade, losing track of the agreed timing;
Or maybe Jean-Claude’s risqué stories and Angular’s amusing anecdotes stole Dave’s sense of time;
Anyway, whatever the cause, when the moment came for poor, “tired” Dave to triumphantly announce his “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reforms”,
He found that his “Conservatives for Reform in Europe” pals back home, rigidly sticking to the pre-arranged timing, had already welcomed them;
Saying: “For the first time since 1975, a British Prime Minister has returned from a summit with more powers than when they arrived. In a reformed Europe, the UK would get the best of both worlds.”
Which of course is quite wrong; the PM didn’t “…return from a summit with more powers;” in 1975; and he hasn’t this time.
Obviously this time, when they released their letter, Dave was still carousing on the continent; he hadn’t “returned” at all…
The Sun is right in that this “…sparked ridicule from Eurosceptics.”
But UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall was being kind when he said: “These people said they were going to wait and make a decision on the deal as it was struck. This is a transparent lie.”
What he should have said was,
“These people said to Cameron that they were going to wait and make their announcement after his lunch. Unfortunately Dave forgot his timing…”
………………………………………………………………………………
Sir Nicholas Soames; MP since 1983;
Grandson of the man who in 1940 said, “We shall never surrender;”
A known Europhile, who was one of John Major’s ‘heavies’ in putting-down the Maastricht Rebels;
Though larger in physical terms, is half the man his Grandfather was…
Back in the Referendum campaign of 1975, according to the treasurer of the “Yes” campaign Alastair McAlpine;
“The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-Marketeers as unreliable people; dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path…”
It seems nothing has changed…
Instead of simply making the argument for Remaining-In,
Which of course is nigh impossible
The Remainians make personal attacks on Brexit leaders.
Beginning with Cameron’s
“…we should be suspicious of those who claim that leaving Europe is some automatic fast track to some land of milk and honey.”
And now Soames;
Who should know that, in an argument, being reduced to insulting your opponent is an admission of defeat;
Comparing Nigel Farage to the idiot currently buying his way to the US Republican nomination is an insult
Nigel didn’t stoop to Soames’ level
So, on his behalf, echoing Robert Peston;
Er, Soames, Eff off!
………………………………………………………………………………
Michael Gove, has decided on voting to leave. He has laid out his reasons. This was not written “over-night” and to do him justice, he is quoted in full her:
My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change.
If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.
But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives.
Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out.
We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country.
I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.
The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people.
As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.
Our democracy stood the test of time.
We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.
In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.
By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts.
The Euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people.
European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment.
EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.
Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity.
Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria.
The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves.
All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.
The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time.
It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date.
The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation.
It is an analogue union in a digital age.
The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people.
Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day.
We are still subject to an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before.
This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area.
EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).
Individually these rules may be comical.
Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress.
Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases.
ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies.
As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.
It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country.
I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change.
Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’.
I know it.
My colleagues in government know it.
And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.
But by leaving the EU we can take control.
Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish.
Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down.
We can show leadership.
Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.
We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships.
We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent.
We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.
We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country.
Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN.
Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?
On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.
This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.
………………………………………………………………………………
OK, so Dave’s Dodgy Deal has been agreed
It would seem we have a fight to win;
The new “Dave’s Dodgy Deal” provides for a seven-year emergency brake on in-work benefits for EU migrant workers; 7 instead of 4; that’s the expected “rabbit-from-a-hat”
Seven years, instead of four; a very small baby “Rabbit”
Dave’s Deal also brings cuts in child benefit for EUSSR migrants children living overseas; applicable immediately for new arrivals and from 2020 for the 34,000 existing claimants.
These two items somehow have to survive the ministrations of the European Parliament & the European Court of Justice;
Even if they do; most experts are agreed that their affect on immigration will be minimal to zero.
EUSSR citizens come to the UK to work because our minimum wage is so much larger than that of their own countries;
Benefits are small beer to them
The situation will only be exacerbated when the new “Living Wage” is introduced.
Dave’s Dodgy Deal also says that EUSSR treaties will be amended to state explicitly that references to the requirement to seek Ever-Closer Union “do not apply to the United Kingdom.”
That is the expected; “The Cheque is in the Post” — like an unsigned contract, it is utterly worthless.
Before his Press conference, Dave made a speech;
“Turning our back on the EU is no solution at all.”
– Yes, Dave it is; it is the only solution; the only way we can regain our sovereignty; get our country back.
“And we should be suspicious of those who claim that leaving Europe [He means the EU] is some automatic fast track to some land of milk and honey.”
– Nobody has said anything about a “Land of Milk and Honey” — We’re asking to make our own trade deal; nobody is claiming that the UK won’t have to work to be a success; but we know we can do better unshackled from the over-regulation of the EUSSR
“We all need to step back and consider carefully what is best for He Britain [means the UK], what is best for our future.”
– Those of us campaigning for Brexit are doing exactly that!
“Whatever the British people decide, I will make work to the best of my abilities.”
– Not a great confidence booster that “…to the best of my abilities” bit, Dave
“But let me tell you what I believe: I do not love Brussels; I love Britain [He means the UK].”
– I know saying “UK” reminds you of UKIP, Dave, but get our country’s name right!
“And my job, the job of the British prime minister, is doing all in my power to protect Britain’s [He means the UK’s] interests.”
– Our interests are best served, if the Government we elect makes our laws, and our Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
“So when it comes to Europe, [He means the EU] mine is a hard-headed assessment of what is in Britain’s [He means the UK’s] interest.”
– No, Dave, it isn’t. Your assessment is that this is enough for you to con the British into voting to remain in the EUSSR, because you are afraid of the responsibility of actually governing an Independent Sovereign Nation, without recourse to the unelected Big Brother in Brussels, telling you how to do it.
At the press conference, Dave went on to say; “I’m not claiming I’ve solved all of Europe’s [He means the EU’s] problems. I’m not claiming I’ve solved all of Britain’s [He means the UK’s] problems with Europe [He means the EU].”
– That’s a lot like; “I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.” Which is what Harold Wilson said on 11th March 1975, in Dublin, after the EEC leaders agreed to a deal with the UK, following his renegotiations, prior to his promised referendum.
“We have permanently carved Britain [He means the UK] out of Ever-Closer Union.”
– No, Dave, you been given an assurance that somehow, the UK is going to be exempt from the Leit Motif of the EUSSR; its Be-all-and-end-all, “Ever-Closer Union.” Have they really persuaded you that though the entire rotten organisation is designed by Treaty to reduce all sovereign member states to provinces of a United States of Europe; the UK will remain a member, yet will be exempt from that? They may have conned you, Dave, but you won’t con us!
“Britain will never be part of a European super state,”
– No, it won’t, because we’re leaving
Angela Merkel said: “We believe we have given David Cameron a package that will elicit support in the UK for the country to remain in the EU.”
– Poor lass, English isn’t her first tongue; what she meant was, “We believe we have given David Cameron just enough to con the UK into voting to remain in the EU.”
“The fact that we wanted Britain [She means the UK] to remain in the EU justified compromises we made,”
– Here she means, “The fact that we need the UK to remain in the EU justified the lies we’ve told.”
“We wanted to achieve this agreement so that those who want to achieve an Ever-Closer Union can do what they want to do,”
– Here her English hasn’t let her down at all. She means exactly that; “…those who want to achieve an Ever-Closer Union can do what they want to do,”
European Council President Donald Tusk said Dave’s Deal “strengthens Britain’s [He means the UK’s] special status” in the EU, addressed the UK’s concerns and preserves EU values.”
– By “Special Status” he means an electorate of awkward, stubborn Brits led by a weak Europhile, wannabee Commissioner. “Addressing concerns” means nodding & ignoring. And as for “EU values”, they’re encapsulated in an unelected Politburo bullying Nation States into Ever-Closer Union.
In a reference to Mr Cameron’s comments that he loved Britain [He means the UK] but not Brussels, Mr Tusk said: “I love Britain [He means the UK] and I love Brussels”.
– Super!
………………………………………………………………………………
“Dave’s Dodgy Deal” is a long way short of the “Wide-ranging, Far-reaching, Fundamental Reform” he had promised.
Now Downing Street has admitted that after the referendum has been held these paltry concessions could be rewritten by the European parliament.
Mr Cameron’s attempts to fool us into believing that he is fighting to secure a good deal for Britain are pathetic.
These so-called all-night arguments are orchestrated, choreographed & stage-managed
Shamelessly telling us about what a wonderful job he is doing is an act and insults the intelligence of the British public.
When he first promised an “In-Out Referendum on a “Reformed EU”, we all knew that the only bit that mattered to us was “In-Out Referendum”;
And the only bit that mattered to him was the con of a “Reformed EU”
Before they even started, we all knew that Cameron’s “Hard-fought” negotiations for “Wide-ranging, Fundamental, Far-reaching Reform” of the EUSSR were a fraudulent charade.
Meanwhile other members of the fanatically pro-EU Westminster establishment line up to make all manner of outlandish claims about the future of an independent Britain.
Most of these declarations are self-evidently ridiculous.
Some Remainians, exercising their “Project Fear,” say that Brexit would mean the EUSSR imposing heavy trade tariffs on the UK; making-out the organisation they support to be a protection racket, relying on the threat of a trade policy beating to keep people in line; characterising the EUSSR as some kind of malicious ogre which is going to club us over the head and gnaw on our bones if we try to leave its cave.
Does anyone think Britain would be stronger in that Europe?
The Remainians are convinced that these scare tactics will help them win.
But for many Britons being treated in this patronising and disdainful manner will only encourage them to defy the wishes of the political elite.
With the referendum widely expected to be held on June 23 we can expect the scaremongering to get even more extreme.
But whatever other claims are made remember this;
The only way to guarantee a change in our relationship with Brussels is Brexit.
………………………………………………………………………………
“Dave’s Dodgy Deal” falls well short of what he asked for, which in turn fell well short of the aims in his Bloomberg speech, which themselves came nowhere near what we actually need.
Today he is in Brussels meeting EUSSR leaders to try to persuade them to agree to his trivial demands. He is likely to emerge in the small hours of tomorrow morning claiming a hard-fought victory, probably with a ‘new’ surprise concession, and announce that the Government will campaign for the UK to stay in the EUSSR
His orchestrated and choreographed “rows,” over ineffective trivia, far from persuading us of how hard he is “fighting” just show how resistant the EUSSR is to the slightest change; even under pressure of a referendum our so-called partners won’t offer us anything constructive.
David Cameron has dropped nine out of ten things he wanted to change in our relationship with the EU. “Dave’s Dodgy Deal” will not deliver the “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reform” he used to talk about, and will do nothing to take back control of our borders, our economy and our democracy.
The European Court of Justice will be in charge of exactly the same things at the end of this negotiation as it is now, and the ECJ can and probably will throw out all the so-called ‘concessions’ like the ‘emergency brake’ as soon as we’ve voted.
………………………………………………………………………………
80 community and business leaders from Commonwealth backgrounds have written an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the UK to take back control of its migration and trade policy.
Signatories range from councillors and teachers to businessmen and financiers.
They argue that the UK should take its place on the world stage, strike a free trade deal with the EUSSR and create a more humane migration policy.
EUSSR trade policy protects just its own interests.
The UK has to apply the EUSSR’s tariffs to exports from non-EUSSR countries; hurting consumers here as well as producers there.
Our membership of the EUSSR also prevents us from signing free trade agreements on our own terms.
Commonwealth economies are growing rapidly in comparison to stagnating EUSSR countries.
After Brexit, the UK will be free to engage in more trade with these fast growing markets.
The pressure on our public services due to the freedom of movement within the EUSSR has forced our Government to take on a punitive immigration policy which discriminates against those outside the EUSSR.
The UK has a rich history of working with countries from across the globe, yet our current policy means we are turning away skilled people who want to contribute to our economy, purely because they come from outside the EUSSR.
The descendants of the men who volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars must stand aside in favour of people with no connection to the United Kingdom.’
………………………………………………………………………………
After Brexit, we will take back control of our borders so we can have a fairer immigration system where we will give priority to the brightest, the best and the most in need from across the world.
“Dave’s Dodgy Deal” will have the same weight as an unsigned contract.
Without Treaty change, there is no guarantee that his reforms will be enforced.
The President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, agrees, stating that the PM’s deal cannot be made legally binding before the referendum.
“No government can go to a parliament and ask for a guarantee about the result.”
David Cameron is asking the British public to vote on a set of reforms which could, and probably will be completely ignored by EU judges and politicians.
He promised that his renegotiation will be “legally binding and irreversible,” but clearly neither will be true.
It’s as good as promising that the cheque is in the post.
The only way to get fundamental change in our relationship with the EUSSR is to leave.
………………………………………………………………………………
The idea of an EU-wide army was suggested by Jean-Claude Juncker in March 2015
In May, Herr Juncker claimed that joint armed forces, “…would help us to build a common foreign and security policy, as well as jointly assume the responsibilities of Europe in the world.”
He told a German newspaper at the time: “You would not create a European army to use it immediately. But a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”
But the British Government quickly dismissed the idea, saying defence was a “National, not an EU, responsibility and there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.” Sadly “No prospect of,” is diplomat-speak for “let’s wait & see”.”
And the EUSSR’s military ambitions suffered a knock on 17th February, after a Lords’ Committee report said the 28-member bloc should not act as the world’s policeman.
The 86-page report, by the House of Lords’ EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, on the EUSSR’s Foreign Policy Strategy said, “The EU has global interests …and must therefore have a global vision, and policy to support that vision.” But, in an apparent put-down of the plans of the Politburo President, added that the EUSSR is “not a global security provider”.
The report went on to call for a new EUSSR strategy to recognise the limits of Brussels’ power in policing the European continent and conflicts on its doorstep.
Still some European leaders want a new shared army to tackle emerging threats from Daesh and increasing Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Baltic
It is suggested that it could also be deployed to help manage the escalating migrant crisis affecting vast swathes of the continent.
Germany has led the way in spelling out the supposed need for an EUSSR army.
Mr Juncker insisting that any Euro army would not be in competition with NATO.
He said: “Rather, a European army would bring an intensive co-operation in the development and the purchase of military equipment and bring substantial savings.”
But many of the European members of NATO do not appear able to afford to pay for their obligated contribution to that organisation, as it is
Of course, if the EUSSR decides it needs its own Army, it will have one
We would not be able to stop them; even if we remained a member…
How would the EUSSR afford to do so?
Oh, yes, by raising our budget contributions…
………………………………………………………………………………
Sometime in June 2016, the British people are likely to be asked to take the most important political decision of their lifetimes.
And, as per usual Lord Nigel Lawson has written brilliantly about it.
Take it from me, Nigella’s dad knows what he’s talking about.
Just in case you missed it, most of it is here and its chock-full of “gems.”
He explains that the once-in-a-lifetime decision is not about Europe as such; but;
“It is about whether we should remain within a deeply misguided and troubled institution known as the European Union. No one could have been clearer about the problem than David Cameron, in his Bloomberg speech three years ago, when he committed himself to securing “fundamental, far-reaching reform” of the EU.”
“He has conspicuously failed to do so.”
“He committed himself to ending the notorious ratchet, [of power away from member states] and ensuring that “power would flow back to the member states, not just away from them”. He has conspicuously failed on this front, too: not a single power is to be returned to the United Kingdom; and the doctrine of the so-called acquis communautaire, which holds that powers once transferred to the European Union cannot be taken away, remains firmly in place.”
“He also promised that whatever he did achieve in his negotiations would involve “proper, full-on, Treaty change”, without which they could not be legally binding.”
“No Treaty change has been secured.”
Nigel exonerates David Cameron of blame for the, “…abject failure to achieve his objectives.”
He leaves us in no doubt as to where the blame for that lies, “The European Union is adamant against any change other than further integration.”
As we all know the EUSSR is utterly unreformable; by treaty, it is designed that way.
But Dave doesn’t get off scot-free; Lord Lawson goes on, “What is unacceptable is presenting the so-called concessions he does appear to have secured, which range from the wholly inadequate to the completely meaningless, as constituting success.”
“Let us have a look at them.”
“He claims that he has secured a “red card” system to prevent new EU legislation that is damaging to the UK. Some red card!”
“The draft agreement states that this will only come into play if and when more than 55 per cent of the EU wants it to.”
We also all know how highly unlikely that state of affairs is; William Hague is famous for pointing out that the member states would be incapable of reaching a majority consensus even if the European Commission proposed, “a slaughter of the first born.”
Nigel Lawson then points out that if that majority consensus is managed, “…all that follows is that the presidency will put it on the agenda for “a comprehensive discussion”.”
He then continues, saying that Dave, “…claims to have addressed the serious problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable levels of immigration by securing what he likes to call “an emergency brake”. Some brake!”
“All that is provisionally agreed is an offer by the EU to allow us to bring in a temporary reduction in the level of some benefits (which no one who has studied immigration into the UK believes would make any significant difference, anyway). This is an offer which the EU would be free to withdraw at any future date;”
“Such as after a vote by the UK to remain within the EU”
Then the former Chancellor moves on briefly to what might be described as his “home-turf;”
“And as for the City of London, and our ability to flourish outside the dysfunctional eurozone, we are sternly told that we must “refrain from measures which [in their opinion] could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the economic and monetary union” and that “the existing powers of the Union institutions to take action that [in their opinion] is necessary to respond to threats of financial stability” remains untrammelled. We have been warned.”
Lord Lawson leaves us in no doubt about his conclusion, thus far;
“So what was presented as a drive for fundamental reform has turned into an exercise in damage limitation: how to limit the damage that EU membership inflicts on us.”
“And even that has scarcely been achieved.”
“The only way to end the damage is to leave.”
“As Chancellor, I became increasingly aware that, in economic terms, membership of the EU did us more harm than good.”
“And that was before the arrival of European monetary union …which has had such a disastrous economic effect on the EU.”
“But it is unsurprising that it brings no economic benefit, for the European Union has never been an economic project.”
“It is has always been a political project, with a political objective which we in the UK do not share.”
“That is the fundamental reason, above all others, why we must vote to leave.”
“That objective is the creation of a full-blooded political union, a United States of Europe.”
“That is what “ever closer union” is all about.”
“As the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union makes explicit, this is not simply a union of the peoples of Europe but a full-blooded political union of the member states.”
“That is what monetary union is all about.”
“The father of European monetary union was Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission.”
“I knew him very well, since before he became President of the Commission he was France’s finance minister and my opposite number. He fully understood that you cannot have a workable monetary union without a fiscal union, and you cannot have a fiscal union without a political union. That was the object of the whole exercise.”
“Hence the proposal, in the European Commission’s so-called “Five Presidents’ Report” of June last year, for a single eurozone Finance Ministry and a single eurozone Finance Minister by 2025.”
“This is clearly not right for us, and we must leave.”
“Otherwise, although we have a notional “opt-out” from the political union, we will still be obliged to accept EU laws framed with this object in mind.”
Lord Lawson has often been asked, “What, then, is your alternative to being in the European Union?”
His brusque response is, “A more foolish question is hard to imagine.”
“The alternative to being in the European Union is not being in the European Union.”
“Most of the world is not in the European Union, and most of the world is doing better than the European Union.”
And if you’re wondering about executing Brexit and after, Nigel covers that too;
“We would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which establishes the primacy of EU law over our own UK law.”
“The morass of EU regulation, much of which is costly, unnecessary and undesirable, would become UK regulation;”
“Which we would then be free to accept, repeal or amend as our national interest requires.”
“And we would continue to trade with the EU, as the rest of the world does today;”
“Almost certainly assisted by a bilateral free trade agreement, which they need far more than we do”
“Above all, we would become once again a self-governing democracy, with a genuinely global rather than a little European perspective.”
“We would prosper, we would be free, and we would stand tall.”
“That is what this referendum is all about.”
………………………………………………………………………………
Speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Imam Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, recently gave a speech in which he asserted that Muslims should use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens; he stated that European countries were not rolling out the red carpet for migrants because they were compassionate, but because Europe was in dire need of a new source of labour.
“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement….they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees. Soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing.”
“Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst.”
“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”
Ayed correctly outlines the fact that Europe is facing demographic disaster because its citizens have stopped having children.
Italy’s current birth rate of 8.4 per 1,000 people is the lowest since 1861 and the picture is much the same across the rest of Europe, where population is only increasing as a result of mass immigration.
Birth rates in the west are far lower than those in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which is where most of the migrants are coming from.
The notion of using mass migration as a form of stealth jihad is outlined in the Koran, which states, “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance.”
“To emigrate in the cause of Allah — that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,”
………………………………………………………………………………
The Remainians want the UK to stay a member of a “Reformed” EUSSR
Without ever actually saying what that means…
Just to be clear; I voted “No” to the EEC in 1975; no amount of “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reform” will ever convince me that we belong in, or benefit from being in the EUSSR; it is a rotten, corrupt clone of the Soviet Union, and getting worse, Regulation by Regulation; Directive by Directive; Treaty by Treaty.
However, there are less rabid Eurosceptics than I, who waver toward the idea of, “a “Reformed” EUSSR”
So, what reforms would they think might make EUSSR membership a “good thing”?
Over recent years David Cameron & the Conservative party have announced “Aims,” “Promises” and “pledges” about reforms they would “demand.” (Nowhere near enough for me, but then you know that!)
In his 10th October 2005, “Policy Programme,” Cameron stated that, “…our aim should be to take back control of employment and social regulation.”
The Conservative European Parliamentary Manifesto of 2009 said; “The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels.”
Also in 2009, on the BBC News of 4th November, Cameron promised to, “…limit …the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon Treaty level.”
On the BBC News of 28th November 2014, Cameron said, “…we want EU jobseekers to have a job offer before they come here.” Going on to promise that, “…if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave.”
On 4th January 2015, in the Guardian, Cameron said that his plans, “do involve …proper, full-on treaty change.”
The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 stated that, “We will push for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy”
The Conservative Party Manifesto of 2015 also pledged, “…further reform of …Structural Funds.”
Even if Cameron had achieved all those; impossible I know, but if he had, would that have been enough to persuade you to vote “Remain-In”?
75% of our laws would still originate in the unelected Politburo they call the European Commission
EUSSR Law would still trump all UK Law
EUSSR Regulations & Directives would still control our lives…
As it happened, when Dave set out on his begging tour of Europe, even those trivial reforms had been reduced to four pathetic requests;
1. That the EUSSR allow a four-year ban on EUSSR migrants claiming in-work and other benefits;
2. That the EUSSR give greater protection for non-Eurozone countries to ensure they cannot be outvoted by Eurozone countries;
3. That the EUSSR give Britain an opt-out from the EUSSR’s commitment to “Ever-Closer Union”;
4. That the EUSSR give parliaments more powers to club together to block EUSSR legislation;
And, just wait and see; he’s not going to get those…
So how is that “Reformed EUSSR” looking now?
Following Euro-rat editing, the proposals are:
1. The “four-year ban on EUSSR migrants claiming in-work and other benefits” is now a watered-down emergency brake which will supposedly limit migrants’ access to benefits for four years immediately after the referendum. Rather than a total ban, access to in-work benefits will be “graduated from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing” Migrants will still be able to send benefits to their children abroad, just in lower amounts than they currently do.
2. “Greater protection for non-Eurozone countries to ensure they cannot be outvoted by Eurozone countries” is fudged with the vague suggestion that “any issues which affect all member states must be discussed by all member states; not just countries in the Eurozone;” but the voting will still be by majority; and the Eurozone has a majority
3. The proposed “opt-out” from the EUSSR’s commitment to “Ever-Closer Union” becomes a letter which recognises that the UK “…is not committed to further political integration into the European Union” A bloody letter! A letter that says we are just “not committed”; that’ll be Cameron’s Chamberlain-esque “Bit of paper”
4. Giving “Parliaments more powers to club together to block EUSSR legislation” is supposedly covered by a “Red Card” system which will allow the House of Commons to band together with like-minded majority of EUSSR parliaments and block unwanted Brussels legislation. As William Hague once pointed out, it would be impossible to get a majority of parliaments to agree, even if the Politburo proposed slaughtering all first born children!
There are some extras;
Apparently Mr Cameron will be given new powers to stop suspected terrorists and criminals coming to the UK, not only if a threat is “imminent”; well that’s big of them! But there are no details about what these new powers will be.
New rules will stop people coming to the UK via “sham marriages.” They will prevent non-EU citizens marrying an EU citizen to then live and work in Britain; I’m pretty sure that our law already precludes sham marriages
The deal protects the pound by recognising in law, for the first time, that the EU has more than one currency. And that protects the pound, how, exactly?
British taxpayers’ money can never be liable to support the eurozone; except under certain emergency circumstances; when it can and will be
The EU will increase efforts to cut bureaucracy, especially on small and medium enterprises, which the Government has said damages UK businesses. That EUSSR bureaucracy damages UK businesses is a major argument of the Brexit campaign; I’m pleased to see the Government acknowledge this.
Well, Dave would have us believe that currently he is involved in Titanic, even Herculean, Hard-Fought Negotiations about such utter trivia…
We were expecting “Hero” Dave to be fighting a well-publicised battle on our behalf;
And he’ll return in triumph… with next-to-nothing
Perhaps waving that letter…
And proceed to try and sell it as “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reform”
And as pathetic as it is, it’s as much as the EUSSR will ever reform…
You see, we’ve tried reform from the inside, as a member already, haven’t we?
For decades we have tried to stop the rot:
Stop the drift to further federalism,
Stop the endemic corruption,
Stop the move to Ever Closer Union,
Stop the encroachment on our ability to govern ourselves.
And much good it’s done.
The best reform package we can get is the Prime Minister’s pathetic excuse for a renegotiation deal.
And the real truth is that this deal is not worth the paper it’s written on.
It will be subject to European Parliamentary approval and ultimately to judgements of the European Court of Justice.
And that’s what they offer us when they are worried we might leave and are actually trying to persuade us to stay!
If that’s how they treat us when they’re trying to keep us in,
Imagine how we will be treated if we stay,
Our negotiating stock as a member state will have been shot to pieces.
When they resume the push to an Ever Closer Union, the spiritual leit motif of the EUSSR, they will all know they have us over a barrel.
………………………………………………………………………………
Philip Hammond is Average-politician, personified;
Greyer than the “Grey Man” John Major;
A man who leaves no discernible tracks in snow and who never ever says anything remotely memorable
But, as the Foreign Secretary, he is at the heart of Dave’s so-called EUSSR renegotiation.
On Sunday, 14th February, he gave an interview to Andrew Marr; an interview that was supposed to drum up support for David Cameron in his determination to remain in the EUSSR.
And he was, to put it mildly, interesting… and memorable;
Generally, all the Remainian arguments revolve around “Project Fear”; the futile campaign that is intended to cause voters to fear what might happen if we leave.
But this time, Phil came up with something a tad different; an argument that was so unexpected that in delivering it, he gave the impression that he wasn’t sure what he was actually saying…
Remember, for many years he was recognised as a died-in-the-wool Eurosceptic; only recently “swayed” by high office.
Perhaps his Id [subconscious self] temporarily ousted his Ego [conscious self], and spoke…
And he, or his Id, suggested that a key reason for the UK to stay in the EUSSR is that if we leave, the EUSSR would probably self-destruct.
Really;
He told us that the persuasive argument for us to vote to stay in the EUSSR, is that if we leave, others countries might too.
As he, or his Id, put it: the “contagion” of our quitting the EUSSR would soon spread to other member states.
We would have to watch from the sidelines as the EUSSR, “…lurches in very much the wrong direction.”
That is actually the point, isn’t it
That’s not an argument to stay.
That’s an excellent reason for the UK to leave.
Since when did we have a duty to help the EUSSR survive, if other countries’ voters’ want to leave as well?
One of the reasons most of us want to leave is because the EUSSR is already going in the wrong direction; not “lurching” like Igor, but inexorably; it has been for years; directly and irreversibly towards disaster.
Watching from the sidelines, as Phil put it, is exactly where the UK needs to be; rather than on board the EUSSR Titanic as it succumbs to the flooding sea.
Poor old Phil; as the Marr interview went on, his Id’s argument became even more surreal.
“If we leave,” he said, “The leaders of countries remaining in the EU will be looking over their shoulder at their own people saying, ‘Well, if the Brits can do it, why can’t they?’”
Just think about that for a moment.
He’s saying that the only thing holding the EUSSR together is the UK’s membership.
And the people of the UK look like they want to leave.
And if we vote to leave, other voters in other countries will also want to leave.
So, in his opinion, we should stay.
To stop them voting to leave; if they want to;
That’s an almost perfect illustration of the contempt for democracy and for ordinary voters that lies at the heart of the whole rotten EUSSR project.
If we leave, people in other countries might realise they can too.
And even though they may want to, they shouldn’t be allowed to.
So we must make sure they don’t, by voting to stay in EUSSR shackles ourselves.
We must apparently foreswear our democracy, our independence, our national sovereignty, control of our borders, the supremacy of our own parliament and the independence of our courts;
Just so the people of some other countries don’t get tempted to vote for their democracy, their independence, their national sovereignty, control of their borders, the supremacy of their parliament and the independence of their courts
That is the real mindset of the Remainians; those who insist we have to stay.
………………………………………………………………………………
Nigel Farage writes that he was surprised that David Cameron had accepted an invitation from European President and Boss Euro-rat Martin Schulz to attend a “Conference of Presidents” meeting.
This is a meeting of the leaders of the eight official groups in the European Parliament.
So, yes, Nigel is one of those Leaders.
Why would Dave agree to such a meeting?
I reckon that he thought the “Conference of Presidents” was a meeting of Presidents of EUSSR Institutions, that is Juncker, Schulz, Rusk et al…
But, he has advisers, so why would he think that?
I think he had one mischievous Eurosceptic adviser;
I say “had” because he’s probably looking for a new job now
Another adviser who should also be back in the Job Market is the one who advised Prince William to make that speech
Or even wrote it for him
Though he didn’t mention the word “Europe”
The speech itself, or at least the sound-bites we’ve heard, are so obviously ambiguous, that they have already been seized as evidence of the Prince supporting the Remainians…
………………………………………………………………………………
Angela Merkel visited Ankara again on 8th February to discuss her growing refugee problem.
Last month alone 70,000 refugees arrived in Greece from Turkey.
Merkel, who is in trouble at home, following the disastrous success of her open invitation to the refugee swarm.
Now she’s desperate to reduce the number of migrants; hence the talks with Erdogan and Ahmet Davutoglu.
Her visit to Turkey, the second since October last year, took place shortly after the EUSSR approved the €3bn blackmail payment; [sorry; funding to “help Ankara cope with the refugees.”]
Ankara is now caught between the EUSSR and the US, with Brussels urging Turkey to keep accepting the refugees, while Washington wants Ankara to seal off its borders to prevent the free movement of Daesh militants.
The US understand that once Daesh gets inside Turkey; the whole of Europe is their oyster
Backed by Russian airstrikes, the Bashar al-Assad regime’s forces have made gains over the past weeks against the Syrian rebels around Aleppo, triggering a new wave of chiefly Sunni refugees.
Turkey says it should not be expected to shoulder the whole refugee burden alone, though it was the prime mover behind the original Syrian uprising.
Since the war in Syria began five years ago, Turkey has kept its doors open for people fleeing from it.
Turkey and the EU are well aware there is no swift solution to the refugee crisis until the war in Syria ends or at least de-escalates, but the chances of peace look very slim. UN-sponsored peace talks have been suspended because of the Syrian government forces’ assault on Aleppo, and the refusal of some parties to allow Assad regime attendance.
Turkey, which has, from the beginning, actively supported the Syrian opposition groups, sees Assad regime, together with the Russian military campaign, as the root cause of all the troubles. They are also concerned about the growing influence of the Kurdish opposition forces there, which has led to speculation that Ankara is considering sending troops to northern Syria.
Last week Ankara and Moscow exchanged accusations, with Russia claiming that Turkey is preparing a military incursion into northern Syria, while Turkey accused Russia of invading Syria.
This is to ignore the fact that, unlike Western forces, Russian & Iranian forces are in Syria at the Syrian government’s invitation.
Ankara is also unhappy about the increased cooperation between Washington and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria.
The PYD’s military unit, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), has been Washington’s most effective ally against Daesh. But, Ankara considers the PYD as a terrorist organisation because of its close ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
The government in Ankara fears that Syrian Kurds’ territorial gains in northern Syria could increase separatist sentiments among its own Kurdish minority.
But would the government in Ankara go as far as sending troops to Northern Syria to undermine and isolate the Syrian Kurds?
Experts think that a Turkish incursion unlikely, but it is possible.
Turkey will watch closely the developments in Aleppo and the territorial progress of PYD forces; but won’t invade without the approval of the US.
The US won’t let Turkey take such a unilateral action on the ground.
Any such intervention by Turkey wouldn’t stop the flow of refugees but would put Ankara at odds with NATO and risk a further confrontation with Russia.
Meantime, the EUSSR doesn’t care about Turkey’s Kurdish problems; it just wants to find more effective ways to stop refugees arriving.
On 6th February, Federica Mogherini, EUSSR High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said, “Turkey has a moral if not a legal duty to provide protection to those fleeing persecution, The support that the EU is providing to Turkey, [for “support” read: “Blackmail payment”] is aimed exactly at guaranteeing that Ankara can protect and host people that are seeking asylum.” [for “protect and host” read “keep”]
In December, responding to Turkish threats, Brussels pledged to revitalise Turkey’s long-stalled membership talks, liberalise the visa regime and give €3bn in financial aid.
In return, Ankara vowed to take the necessary measures to limit the flow of migrants to Europe.
Ankara has promised to improve the living conditions of the refugees, granted them work permits to “encourage” them to stay in Turkey.
Another top Euro-rat, the EUSSR’s Enlargement Commissioner, Johannes Hahn, asked Turkey to do more to cut the number of migrants reaching Greece.
“Turkey must show results by the time EU leaders meet for a summit on 18th February,” said Hahn. “The action plan was agreed more than two months ago and we are still not seeing a significant decline in the number of migrants.”
Merkel’s short visit to Turkey on 8th February was designed to exert more pressure on Ankara, but there appears to have been little real progress.
Merkel refrained from presenting a clear timeframe for delivery of the EUSSR funds. “We need to work on this. We need to make sure there are not too many bureaucratic hurdles”, she said.
For his part, Davutoglu said that no one should expect Turkey to take on the burden of the refugees issue on its own.
“This is a last-ditch effort by the chancellor to push Turkey to get serious about the plan,” a senior, but anonymous Euro-rat told the Financial Times. “They have taken some positive steps but the numbers are still high.”
The migration crisis is in fact becoming a test to see if Turkey is a reliable partner.
Back in November, when Turkey and the EUSSR were negotiating a deal on the migrant crisis, a Greek website reported that Erdogan had threatened to flood Europe with refugees.
The minutes of a tense meeting on 16th November clearly showed mutual distrust between Erdogan and top EUSSR officials, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Donald Tusk.
Erdogan asked whether the EUSSR would provide €3billion or €6billion, over two years.
When Junker confirmed the amount would be €3billion in total, Erdogan said that Turkey did not need the EU’s money anyway. “We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime and we can put the refugees on buses. If you say €3bn for two years, no need to discuss further.” the Turkish president threatened.
Juncker reminded Erdogan that the EUSSR had postponed the progress report on Turkey until after the November Turkish election at his request, and had been criticised for the delay.
Erdogan claimed that the delay hadn’t helped him win the elections, adding, “Anyway, the report was an insult.”
In the delayed report, published on 10th November, Brussels emphasised the “…negative trend in respect of fundamental rights;” saying that after some years of progress, there had recently been serious backsliding.
At the meeting, Erdogan also complained about the slow progress in accession talks, saying, “Most Turks do not want to become members of the EU because of reports like this.”
He insisted the EUSSR has done nothing for Turkey, whining, “We have waited for 53 years, and you have been mocking us”.
At one point Juncker stressed the urgency of striking a deal within two weeks, saying that “…we are working hard and we have treated you like a prince in Brussels.”
Erdogan’s response, “Like a prince? Of course, I am not representing a third world country.”
………………………………………………………………………………………
16th February
So, HSBC has announced it will continue to be based in Britain following a lengthy review.
HSBC bosses had previously warned they could consider moving elsewhere over “…concerns about stricter regulations.”
HSBC Group chairman Douglas Flint had also cited “economic uncertainty” over the UK’s EUSSR referendum as a reason for looking at other locations to base Britain’s biggest bank.
The bank has now decided to keep its headquarters in London, as Mr Flint claimed keeping HSBC in the capital “…offered the best outcome for our customers and shareholders.”
Every morning, after letting the horses out, we clear-up what they’ve deposited amongst the straw; so I know that stuff.
In the next field there’s a magnificent bull, called Featherstone, I recognise his deposits too.
I recognise Mr Flint’s comments for what they are; all I’m uncertain about is whether they are of the bovine or equine variety…
HSBC is hedging its bets; it’s a bank; that’s what banks do
Brexit campaigners may have “…welcomed the news,” saying it further undermines claims that the UK exiting the EUSSR could, “…trigger an exodus of major firms.”
However, all it means is that HSBC has realised that Cameron won’t get the one “reform” they are interested in, and that is his attempt to stop the EUSSR regulating the City.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign, said that this showed that scaremongering by pro-Europeans was falling apart with even those who had taken part in ‘Project Fear’ were now beginning to back away from their claims.
On the contrary, Matthew, Mr Flint still warned that HSBC could shift employees and much of its work to France in the case of Britain exiting the EUSSR,
That so unlikely, it is pure scaremongering.
And he still called for voters to keep the country’s ties with Brussels, saying, “…. our strong economic view is that Britain is better within a reformed Europe.”
What he means by that is, “HSBC is better off in the EUSSR.”
He doesn’t care one jot about how “reformed” the EUSSR is; or how much better the UK will be, in or out of the worthless United States of Europe.
He cares only about profits and his shareholders;
HSBC is a bank; that’s what banks do
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Labour MP Kate Hoey, writing on the Sun on Sunday of 14th February says, “The PM simply doesn’t get it. Neither, I’m sorry to say, does Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn.”
Actually, Kate, that’s a tad naive; Cameron, junior Benn et al do get it; they just hope we don’t.
But, as you say; “Luckily they don’t matter.”
It’s the voters that matter.
It’s voters that will decide that the safest way to protect family and country is to get out of the collapsing failure that is the EUSSR.
It won’t be a leap into the dark.
We will be free; no longer paying £50million a day into the unaccountable black hole that is the EUSSR budget.
Kate says, “In my 28 years as a Labour MP I have never seen anything as dangerous and cynical as the arguments that the “Remainians” are making.”
I like her neologism “Remainians”; much better than Remainers; I shall steal it.
Under the Five Presidents’ Plan for “more Europe” the Eurozone will become the United States of Europe.
That Treaty is on its way.
Kate goes on, “The UK will be powerless in the outer circle where they can force us to pay for more bailouts, just as happened to Cameron and Osborne over Greece.”
“And if we are conned into voting “remain”, just as Harold Wilson’s government conned us into remaining in 1975,” we can be certain Euro-rats will “…never listen to a word we say ever again.”
“The PM’s renegotiation is simply embarrassing.”
Few of the “Remainians,” really understand three basic facts about the EU.
Though the same cannot be said of Cameron, junior Benn, Kinnock and all the Remainian politicians, especially those who’ve experienced the delights of sticking their snouts in the EUSSR trough;
They are perfectly well aware
First, the EUSSR is an irreversible and unreformable “project” of Ever Closer Union; it was designed that way.
It’s what its treaties say.
Second, the EUSSR is chronically, no, mortally sick; it’s dying.
Its economy is failing
And its single currency, the euro, is a disaster; bouncing from crisis to crisis
Third, the EUSSR is arrogant. Kate says, “As a socialist it makes my heart bleed to see the way the proud people of Greece were sacrificed last July to keep the Euro from blowing up as it surely will.”
You don’t have to be a socialist to feel that way, Kate, what surprised me was that the Greeks seem to have swallowed being sacrificed
Kate finishes up, “So let’s unite in our battle for our country. After “Brexit” we will be safer, richer and happier. You know the EU is alien to what makes us proud to be British. This is your chance to say “no thanks”. We want our country free and independent. We can only get that by voting to leave.”
……………………………………………………………………………………….
We have a “Special Relationship” with the United States; based on a shared language, heredity and a common belief in Democracy & Freedom.
But that “Special Relationship” does not give politicians or government of either country, the right or leave to advise or try to persuade the other regarding their internal politics; even when, as now, we can see a real danger of the US electing as President, either a mad multi-millionaire or scheming she-devil with just a nodding acquaintance with truth.
The press & media can and will; we have a free press.
The people can and will; we have freedom of speech.
But our politicians, especially those in government, are usually wise enough not to; that’s not in their remit.
But now we’re told that the U.S. President, having already “reaffirmed continued US support for a strong United Kingdom in a strong European Union,” on 2nd February, is now planning what he calls a “big, public reach-out” to stop Brexit.
And John Kerry has stuck his oar in; the US Secretary of State parroted that America had a “profound interest” in a “strong UK staying inside a strong European Union.”
The reaction has been predictable; Jack Montgomery of the campaign group “Leave.EU” saying:
“It might be convenient for John Kerry, who has repeatedly declined to support the UK in the Falklands, for us to be in the EU, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for us. Imagine if Kerry proposed a pan-American union in which an unelected commission would control United States immigration policy, trade policy and regulations, among a host of other important matters. He would be run out of Washington DC on a rail.”
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said:
“The intervention of patronising foreign potentates such as Kerry… can only help the Leave campaign. They speak to their national interest not ours so will antagonise the freedom loving British voter.”
John Redwood added:
“Most British people will feel this is a debate for us and it’s unusual for a foreign country to wish to intervene… I don’t know what he means by it. I don’t suppose he’s thought it through at all. If the United States was about to enter a union with Mexico, Cuba and Canada on a similar basis to the European Union then maybe they would have some moral authority to tell us to do the same with Eastern Europe and Italy.”
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The Sunday Mirror of 14th February warns us that former Labour leader Neil Kinnock is backing David Cameron’s new EU deal; wow!
He’s joined by four of Labour’s so-called “heavy hitters”; Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett, Jack Straw and Hilary Benn in an open letter.
With such “heavy hitters” the ball won’t go far…
Lord Kinnock led Labour to general election defeats against Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
The other four all held top Cabinet posts in the last Labour governments; where they oversaw & ushered in the financial chaos under Blair & Brown.
All five claim to have campaigned for Britain to LEAVE Europe during the last referendum in 1975.
But now they say: “It’s clear Britain is stronger, safer and better off than we would or could be if pulled out of the EU.
“The conclusion of the current renegotiation will hopefully strengthen this relationship as we make the progressive case for Britain in Europe.”
The Mirror claims; “The support of such senior Labour figures will be a huge boost for the PM as he attempts negotiates the fine detail of the deal in Brussels.” Somehow I don’t think so; I bet Dave is livid. Kinnock having scoffed millions of pounds from the Politburo trough in Brussels, with four labour sidekicks; all of whom were heavily involved in previous failed Labour Governments; he’ll just love that…
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Cameron’s pathetic renegotiation is almost entirely cosmetic.
He has fallen well short of the “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reform” he promised.
Our politicians will still be accountable to EUSSR judges.
The EUSSR will continue to have control over our borders, economy and democracy.
Asking the EUSSR to confirm that the status quo continues, like that the pound is the UK’s currency, is not going to persuade anyone that he has negotiated hard for Britain.
Many of the changes he is asking for require treaty change;
Which, though it may be promised; won’t happen before the referendum, if at all
That’s just saying “The cheque is in the post.”
He is effectively asking the British people to vote for something that has no more value than an unsigned contract.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
This week, David Cameron goes to Brussels to beg EUSSR leaders to agree to his so-called “renegotiation.”
He will come back claiming a great victory, but the British public will know that his deal will do nothing to address the problems they see in the EUSSR.
In fact, 19 out of the 22 substantive points in the Government’s EUSSR deal either simply re-state the status quo or will not be delivered at all.
Seven of the points are merely “demands” for the status quo to be kept.
A further ten require Treaty change to be implemented in full.
The Government has admitted that Treaty change will not occur before the referendum, contrary to previous promises that it would.
Even then, most of these changes, such as removing the phrase “Ever Closer Union,” will make very little difference to the UK’s relationship with the EUSSR.
A further two promises for the EUSSR to sign new trade deals and to determine the terms of future accessions to the EUSSR, cannot be delivered as part of the renegotiation.
The remaining three promises; to implement commitments to subsidiarity, boost competitiveness and introduce a target to cut regulation, are going to make no difference as Euro-rats have made and broken these promises before.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
A central argument of the pro-EUSSR BSE [Britain Stronger in Europe] campaign is the stupid idea that jobs are at risk if we leave the EUSSR as Europe will stop trading with us.
However, former Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, has said that he did not find this to be a ‘convincing argument’. He said that it is in the interest of the EUSSR to have free trade with the UK as “the European economy needs the UK market, close cooperation and trade.”
After we leave we will quickly strike a free trade agreement with the EUSSR.
We will then be able to negotiate trade deals with some of the world’s fastest growing economies such as India and China, something which the EUSSR has failed to do.
About two-thirds of businesses think Britain should take back the power to make our own trade agreements
Leading companies such as Vauxhall, Bentley, General Motors and JCB have said that their investment will not be damaged if we leave
Most British businesses are negative about the UK’s membership of the EUSSR.
The overwhelming majority of British businesses reject the premise of the Single Market and have done so for over a decade.
ICM polling in April 2004 found that 73% of British businesses thought that Britain would be more prosperous and secure if it took powers back from the EUSSR, including the power to make our own trade agreements.
Polling by Perspective Research Services in August 2015 found that, by 2:1, SMEs think the EU is a hindrance rather than a help.
More than 70% of SMEs want the British Government rather than the EUSSR in charge of employment law, health and safety, and trade negotiations.
69% of SMEs agree that the UK can trade and cooperate with Europe without giving away permanent control to the EUSSR.
Just 25% believe single EUSSR rules make trade easier and that the Single Market is good for jobs and living standards.
Nonetheless, the EUSSR-funded CBI still claims that British business wants the UK to remain in the EUSSR, continuing to rely on flawed surveys.
In October 2015, for example, the CBI issued a document claiming that ‘the majority of firms believe that the “pros” of EUSSR membership outweigh the “cons”’ on the basis of a survey of just 29 companies.
The CBI refuses to disclose how many members it has.
When it was forced to disclose this number in 1999 during the controversy over their dodgy polls on the euro, it was only 2,037.
In 2013 the CBI used a YouGov poll to claim that 8 out of 10 British firms are in favour of EUSSR membership however YouGov has since confirmed that the CBI did not supply them with adequate data. Subsequently the British Polling Council Management Committee commented that the survey was “pretty dodgy.”
The CBI supports EUSSR membership regardless of the terms.
Publicly it claimed that it only supported membership of a “reformed” EUSSR; yet leaked minutes of the CBI’s President’s Committee of 6th July 2015 have revealed that the CBI lacks “clear criteria for judging reforms,” which would enable members “to judge whether a deal is sufficient and supportable.”
In other words; the CBI supports membership of a “reformed” EUSSR, but admits it won’t know it if it sees it!
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Boris Johnson has been flashing his ankles like a flamenco dancer to both sides of the referendum debate.
Most seem to think that he will eventually toe-the-Party-line, but…
He is ambitious and may realise that there distinct advantages to Boris himself, if he leads the Leave campaign for Brexit.
It may well be the best way for him to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister.
And Boris clearly would like to lead the Conservative Party.
Without doubt, a Conservative Party leadership contest will pretty sharply follow a successful Brexit vote in the referendum
Even if the Remainers win, there will be one when Cameron stands down, in 2020
Though the Tory leadership is decided by a vote by party members; there are only ever two names on the ballot paper.
The first round of the selection process is a vote among Tory MPs, which decides who those two will be…
One will be George Osbourne;
If he wants to be the Conservative Party Leader; Boris needs his name to be the other…
Leading the Leave campaign to a successful vote for Brexit could ensure Boris’ name is on the ballot paper
Boris has long flirted with Euroscepticism; however, so far he has parked himself firmly on the fence, balancing; unwilling to fully commit to either side.
We have already seen Philip Hammond betray his long-held Eurosceptic beliefs in return for the Foreign Office, and William Hague renounce his past Euroscepticism in order to rally round Cameron.
But Boris should take note now: neither of these men would be a credible replacement for Cameron in 2020; and have nothing to gain from backing the Leave campaign.
Boris could, by lowering his not inconsiderable bulk gently down on the ‘Leave’ side of his fence, secure the support of the Eurosceptic wing of the Party, whatever the referendum result; win or lose.
Without them, Boris will never be able to make it onto the ballot to face Osborne.
The Eurosceptics would rally round one of their own who would go on to contest the leadership with the Chancellor.
Meanwhile, Marina Wheeler QC; (AKA Mrs Boris Johnson,) has panned the Prime Minister’s ridiculous ‘red card’ proposal; saying that “it ducks the issue,” of returning sovereignty to the UK; and suggesting that the lack of any real reform, “Leaves the ‘way clear for a whole new generation of EU rights to bed down.”
She also questioned why Dave isn’t seeking a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which he had previously promised to do.
Maybe she needs to do a little “Pillow persuasion”…
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Monday morning and back again on the Thursday afternoon. Their papers are transported in a convoy of eight trucks.
In addition, the European Parliament charters an aircraft each Wednesday afternoon for around 100 members of staff who may wish to return to Brussels early.
Jean-Claude Juncker and his top officials fly by private jet the 220 miles between Brussels and Strasbourg.
The EUSSR Politburo (Commission), which paid €12.6 m for the air deal four years ago, has access to a fleet of six jets, which it dubs “air taxis”, to ferry Mr Juncker and other high-ranking Euro-rats.
It includes a £4.3 million, seven-passenger Cessna Citation to make the journey to Strasbourg for the parliaments’ monthly four-day sittings, despite the fact that daily commercial flights operate between the two cities.
The fleet of planes is also available to Mr Tusk, the President of the European Council of Ministers and Federica Mogherini, the EUSSR High Representative who acts as its Foreign Minister.
A contract for six planes was awarded in 2012 to a Belgian aircraft company, at a cost of €12.6 million.
A renewal tender was recently advertised, to provide 870 hours’ flying time over five years to destinations that also include Hanoi, Cape Town, New York and Tel Aviv.
Bidders must provide a fleet comprising a nine-passenger mid-size jet capable of a round trip from Brussels to Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi; and a super midsize jet, such as a Gulfstream G550, capable of taking 13 people to Tokyo and back via Strasbourg.
The Politburo also wants occasional use of a large jet, such as a Boeing 737, to take around 100 people to destinations such as Antalya on the Turkish coast.
It shows how, since the Lisbon treaty, the EUSSR has evolved from a regional trading bloc to a wannabe global power with its own foreign policy.
The Tories campaigned to end the Brussels-Strasbourg “Twin-seat” situation in the 2014 European elections, and in his 2013 Bloomberg speech, unveiling his reform agenda, the Prime Minister insisted the EU must cut back on spending and reduce the “huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions”.
Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP, has said it was “most unfortunate” that the Prime Minister’s renegotiation contained no initiatives to cut the price of membership.
“The heads of the various EU institutions have become lofty potentates with all the trappings of power and wealth leached from our nations,” he said. “So why should we be surprised at their fancy travel arrangements?”
……………………………………………………………………….
8th February
The EUSSR is manifestly undemocratic and getting worse. It is wasteful, expensive and corrupt.
The Common Agricultural Policy is iniquitous towards developing countries; has caused increased prices at our checkouts and in constituting less than 2% of EUSSR output whilst consuming 40% of the budget, manifestly inefficient.
The Common Fisheries Policy has all-but destroyed the UK fishing industry and is consistently ruining fish stocks in the North Sea.
EUSSR Water Directives, by discouraging dredging, are largely responsible for the ever-worsening flooding of UK rivers.
The chaotic EUSSR Refugee/Asylum Policy, exacerbated by Angular Merkel’s “Come straight to Germany” invitation, has got the continent suffering refugee mayhem.
The EUSSR is legislating over an ever wider range of policy areas, now including human rights, and with the UK ever more frequently outvoted.
There is currently no effective means of checking this one-way ratchet of growth-strangling regulation, and to make matters worse the EUSSR is now devoting most of its intellectual energy to trying to save the Euro, a flawed project from which we are thankfully exempt.
The EUSSR’s share of global trade is diminishing, and the people who prophesy doom as a result of Brexit are the same people who said we should join the Euro.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
The media is making a lot about the “Out” campaign not having a “Big-Name” Leader
If we actually need one, and I’m not absolutely sure we do, after all, as I’ve said before this isn’t a General Election; this is a one-message campaign — Brexit.
But, if we need a “Big-Name” Leader, there are several contenders;
Liam Fox, the well respected former Defense Minister seems to be doing a fair job right now…
No one doubts that Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith are politicians of principle; but, as has been pointed out, “…they can hardly be described as crowd-pulling orators.”
There is the magnificent Lord Lawson; but he’s 83. Not that that seems to be holding him back!
There is also the other great “Eurosceptic Nigel,” of whom it has been said, “Mr Farage is a charismatic tub-thumper, who deserves credit for the fact that we’re having a referendum at all. But he is also divisive, and is seen by many as a clown.”
But many, over 4 million voters at the last election, do not see him as such; and remember the “Clown” soubriquet was bestowed by those who currently are telling us how great the EUSSR is; what a fabulous future we’ll have without being a self-governing, Sovereign nation; unable in this age of mass migration to control our borders; incapable of making trade agreements with whomever we choose and denied the ability to dismiss our leaders and lawmakers if they’re crap.
There is one more possibility; Boris Johnson;
Most seem to think that he will eventually toe-the-Party-line, but…
He is ambitious and may realise that there distinct advantages to Boris himself, if he leads the Leave campaign for Brexit.
It may well be the best way for him to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister.
And Boris clearly would like to lead the Conservative Party.
Without doubt, a Conservative Party leadership contest will pretty sharply follow a successful Brexit vote in the referendum
Even if the Remainers win, there will be one when Cameron stands down, in 2020
Though the Tory leadership is decided by a vote by party members; there are only ever two names on the ballot paper.
The first round of the selection process is a vote among Tory MPs, which decides what those two names will be…
One will be George Osbourne;
If he wants to be the Conservative Party; Boris needs his name to be the other…
Leading the Leave campaign to a successful vote for Brexit could ensure Boris’ name is on the ballot paper
Boris has long flirted with Euroscepticism; however, so far he has parked himself firmly on the fence, balancing; unwilling to fully commit to either side.
We have already seen Philip Hammond betray his long-held Eurosceptic beliefs in return for the Foreign Office, and William Hague renounce his past Euroscepticism in order to rally round Cameron.
But Boris should take note now: neither of these men would be a credible replacement for Cameron in 2020; and have nothing to gain from backing the Leave campaign.
Boris could, by lowering his not inconsiderable bulk gently down on the ‘Leave’ side of his fence, secure the support of the Eurosceptic wing of the Party, whatever the referendum result; win or lose.
Without them, Boris will never be able to make it onto the ballot to face Osborne. The Eurosceptics would rally round one of their own who would go on to contest the leadership with the Chancellor.
In the meantime, with or without a “Big-Name” Leader, we have a referendum to win
With the crap deal Cameron’s “Hard-fought negotiations” has left on the table, the job should surely have got easier.
We need to take back control of our laws, control of our borders and be able to spend our money on our priorities.
…………………………………………………………………………………
There is a lot in the press & media generally about divisions within the “Out” campaign;
We have “Leave.EU”, “Vote Leave”, “Labour Leave” and “GO”; probably a few more…
What the Daily Mail recently described as; “…the dismal ragbag of policy-wonks, cranks and nonentities (almost all male) in the feuding factions of the ‘out’ camp.”
This is going a bit far; Aaron Banks is neither crank nor nonentity and the excellent Caroline Drewett ain’t male; but if, in its harshness this description “bangs heads together,” it’ll do us all a favour.
But, does that matter?
Due to our rather antiquated electoral rules, only one group will get the government funding
And only one group will get the guaranteed TV airtime; though the TV companies could change that if it suited them
For those two reasons, the various groups need to get their acts together…
But the media also picks up on differences in the “Message”;
What will happen after Brexit?
Will we be like Norway, or not?
Will we stay in the Single Market, or not?
These differences are utterly irrelevant.
What we want is Brexit; the United Kingdom OUT of the EUSSR
Brexit
This is a Referendum; not a General Election.
The Brexit campaign is NOT seeking to get rid of, or form a Government.
The Brexit campaign is just that; a campaign for Brexit!
We are campaigning to get the UK out of the EUSSR; to regain Democracy; to regain our National Political Sovereignty.
That would mean that for the first time in 44 years, our elected Government would be able, without interference from an unelected Euro-rats & their politburo, to make those decisions for us.
If Brexit is successful, it will be up to the UK Government, of whatever colour, to answer those, and many other questions
Woe betide them, at the next General Election, if they get it wrong
That is why it is so stupid and irresponsible of the present Government not to have contingency plans in place, just in case.
…………………………………………………………………………..
On our joining the EEC, Tony 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 “No” 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.”
In a speech in Birmingham on 23rd February, 1974, during the General Election campaign, Powell claimed the main issue in the campaign was whether Britain was to;
“Remain a democratic nation… …or whether it will become one province in a new Europe super-state;”
He said it was people’s “national duty” to oppose those who had deprived Parliament of,
“…its sole right to make the laws and impose the taxes of the country.”
In his final speech to parliament back in 2001, after 50 years as an MP, Tony Benn listed the five questions he believed a Democratic government should ask itself:
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?”
He added: “If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”
…………………………………………………………………………
7th February
Last Monday was confirmation for anyone who might have deluded themselves otherwise; David Cameron and the Conservative leadership are intent on remaining inside the EUSSR no matter what.
The Prime Minister has raised his standard as the leader of the Remain campaign and can now campaign with all his heart and soul to keep the UK in EUSSR chains.
I’m not certain, but some say that it is imperative that a suitable opponent steps up to lead Leave side. Many Cabinet ministers, along with leaders of other political parties, have been proposed.
There is a belief around about that there the one figure whose public persona would make him the ideal gladiatorial combatant against the PM is Boris Johnson.
Much has been made of the attempts of both sides to woo Boris to support their respective causes; both the ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ recognise that his presence would be a huge boon for the Leave campaign.
Several of the papers are reporting how Boris is now set to back the PM’s EUSSR deal.
Boris recently called for the UK to be handed powers to veto EUSSR laws on its own; without having to rely on support from other Member States.
This was in significant contrast to Cameron’s ‘con’ renegotiation deal which European Council President Donald Tusk announced this week.
There are now rumours that ministers may introduce new legislation asserting the authority of Westminster over Brussels ‘within weeks’. If he believes that this could work it might swing his allegiance to Cameron.
However, not enough attention has been given to the advantages to Boris himself, of him leading the Leave campaign for Brexit.
It might be the best way for him to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister.
And Boris clearly would like to lead the Conservative Party.
Cameron’s rather foolish promise not to fight another general election has ensured this Parliament will be dominated by the manoeuvres of his wannabe successors.
In due course, much attention will be paid to the mechanism of the Conservative leadership elections, which narrows the field to two choices on the ballot paper before a postal ballot of the wider party membership is conducted.
As such it’s vital for any leadership candidate to be backed by a significant section of the parliamentary party, so popularity with Conservative members and supporters is of no consequence if they are unable to make it onto the two-person ballot.
This raises problems for Boris.
While he is popular among Tory members, he lacks significant support within Parliament.
This is understandable, considering as Mayor of London he has been based in City Hall for much of the last decade.
However, this puts him in stark contrast to the presumed favourite to succeed Cameron, George Osborne.
We have already seen the Chancellor’s numerous attempts to claim the centre ground of British politics as his own.
Both Boris and Osborne sit on the centre-left of the Party ensuring they will have to directly compete for like-minded MPs.
In this contest Osborne already has the upper hand, and his large network of patronage will ensure his name will feature on the leadership ballot paper.
Boris will therefore have to secure greater support from a different wing of the parliamentary party, yet this is easier said than done. There are a large number of other potential candidates, many of whom have long-standing links to the right and Eurosceptic wings of the party.
Leading the Leave campaign to a successful vote for Brexit in the referendum could secure Boris’ path to the leadership.
Cameron’s assurances he will stay on in the event of us voting to leave the EUSSR are pure fantasy.
Having nailed his colours to the EUSSR’s mast, Cameron would never be trusted by Conservative backbenchers to negotiate the UK’s withdrawal.
He will no doubt follow the example of his recent predecessors and jump before he is pushed.
Osborne, having supported EUSSR membership even more than Cameron has, would also find his leadership plans in tatters. Osborne’s current support amongst MPs is based on his influence alongside the perceived inevitability of his accession, rather than due to any genuine fondness or preference for the Chancellor to succeed Cameron.
Boris has long flirted with Euroscepticism in his weekly Daily Telegraph column.
However, he has so far parked himself firmly on the fence, balancing; unwilling to fully commit to either side.
We have already seen Philip Hammond betray his long-held Eurosceptic beliefs in return for the Foreign Office, and William Hague renounce his past Euroscepticism in order to rally round Cameron.
But Boris should take note now: neither of these men would be a credible replacement for Cameron in 2020; and have nothing to gain from backing the Leave campaign.
Boris could, by lowering his not inconsiderable bulk gently down on the ‘Leave’ side of his fence, secure the support of the Eurosceptic wing of the Party.
He could safely rely on the 70 or so Tory MPs likely to come out for Brexit, recognising the fact Boris committed to the Eurosceptic cause when it mattered most. Added to this, there are a significant number of Tory MPs whose Euroscepticism would re-emerge once the threat of Cameron’s displeasure is removed.
There would also be a not insignificant number of MPs who would rebel against Osborne as a candidate, and Boris could be sure of making the ballot.
With the more difficult task complete, Boris would simply need to portray himself as the charismatic and charming alternative to the stiff and calculating Osborne.
In the popularity contest between these two, there would be only one winner.
Even if Britain votes to remain in the EUSSR, Boris would at least secure support for himself.
If he falls back into line with Cameron now, it will fatally damage his reputation with Eurosceptics, who will believe he has abandoned them for a Cabinet post.
Without them, Boris will never be able to make it onto the ballot to face Osborne. The Eurosceptics would rally round one of their own who would go on to contest the leadership with the Chancellor.
At the moment Boris may be wary of getting caught up in the current infighting amongst the Leave campaigns, but once official designation has been given to one of the Leave campaigns, this will cease. They will start working together to ensure that we Get Britain Out of the EUSSR; with or without Boris!
As a classicist Boris Johnson knows the Ancient Greeks enjoyed nothing more than fighting each other.
However, when faced with the loss of their freedom and their laws to foreign despotism in the guise of the Persian king, they came together. Against all odds they won a victory which is still celebrated to this day.
It should be both an honour and a pleasure for Boris to carry on this fight to secure democracy and freedom for the people of the United Kingdom.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Many empires have come & gone in Europe; all trying, and ultimately failing to control the continent.
From the Romans, through the Holy Roman and Napoleonic to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century; most used border zones on the edges of their empires to protect their Imperial heartlands.
The EUSSR thinks itself different from these past Empires; clinging to its boasted greater goals of European peace and solidarity: “Pax Europa;” if you like.
But the Schengen plan and EUSSR’s current treatment of Greece shows this is a complete sham.
The EUSSR is determined to make sure the Schengen zone stays intact, whatever the cost to the weakest & poorest member state.
Such a step reveals this ‘European Project’ to be a disaster and no better than its predecessors.
The Euro-rats in Brussels have finally come up with a plan to deal with the migrant crisis, and this plan means Greece will be sacrificed.
Following warnings that unless the Greek government makes significant improvements in its efforts to control its borders, it would be kicked out of the Schengen zone, this appears to be happening.
There is no official process for removing a nation from the Schengen zone, but the plan, supported by the President of the Politburo, Jean-Claude Juncker, is simply to shift the borders of the Schengen zone; to exclude Greece.
By changing the boundaries of Schengen, the EUSSR will clearly be restricting the rights of ordinary Greeks to travel throughout the EUSSR. Not content with this, the Politburo also wants Greece to establish vast holding camps for the hundreds of thousands of ‘refugees’ who arrive there.
The Greek government is, understandably, majorly pissed-off at this suggestion.
Quite how the EUSSR thinks Greece can afford to increase its border force to control 8,498 miles of coastline; or to pay for the construction & maintenance of these refugee camps, is beyond understanding.
Greece is currently in dire financial straits, and tourism, its main source of income, has already been wrecked by the refugee crisis.
Even Germany, the EUSSR’s richest member, has struggled to manage the migrant crisis Merkel invited.
How Greece, already under EUSSR enforced severe austerity measures, can support the 850,000 migrants already in country, plus those who will flood in this year, clearly doesn’t bother Brussels.
The Greek government has already surrendered fiscal control to its German creditors, who have ‘lifted’ £35.4 billion of Greek assets. It is a blatant injustice that they should pay the price for the chaos caused by Angular and the EUSSR.
The Greeks, quite rightly, are also pissed-off that they are being blamed for the crisis within Schengen zone.
After all, it was Angular Merkel who suspended the Dublin Accord, with her invitation to the Syrian refugees to travel directly to Germany and apply for asylum there.
Greece was perfectly entitled to wave through asylum seekers on their way to the German ‘Promised Land’.
Now Angular, having basked in the praise of do-gooders all around the world, is beginning to realise the stupidity of her open invite. Though she loudly encouraged the refugee tsunami, the Greeks are to be made the sacrificial lambs, because they were unable to halt that flow.
Greeks are also obviously very concerned for the safety and rights of Greek women as well as tourists, with the prospect of vast refugee camps set up across their country and islands.
Following the disgusting spectacles on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe, their fears are quite understandable.
Many Greeks don’t see why their country should become Europe’s ‘holding pen’ for the large numbers of mostly male ’asylum seekers’. To them it is obvious that the EUSSR Politburo thinking is simply ‘Out of sight out of mind’
The Politburo, like all bullies, knows it is easiest to hit the weakest.
If there is one country to share with Merkel, the blame for the flood of migrants into Europe, it’s Turkey.
Not helping the Greek, fully justified, sense of injustice; the Turks have, as expected, delivered another blackmail demand to the EUSSR, just months after their original €3 billion (£2.3 billion) “migration deal” with Angular.
So far, the EUSSR has seen little return on that original blackmail payment, intended to reduce that flood.
And yet Turkey is still in the running for fast-tracked EUSSR membership…
We must get the UK out of the EUSSR as soon as possible; restore our national sovereignty and independence; and avoid the imperial ambitions of Juncker’s Junta.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The forthcoming referendum is the most important vote we will ever have.
It will decide what sort of country we leave for our children and grand-children
Quite simply it is a choice between the United Kingdom being a mere province of the EUSSR; doing what the EUSSR orders; living under their undemocratic decree
Or the UK becoming an Independent, Sovereign Nation once more; free to stand on its own feet; control its own destiny; just as a Sovereign Nation should.
A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for the continued supremacy of EUSSR law over British law.
75% of our laws originate in the unelected EUSSR Politburo; and are Rubber-Stamped by the toothless Parliaments in Brussels/Strasbourg and Westminster.
A vote to ‘remain’ in the EUSSR is a vote for continued EUSSR control (or perhaps EUSSR utter lack of control) of our borders and over migration policy. 1.5 million refugees/migrants arrived in Europe from North Africa and the Middle East during 2015; when those migrants get EUSSR passports, they will be free to come to the UK.
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. Small & Medium Enterprises suffer from over-regulation within the EUSSR. Major conglomerates can afford Compliance Departments; small businesses can’t.
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. As an Independent Sovereign Nation we could negotiate Trade Deals with any nation in the world, including those held fast in the EUSSR.
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.
“If you cannot be rid of those who make your laws; you do not live in a Democracy”
……………………………………………………………………………….
During last year’s election, most Conservative MPs will have told their constituents and Associations that without substantial reform they would choose to leave the EUSSR rather than remain.
That is exactly the position that Michael Gove and Philip Hammond claimed before the last election, prior to “turning their coats.”
Those other supposed “Eurosceptic” Tory MPs should remember this when they examine any renegotiation deal which David Cameron produces.
They should compare carefully what he has said he would ask for before with what he has asked for now.
Here are ten renegotiation aims which the Prime Minister has first claimed to hold; but has since dropped.
In 2007, he said that “it will be a top priority for the next Conservative Government to restore social and employment legislation to national control.” Last December, George Osborne confirmed to the Treasury Select Committee that this aim forms no part of the Government’s renegotiation. It would be nice if we were told at which point, and why it ceased to be a “Top priority.”
In 2009, he pledged to negotiate “A complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights”. But in November Philip Hammond said that “…we have no proposals in the package we have put forward that would disengage from that.” That is gobble-dee-gook, meaning, I think, “We’re not going to honour that pledge.”
Also in 2009, he promised to “limit…the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level”. Since then, the Government has opted back in to 35 justice and home affairs measures, including the European Arrest Warrant. No mention as to why this promise has not just been broken; but completely ignored.
In 2014, he wrote about “…treaty change that I’ll be putting in place before the referendum.” But last year, David Lidington, the Europe Minister, said that “…our timetable for a referendum by the end of 2017 means that you just cannot [have] treaty negotiation and 28 national ratifications within that timeframe.”
He said last year that “we want EU jobseekers to have a job before they come here”. This forms no part of the renegotiation.
Also last year, he promised that “…if any jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave.” This aim forms no part of the renegotiation, and would in any event require a change in EUSSR law.
He also said that the Government is “…committed to revising the [working time] directive at EU level to give the NHS the flexibility it needs to deliver the best and safest service to patients. We will work urgently to bring that about.” Last December, the Chancellor confirmed to the Treasury Select Committee that this forms no part of the negotiation.
The Conservative Manifesto for the 2009 elections said that “The European Parliament must end its absurdly wasteful practice of meeting in Strasbourg as well as Brussels.” Though this has been a bone-of-contention for nigh-on 40 years, Downing Street has confirmed that this forms no part of the renegotiation.
He promised in the Conservative Manifesto last May to “…push for further reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.” But, though also a long-standing bone-of-contention, Downing Street confirmed last November that “…we have never mentioned this in the context of the renegotiation.” One has to wonder in what context it was mentioned in the manifesto…
He also promised in that manifesto to “…seek further reform of…structural funds.” Downing Street also admitted in November that “we have never mentioned this in the context of the renegotiation.” Again, we are given no idea of the context in which it was mentioned in that manifesto.
His practice of pledge & promise, followed by retreat and abandonment has left Cameron with the following four pathetic demands
“I have set out the four areas where Britain is seeking significant and far-reaching reforms:”
On sovereignty and subsidiarity, where Britain must not be part of an “ever-closer union” and where we want a greater role for national Parliaments;
On competitiveness, where the EU must add to our competitiveness, rather than detract from it, by signing new trade deals, cutting regulation and completing the single market;
On fairness for countries inside and outside the Eurozone, where the EU must protect the integrity of the single market and ensure there is no disadvantage, discrimination or additional costs for a country like Britain, which is not in the Euro and which in my view is never going to join the Euro;
And on migration, where we need to tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and deliver changes that ensure that our welfare system is not an artificial draw for people to come to Britain.”
However, these aims require treaty change, and any promise of treaty change would be just that; a promise; not enforceable or reliable, because any EUSSR leaders who promise to deliver it may not be around when the time for delivery comes, or may later find reasons for evading their commitment.
Even were those leaders to stay around and stick to their commitment, treaty change is not even being discussed.
Eurosceptic Tory MPs have, on one hand, their stated view that the UK’s relationship with the EUSSR needs major change, and in the other, the simple fact that major change, bringing “Significant and Far-reaching Reforms” is not on the table.
We now have a brake that will apply immediately, which of course Number Ten is trumpeting as a major win, but which will remain in the hands of the EUSSR institutions. In the words of The Times, Cameron
“…will accept that other EU leaders and institutions retain control of the legal mechanism for implementing it.”
If they want, those Eurosceptic Conservatives can honestly tell their constituents and Associations that for the sake of Party unity they will support the Prime Minister.
They can argue that they do not want to open the door to any Labour recovery, or disrupt the programme of Conservative reform.
They can say that they’ve changed their minds about the EUSSR altogether.
What they cannot say truthfully is that Cameron is delivering the “Significant and Far-reaching Reforms,” which they themselves called-for last May.
Whoever they are; Cabinet Minister or backbencher;
If Cameron’s failure to ask for, let alone deliver “Significant and Far-reaching Reforms,” matters to them:
They have only one choice; back Brexit.
………………………………………………………………………………..
I got this email the other morning:
Dear Dixie,
I thought I would give you an update on the progress of our re-negotiation of Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The draft new deal for Britain in Europe published today delivers that substantial change. Of course, there is still more detail to be worked on, but we have made real progress.
I said we needed:
A ‘red card’ system for national parliaments to block unwanted EU laws
An end to something for nothing welfare for EU migrants;
No more British taxpayers’ money being used to bail out the Eurozone
An agreement that we will keep the Pound, never join the Euro and fair treatment for our currency in Europe;
Britain out of ‘ever closer union’ so we do not become part of a European Superstate;
Some said these changes would be impossible to achieve. But they are all in the document.
So there is more work to be done, more detail to be nailed down, but we are delivering.
Of course, as I have said before, if we do not secure the changes that Britain needs, then I rule nothing out.
Yours,
Yours,
David Cameron
So I replied:
Dear Dave,
Thanks for your email
You said: “I thought I would give you an update on the progress of our re-negotiation of Britain’s relationship with Europe.”
My comment: First; as you are well aware, the name of our country is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;” “The UK,” for short. “Britain” is England & Wales; just two of the constituent countries of The UK. “Great Britain” indicates the addition of Scotland; the “Great” meaning “large,” as opposed to “Super” or “Terrific.”
I understand that using “The UK” must irritate with its UKIP connotations, but you have to live with that.
Second; Europe? I thought this was all about the UK’s membership of the EUSSR; we can’t do anything about “Europe”; it’s there, 22 miles away.
You said: “The draft new deal for Britain in Europe published today delivers that substantial change.”
My comment: Um, no, it doesn’t
You said: “Of course, there is still more detail to be worked on, but we have made real progress.”
My comment: One baby step, perhaps, Dave, not really “real progress”; the draft decision states right at the beginning that it is ‘in conformity with the Treaties’. This just confirms that the supremacy of the EUSSR Treaties over UK law will remain.
You said: “I said we needed…”
My comment: Actually in the past, you’ve said “we needed” a lot of stuff, most of which you appear to have forgotten:
You said: “A ‘red card’ system for national parliaments to block unwanted EU laws”
My comment: The new ‘red card’ mechanism introduces a 55% threshold before a law can be blocked. This is much higher than the current, almost never achieved, threshold of a third of national parliaments and will make the device wholly impractical. As William Hague, once said : ‘even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first-born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of parliamentary votes’. What does “Red Card” mean anyway? Who will get sent off?
You said: “An end to something for nothing welfare for EU migrants;”
My comment: The ‘emergency brake’ on in-work benefits for EU migrants will be triggered by the EUSSR, when they think it’s needed; not by the UK. It is not a complete exclusion for four years as you said you would ‘insist on’ in the Conservative Manifesto, but a ‘graduated’ mechanism allowing EUSSR migrants greater access to benefits over time. Anyway, the brake won’t reduce the ‘pull factor’ to the UK, because the introduction of a ‘living wage’ of £9 by 2020 and changes in the personal tax allowance will increase the basic pay of low-paid workers sharply. For a migrant worker on the minimum wage with no dependants, the drop in wages if tax credits were stripped away would be less than £8 a week. Weekly take-home pay would continue to be 156% higher than in Poland and 353% higher than in Bulgaria.
You said: “No more British taxpayers’ money being used to bail out the Eurozone”
My comment: Just a political “promise,” Dave, and you know what they’re worth.
You said: “An agreement that we will keep the Pound, never join the Euro and fair treatment for our currency in Europe;”
My comment: Just a political “agreement,” Dave, and you know what they’re worth; about the same as a “promise”.
You said: “Britain out of ‘ever closer union’ so we do not become part of a European Superstate;”
My comment: You know, as well as anybody, that “Ever-Closer-Union” is the be-all-&-end-all of the EUSSR; its main aim since it was first initiated was a “United States of Europe.” That is NEVER going to go away. Any promise or agreement to the contrary is basically a lie.
You said: “Some said these changes would be impossible to achieve. But they are all in the document.”
My comment: “These changes” are so trivial that there weren’t many of us who thought they were “impossible to achieve;” but being “in the document,” doesn’t constitute agreement or achievement, yet.
You said: “So there is more work to be done, more detail to be nailed down, but we are delivering.”
My comment: No, Dave, there’s no “more work to be done,” and no “more detail to be nailed down.” All that will happen now is you’ll wait until the EUSSR summit is over; perhaps stage a couple more rows and then announce your “victory.”
You said: “Of course, as I have said before, if we do not secure the changes that Britain needs, then I rule nothing out.”
My comment: Well, Dave, none of what you’ve told me today really adds up to “Fundamental and Far-Reaching Reform” does it?
We’ll still be shovelling billions into the black-hole that is the unreconciled EUSSR Budget; the unelected EUSSR Politburo will continue to decree most of UK law; we will still not have full control of our borders and the Common Agriculture Policy & the Common Fisheries Policy will continue on their disastrous paths…
The changes that the UK needs, include dealing with all the above, so I look forward to seeing you taking part in the Brexit campaign.
I am 70 years of age; at every single election since I became eligible to vote, I have voted Conservative;
I sincerely doubt that I will again.
Dixie Hughes
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Dave & the Remainers would have us believe that Brexit will “…threaten our National Security.”
But it is being a member of the EUSSR that severely “Threatens the UK’s National Security” right now!
Daʿesh is currently taking advantage of the EUSSR’s well-known, wide-spread incompetence;
Exploiting the unprecedented migrant/refugee crisis to infiltrate European civilisation; bringing their own brand of Wahhabi-Salafist Sunni mayhem with them
The incredible incoherence and ineptitude of the EUSSR’s response to the crisis is proving to be a “Gift Horse” for them.
Or rather, a “Trojan Horse;” given the way Daʿesh is exploiting the catastrophic human tsunami
The result is that Daʿesh has been able to use the migrant routes to disperse who-knows-how-many fighters throughout Europe, with instructions, and sufficient training, to carry out attacks similar to those in Paris last year.
It cannot be known how many are in Europe already; the Paris attackers were proof that some are. Even if the figure is as little as .01% of that 1.5 million; that’s 150; it only took eight or so to bring mass murder to Paris…
Add to that the numbers of the, majority Sunni, refugees/migrants who variously sympathise with or actively support Daʿesh, and you have some idea of the nightmare scenario facing British intelligence officials, and other security organisations, trying to distinguish potential terrorists from genuine asylum seekers.
Factor into that the number of disaffected and/or radicalised Muslim youth; waiting at home for their lead, and you have an idea of the threat facing us, members of the EUSSR, right now…
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 those two cities, along with those “large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them,” 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”? “May have”? Highly likely, even certain; I’d have thought.
And not just “…individuals from Syria;” either; really from just about anywhere in North Africa and the Middle East
The ease with which Daʿesh is managing to infiltrate the migrant smuggling routes helps to explain this week’s alarming Europol report, which states that Daʿesh has already set up secret training camps across Europe to prepare terrorists to carry out “special forces-style” attacks against the UK and other EUSSR countries.
“There is every reason to expect that IS (Daʿesh) or other religiously inspired terrorist groups will undertake terrorist attacks somewhere in Europe again, intended to cause mass casualties among the civilian population.”
Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said;
“Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.”
Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.
On continental Europe, the Schengen Plan allows for the unchecked, unrecorded, passport-free movement of anyone, from Greece or Italy, to Sweden, France or Spain. Of course, that includes their luggage; and weapons; and explosives.
In the UK, as well as being outside the Schengen Zone, we have the small advantage over the rest of Europe; 22miles of water called the “English Channel”
But it’s only a small advantage; we also have a long and mainly insecure coastline…
Membership of the EUSSR is actually the greatest threat to our national security
……………………………………………………………………………….
I couldn’t actually believe my ears when I heard Cameron on the news on 2nd February.
He said that if we weren’t already a member of the EUSSR, (he didn’t call it that) he would, under the fabulous terms he’d negotiated, recommend that we joined!
Despite a DAILY membership fee of £55,000,000, he would want to join a USSR-clone organisation, which is ruled by the decrees of an unelected Politburo-clone they call the Commission. Not only are the Commissioners unelected, but it would appear that the prime qualification to become one is to have lost an election at home.
Cameron would hand over the British Parliament’s sovereignty and make us subject to EUSSR law that supersedes our own, even if it is against our national interest.
He would want to subjugate our own Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice.
He would handicap our country by allowing only foreign bureaucrats to negotiate trade deals on our behalf, rather than our own elected government.
That is the kind of vision that David Cameron has for Britain. It amounts to a complete and total surrender of this country as a self-governing nation.
Writing about David Cameron’s “Deal,” Nigel Farage says, “It is mere window-dressing from an establishment who just don’t think we have what it takes to run our own affairs. David Cameron and his friends in the establishment want to hoodwink the public into thinking that significant reform is possible inside the EU. It fundamentally is not possible; and it never will be. This deal proves it once again.”
Of course, Cameron’s vision is reality; we are already a member of that organisation; and he wants us to stay in it.
But we don’t have to be; can change that;
Come the referendum, we must vote to “Leave” for a real future for our country.
Vote to leave the EUSSR, to become a Sovereign Nation once more, a country where we make our own laws, negotiate our own global trade deals and control our own borders,
Become once more a United Kingdom where we can start putting our own national interest and the British people first.
David Cameron, by championing this pathetic deal, has shown that he just doesn’t believe we are good enough to stand on our own two feet and blaze our own trail in the world.
Those of us who believe in this country and what we can achieve must come together, reject this pathetic deal, WIN this referendum and get our country out of the EUSSR.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Martin Schulz, President of the Rubber-Stamping European Parliament, threw a spanner into the Renegotiation works when he said;
“Personally I am a strong supporter of the UK remaining in [the] EU… …despite the fact that the British often test our patience and good will with their continuous demands. ‘They are demanding. They push hard. They insist. They just don’t let go. Many of my colleagues say behind closed doors: ‘Don’t stop a rolling stone. If the Brits want to leave, let them leave’.”
When Sky News asked him whether MEPs could seek to amend Cameron’s reform package, he said, “Nothing in our lives is irreversible. Therefore legally binding decisions are also reversible; nothing is irreversible.”
This simply corrects Cameron’s false assertion that all the proposed changes will be “legally binding and irreversible” if this “New Deal” package is agreed at a European Council summit later this month.
But Cameron is sticking to his guns; saying there was “no way” the UK would ever agree to a reversal of the reforms and reiterated his claim that all changes will be “legally binding.”
At a press conference in Copenhagen, he said;
“If it is agreed, it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations. It would only be reversible if all 28 countries including Britain agreed to reverse it. Given that it’s the treaty that Britain wants, there is no way we are going to agree to reverse it. So while you can argue that it is technically reversible if we agree to reverse it, it is not in fact reversible.”
Given that Martin Schulz was talking about the European Parliament, in which the British are a minority voice; itself majority UKIP, I don’t think that whether, “…there was “no way” the UK would ever agree to a reversal…” matters a damn.
Anyway, I’d like to ask; “Treaty;” what “Treaty;” where did that come from?
There has been no previous mention of a “Treaty;” promises, understandings & agreements; yes, but not treaty.
And his description of, “…a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations;”
That’s just a venture into cloud-cuckoo-land.
If it is to be a fully signed up EUSSR Treaty, (which I doubt, as that would be the fastest such treaty ever; by any reckoning) there would be no need to bother the UN. It would be capable of standing alone.
If, as I suspect he is referring to some sort of promissory note, deposited with the UN; that would be quite worthless;
The European Court of Justice has long held that it is not bound by UN regulation.
As the President of the European Parliament made clear, Cameron’s renegotiation proposals ARE reversible.
They do NOT involve Treaty change.
Therefore they are as “legally-binding” as an unsigned contract.
…………………………………………………………………….
The very limited, even pathetically diluted demands from our Government have been watered down even further, in every area, by the EUSSR.
The British people want to take back control and end the supremacy of EU law over our economy, our borders and our Parliament.
None of these changes, in their original form, came even close to the fundamental changes previously promised to the public.
Now we are being asked to risk staying in the EU based on the back of a paltry pack of empty promises from the EU that are not backed up by Treaty.
Cameron’s already feeble “demands;” further weakened by Euro-rat Tusk, now mean;
We will remain subject to the supremacy of EUSSR law over all UK law.
Claims of a new ‘veto’ power for the British Parliament are false; the UK Parliament will not be able to block EU laws it disagrees with and EUSSR law remains supreme.
Even if all British MEPs vote against a new EUSSR law, it would still come into force unless politicians in over half of the other EUSSR countries agree; even then. “No Treaty change = no legal status.”
The loudly trumpeted “emergency brake” on welfare payments is a fraudulent scam.
Either welfare is a national government responsibility; in which case Cameron would not need EUSSR permission to regulate it.
Or it’s an EUSSR responsibility and any agreement needs Treaty Change.
In either event, The Prime Minister has admitted that it won’t cut migration to the promised “tens of thousands” of people each year.
It won’t reduce net inward migration at all, and “No Treaty change = no legal status”
The draft agreement reasserts the supremacy of the EU Treaties. As there is no new treaty, this means that no powers will be brought back. Registering this deal with the UN is just a gimmick since the European Court of Justice doesn’t see itself as bound by UN law; in other words; “No Treaty change = no legal status.”
Now we have a referendum to win
With a crap deal like this on the table, the job should surely have got easier.
We need to take back control of our laws, control of our borders and be able to spend our money on our priorities.
……………………………………………………………………………….
“Project Fear” in action:
“A Brexit would alarm foreign investors and dry up the inward capital flows,” the US investment bank, Goldman Sachs has warned.
Now remind me, what did they say about us staying out of the Euro?
Oh, yes, “An opt-out from the single currency will reduce the influence of Britain”
They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.
Goldman Sachs is a financial backer of the “Britain Stronger In Europe” campaign.
It’s Chairman, Peter Sutherland used to be a Member of the EUSSR Politburo…
On the other hand, Marvin Barth of Barclays, has said that if Britain voted for exit, “…the UK may be seen as a safe haven… …putting significant downward pressure on the Euro.”
Barclays’ analysis came after the chief economist of Deutsche Bank said Brexit would be “devastating” for the continent and consign Europe to a second rate world power.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
So, in what will be a blow to Theresa May at the Home Office, the European Court of Justice looks set to rule that foreign criminals cannot automatically be deported, because it would “…breach their children’s rights to live as EUSSR citizens.” This comes as the Home Secretary has been trying to deport a Moroccan woman convicted of ‘serious criminal offences’ who has a British-born son.
We were later told that the woman in question is the daughter-in-law of extremist cleric and convicted terrorist Abu Hamza.
The advocate general of the ECJt, Maciej Szpunar, has said that foreign offenders whose children have British nationality cannot be expelled “simply” because they have committed a crime.
In his legal advice which gives a strong guide as to the verdict, Szpunar declared the British blanket deportation rule is, “in principle” a violation of EUSSR laws if it would, “…deprive the child who is a citizen of the Union of genuine enjoyment of the substance of his or her rights.”
If the ECJ’s final ruling backs this opinion, it would overturn British laws that say the Home Secretary is obliged to automatically deport all non-EUSSR foreigners who are sentenced to more than one year in prison, regardless of their family circumstances.
It would open the door to potentially hundreds of low-level foreign criminals claiming the right to stay in Britain.
The Prime Minister has plans to bring forward a Bill of Rights. “Asserting the sovereignty of this House, that is something we did in 2011 through our European Union Act. It’s something I am keen to do even more of, to put beyond doubt that this House of Commons is sovereign and that is something we will look to do at the same time as concluding these negotiations.”
However, Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary has admitted that the forthcoming Bill of Rights will “still be subject to the primacy of European law”.
The fact is that the new law is only symbolic and will serve no real purpose, as defying ECJ rulings is ultimately incompatible with EUSSR membership.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Maciej Szpunar has also said that France had no right under EUSSR rules to detain an African woman who was caught at Calais attempting to enter the UK using someone else’s passport.
A Ghanaian woman was stopped by French police at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel while on a coach travelling from Belgium to London.
She was carrying a Belgian passport with the name and photograph of someone else, and had no other travel documents.
Szpunar pointed out that she was not stopped when attempting to illegally enter the Schengen zone, but while trying to leave it and travel to the UK.
As a result she fell under an EUSSR directive governing the imprisonment of illegal migrants, that allows detention only if
1. A person is subject to a deportation order and has refused to go, or
2. If they have already been deported, and have attempted to illegally re-enter the country.
So, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has decided that a third-country national can’t be detained for trying to enter the UK using someone else’s passport.
Well, that’s OK then…
……………………………………………………………………………………..
The emerging UK/EUSSR New Deal is being trumpeted as a major new relationship, when actually it’s a few pathetic scraps despoiling the bottom of Cameron’s begging bowl
The EUSSR is an intricate web of complicated and very difficult to negotiate treaties.
The Fundamental and Far-reaching reforms Cameron promised us are, and were always going to be, impossible without Treaty Change.
Even under the best of conditions it is impossible within the EUSSR to have a limited treaty renegotiation.
With two major crises, (Euro & Refugees) on their hands, the EUSSR is in no mood for any treaty renegotiation, especially not to help the awkward UK.
Having no chance of any genuine reform in the UK/EUSSR relationship, David Cameron is using a mix of commitments, declarations, understandings, ‘decisions’ and agreements that may sound good but are none of them legally binding at all.
So to the deal and its Key proposals;
The polite noises on increasing EUSSR competitiveness are utterly meaningless; should have been omitted and can safely be ignored.
The proposals on free movement of workers and possible welfare benefits are messy; and will be a nightmare to operate.
The restrictions on welfare involves a cumbersome but irrelevant new procedure, that might or might not lead to a European Council decision to ‘authorise’ a member state to bring in regulations, “that restrict access to in-work welfare benefits to the extent necessary,” but only if that state faces a surge of new workers from elsewhere in the EUSSR.
Plus, “Member States have the possibility of refusing to grant social benefits to persons who exercise their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain Member States’ social assistance.”
How does anyone prove that in any case in a way that does not immediately lead to a European Court of Justice appeal?
The passages on sovereignty include; “References to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EUSSR secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties.”
As with any part of this Deal; this is an understanding; an agreement, that is not legally binding; and anyway, will the ECJ agree?
Any decision by the European Court of Justice will bear in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘Ever-Closer Union’
A largely unworkable new mechanism is proposed to allow an as yet unspecified number of national parliaments to ask the European Council to back away from any decision that those Parliaments say impinges on ‘subsidiarity’ (ie the principle that where possible EUSSR decisions are taken ‘closer to the citizen’). The Council will then to try to meet those concerns.
It would have made more sense to have given a strong role to national parliaments when the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated. This is a distant second-best.
Finally, economic governance, the bit about us not having to foot the bill for the Euro disaster;
“Emergency and crisis measures addressed to safeguarding the financial stability of the Euro area will not entail budgetary responsibility for Member States whose currency is not the euro….”
So far so good; But then very importantly:
“This is without prejudice to Union mechanisms of macro-prudential oversight for the prevention and mitigation of systemic financial risks in the Union and to the existing powers of the Union institutions to take action that is necessary to respond to threats to financial stability of the Euro area.”
Basically that means the UK won’t have to pay for “…safeguarding the financial stability of the Euro area…” except when we have to pay for responding “…to threats to financial stability of the Euro area.”
Wow! I bet that took some negotiating!
The New Deal is still a paltry package that does NOT amount to a serious, radical and legally binding ‘New Settlement’ for the UK. That’s because without forcing treaty change the scope for agreeing anything meaningful really is reduced to zero.
Hence this footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much;
If Cameron launches a UK referendum arguing that this package meets key British concerns about the EUSSR, why should anyone believe him?
…………………………………………………………………………………
4th February
What a difference 40-odd years make; back in 1975, when we last had a referendum about our membership of the EUSSR (They called it the EEC, back then) every single national daily except one (The Morning Star) was in favour of the UK remaining a member.
Now the comments in the press about Cameron’s deal, tell a different story;
What the papers say:
The Daily Mail described the draft deal as “the great delusion”, which would cause “years of benefits chaos”. It said of Cameron, on the EU, “…his capacity for self-delusion is breathtaking.”
The Express called the deal “a joke”, that would allow Brussels to “carry on calling the shots;” the draft deal was “the surest demonstration yet that Brussels has no interest in listening to British concerns and no appetite to change its ways.”
The Sun called the draft deal “a stitch-up”, “a farce”, and “a steaming pile of manure;” adding, “Brussels, not for the first time, has treated us with contempt and given us the square root of diddly-squat.”
The Times was also disparaging, saying the deal offered “little of substance.” “This was supposed to be a radically reformed relationship with a more streamlined and accountable EU. It looks instead as if Mr Cameron has contented himself with whatever an unreformed union is willing to offer to Britain in the club,” said the Times’ leader.
And the Daily Mash said; “David Cameron has negotiated a deal allowing Britain to keep any leftover sandwiches from EU meetings, he has announced.”
“Ministers attending EU discussions will now be allowed to collect uneaten sandwiches, crisps and items of fruit and take them home in a carrier bag for the British public to enjoy.”
The Prime Minister said: “Our total lack of progress on benefits and sovereignty is more than compensated for by our resounding success with sandwiches.”
“Initially they were saying we could just have the tuna ones but I toughed it out and now we’ve got all the remaining flavours including prawns, which are the most expensive.”
“I’ve vowed to keep fighting Britain’s corner in Brussels. Next time I’m going to demand we get a guaranteed share of mini satay chicken skewers, because those always get eaten first.”
“Have a cheese and ham one before the pickle makes the bread go soggy.”
……………………………………………………………………………..
The emerging UK/EUSSR New Deal is being trumpeted as a major new relationship, when actually it’s a few pathetic scraps despoiling the bottom of Cameron’s begging bowl
The EUSSR is an intricate web of complicated and very difficult to negotiate treaties.
The Fundamental and Far-reaching reforms Cameron promised us are, and were always going to be, impossible without Treaty Change.
Even under the best of conditions it is impossible within the EUSSR to have a limited treaty renegotiation.
With two major crises, (Euro & Refugees) on their hands, the EUSSR is in no mood for any treaty renegotiation, especially not to help the awkward UK.
Having no chance of any genuine reform in the UK/EUSSR relationship, David Cameron is using a mix of commitments, declarations, understandings, ‘decisions’ and agreements that may sound good but are none of them legally binding at all.
So to the deal and its Key proposals;
The polite noises on increasing EUSSR competitiveness are utterly meaningless; should have been omitted and can safely be ignored.
The proposals on free movement of workers and possible welfare benefits are messy; and will be a nightmare to operate.
The restrictions on welfare involves a cumbersome but irrelevant new procedure, that might or might not lead to a European Council decision to ‘authorise’ a member state to bring in regulations, “that restrict access to in-work welfare benefits to the extent necessary,” but only if that state faces a surge of new workers from elsewhere in the EUSSR.
Plus, “Member States have the possibility of refusing to grant social benefits to persons who exercise their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain Member States’ social assistance.”
How does anyone prove that in any case in a way that does not immediately lead to a European Court of Justice appeal?
The passages on sovereignty include; “References to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EUSSR secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties.”
As with any part of this Deal; this is an understanding; an agreement, that is not legally binding; and anyway, will the ECJ agree?
Any decision by the European Court of Justice will bear in mind the treaty-enshrined principle of ‘Ever-Closer Union’
A largely unworkable new mechanism is proposed to allow an as yet unspecified number of national parliaments to ask the European Council to back away from any decision that those Parliaments say impinges on ‘subsidiarity’ (ie the principle that where possible EUSSR decisions are taken ‘closer to the citizen’). The Council will then to try to meet those concerns.
It would have made more sense to have given a strong role to national parliaments when the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated. This is a distant second-best.
Finally, economic governance, the bit about us not having to foot the bill for the Euro disaster;
“Emergency and crisis measures addressed to safeguarding the financial stability of the Euro area will not entail budgetary responsibility for Member States whose currency is not the euro….”
So far so good; But then very importantly:
“This is without prejudice to Union mechanisms of macro-prudential oversight for the prevention and mitigation of systemic financial risks in the Union and to the existing powers of the Union institutions to take action that is necessary to respond to threats to financial stability of the Euro area.”
Basically that means the UK won’t have to pay for “…safeguarding the financial stability of the Euro area…” except when we have to pay for responding “…to threats to financial stability of the Euro area.”
Wow! I bet that took some negotiating!
The New Deal is still a paltry package that does NOT amount to a serious, radical and legally binding ‘New Settlement’ for the UK. That’s because without forcing treaty change the scope for agreeing anything meaningful really is reduced to zero.
Hence this footling, if not embarrassing, pile of not much;
If Cameron launches a UK referendum arguing that this package meets key British concerns about the EUSSR, why should anyone believe him?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
An excellent article in today’s (4th Feb) Mail on Line makes some important points.
Using Leo Amery’s 1939 war-cry, “Speak for England” (but pointing out that, by ‘England’, like Amery, they mean the whole of the United Kingdom), they call for Eurosceptic Ministers to speak out against David Cameron’s pathetic “New Deal.”
The Mail hastens to point out that they aren’t comparing the EUSSR with Nazi Germany; it is after all much more akin to the USSR; hence my choice of soubriquet…
But the article does say, quite rightly, that in 2016, “…as in 1939, we are at a crossroads in our island history. For in perhaps as little as 20 weeks’ time, voters will be asked to decide nothing less than what sort of country we want to live in and bequeath to those who come after us.”
This is a question of profound significance to our destiny as a sovereign nation and the fate of all of us, our children and grandchildren.
“Are we to be a self-governing nation, free in this age of mass migration to control our borders, strike trade agreements with whomever we choose and dismiss our rulers and lawmakers if they displease us?”
“Or will our liberty, security and prosperity be better assured by submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, accepting the will of unaccountable judges and linking our destiny with that of a sclerotic Europe that tries to achieve the impossible by uniting countries as diverse as Germany and Greece?”
The Mail reminds us that for months the “Remain-in-at-any-price” have been telling lies; spreading scaremongering tales of the horrors of Brexit.
“Big business leaders, universities, ‘elder statesmen’ and the Civil Service, have been corralled into making the case that it would be a catastrophe,” if Britain left the EUSSR.
It goes without saying, these, “apocalyptic interventions;” the “In” camp’s spurious lies, “…have been zealously reported by the supposedly neutral BBC, that former champion of the disastrous Euro, which struggles to conceal its contempt,” for those of us campaigning for Brexit.
Polls show that a large majority of Conservative Party members are anti-EUSSR and want out; yet the leadership, quivering in fear of finding themselves in a genuinely accountable government, have welcomed Cameron’s paltry posey of political promises, unenforceable understandings and agreements, as if it was a wedding bouquet fit for a princess.
As the Mail says, “More shamefully still, Eurosceptic ministers have been muzzled; banned from speaking on the most momentous issue of our time;” even though we all know what a pathetic pile of ordure Cameron is willing to accept, and promote as his “New Deal;” a deal that changes nothing of any substance in our relationship with the EUSSR.
That raises the question; if this New Deal is so wonderful, why is Cameron so afraid of Ministers speaking against it? Surely he should be jumping at the chance to defend it; extolling its virtues; invisible though they may be to the rest of us…
In addition, such opposition might beef up his negotiating position by letting the Euro-rats know the strength of anti-Brussels feeling at home. Then again, he doesn’t really want his position beefed-up; he really doesn’t want too much change at all.
Considering he claims that his trivial tweeks make the EUSSR an organisation he would want to join; obviously he thinks it’s pretty much perfect already.
So who will “Speak for the UK?” It certainly won’t be the seemingly certifiable leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
At Prime Minister’s Questions, Corbyn didn’t even mention Cameron’s “Triumph.”
The Mail goes on to list those that could; even should, but won’t come out in support of Brexit.
Boris Johnson; likeable, highly intelligent and with a carefully sculptured buffoon image; he is too ambitious to do other than toe the party line.
Boris is not the only “Eurosceptic Quisling”
William Hague is another. He who not long ago famously opposed the “Red Card” idea of a block of nations opposing a EUSSR Politburo proposal, by suggesting that such a block would be impossible to organise, even if the Politburo was suggesting, “…a slaughter of all first born.”
As the Mail says, “How hilarious, Mr Hague; especially as today you are pledging support for Mr Cameron’s deal, which includes a red card that would give us a veto only with the support of 14 other nations!”
Cabinet Ministers, Philip Hammond, Michael Gove, Sajid Javid, Theresa May, and possibly Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, once all passionate campaigners against the EUSSR, are finding the prospects of possible plum jobs more appealing than the duty to speak up for their country.
The Mail finds Mrs May’s turncoat action “disappointing,” but being an ex-copper, to me it comes as no surprise; Theresa was always one to think of Theresa first and foremost; well, all the time really.
The truth appears to be that only a handful of diehard Eurosceptic ministers will find the courage to speak out, when they are allowed to.
But why don’t they speak-out now?
As the Mail says, “Voters deserve better than this.”
Instead of an informed debate, they’re getting, “…a one-sided, stage-managed charade of scaremongering, spin and censorship.”
What are the Cabinet Eurosceptics so afraid of that prevents them from speaking out?
Is it really only their career prospects?
If so, that is not just contemptible; it’s daft.
Because, with the Euro heading, through its current disaster, towards its inevitable demise; and the inept EUSSR crippled by its inability to handle refugee crisis, history can only reward those with the courage to speak out, win or lose.
The Euro, the Eurozone and the entire EUSSR project is so obviously doomed, a “Remain In” vote is akin to booking passage on the Titanic, after she had hit the iceberg…
No one doubts that Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith are politicians of principle.
But, as the Mail points out, “…they can hardly be described as crowd-pulling orators.”
They continue, “As for figureheads, yes, there is the magnificent Lord Lawson; But he is 83.” Not that seems to be holding him back.
There is also the other great “Eurosceptic Nigel,” they say, “Mr Farage is a charismatic tub-thumper, who deserves credit for the fact that we’re having a referendum at all. But he is also divisive, and is seen by many as a clown.”
But many, over 4 million voters at the last election, do not see him as such; and remember the “Clown” soubriquet was bestowed by those who currently are telling us how great the EUSSR is; what a fabulous future we’ll have without being a self-governing, Sovereign nation; unable in this age of mass migration to control our borders; incapable of making trade agreements with whomever we choose and denied the ability to dismiss our leaders and lawmakers if they’re crap.
Having raised the question of who will speak for the Brexit campaign, the Mail turns to the organisations within that campaign…
Echoing the feelings of many of us, with the harsh description of the “…dismal ragbag of policy-wonks, cranks and nonentities (almost all male) in the feuding factions of the ‘out’ camp.”
This is going a bit far; Aaron Banks is neither crank nor nonentity and the excellent Caroline Drewett ain’t male; but if, in its harshness this description “bangs heads together,” it’ll do us all a favour.
The unnecessary in-fighting between “Vote Leave” and “Leave.EU” is hindering the Brexit cause, and providing limitless ammunition for the “Remainers.”
How many more times are the BBC going to bring it up; barely hiding their glee?
As modern “Yoof” might put it — “FFS, “Vote Leave” & “Leave.EU,” get real!”
……………………………………………………………………………………..
On 2nd February, US President Barack Obama blundered into the debate over the UK’s membership of the EUSSR, having the bloody nerve to tell David Cameron that OUR country was best served inside the EUSSR.
Obama spoke with Cameron by phone and “reaffirmed continued US support for a strong United Kingdom in a strong European Union,” according to the White House.
Obama’s uncalled for intervention came as Cameron is desperately trying to sell his pathetic “New Deal”, as “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reforms,” when all of us, including Cameron, know it to be a paltry pile of pooh.
Washington has long backed the idea of the UK, “…playing a central role in the world’s largest economic bloc, warning the “special relationship” could be at risk,” if the UK was to leave. What Washington don’t understand, among the myriad other things that seem to confuse this US administration, is that the only “Central Role” in the EUSSR is played by the aforementioned Politburo (Commission, Mr President.)
I would like to ask Barack Hussein Obama a question:
“How would you like to live in a country, which has 75% of its laws dictated to it by an unelected Politburo, from outside your country’s borders; has no control over who crosses said borders; isn’t allowed to make trade deals with other countries; has its courts over-ruled by a foreign court; and has to pay £55 million a day, for the honour of all that?”
He might remember his country fought a war, with us, over less than all that…
I guess he might say, “The United States of America is now a Proud Independent Sovereign Nation.”
Well, The United Kingdom used to be a Proud Independent Sovereign Nation, too, and fully intends to be a Proud Independent Sovereign Nation again!
Then I’d tell him to mind his own business.
No, I’d tell him to Fuck off, and mind his own business.
……………………………………………………………………………………
Some weeks ago I posted a warning;
Dr Liam Fox, had just become the “latest MP to publicly come out in support of the Leave campaign;”
And we were told to expect more to join him in the coming months;
There were rumours that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and Theresa May are just waiting to announce their support for Brexit.
But, I said, “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.
In 2011 “Arch sceptic MP” Mark Pritchard lead a rebellion of 81 Tory MPs against Mr Cameron in a Commons vote to demand a referendum.
Now, we are told that he has “stunned colleagues” by revealing he will join David Cameron’s Remain campaign.
How many “Undecideds” will he now take with him?
Hopefully, having shown his “Turn-coat” colours, the answer will be none.
“Anti-EU campaigner” Michael Fabricant MP has claimed that Downing Street is bribing supposed Eurosceptic Tory MPs to support staying in the EUSSR, with promotion promises.
Scraping the barrel to justify his Quisling-style switch, Mr Pritchard said leaving the European Union would “…threaten Britain’s national security.”
How on earth did he get that idea?
Being a member of the EUSSR is what severely “Threatens the UK’s National Security” right now!
Daʿesh is currently taking advantage of the EUSSR’s well-known, wide-spread incompetence;
Exploiting the unprecedented migrant/refugee crisis to infiltrate European civilisation; bringing their own brand of Wahhabi-Salafist Sunni mayhem with them
The incredible incoherence and ineptitude of the EUSSR’s response to the crisis is proving to be a “Gift Horse” for them.
Or rather, a “Trojan Horse;” given the way Daʿesh is exploiting the catastrophic human tsunami
The result is that Daʿesh has been able to use the migrant routes to disperse who-knows-how-many fighters throughout Europe, with instructions, and sufficient training, to carry out attacks similar to those in Paris last year.
It cannot be known how many are in Europe already; the Paris attackers were proof that some are. Even if the figure is as little as .01% of that 1.5 million; that’s 150; it only took eight or so to bring mass murder to Paris…
Add to that the numbers of the, majority Sunni, refugees/migrants who variously sympathise with or actively support Daʿesh, and you have some idea of the nightmare scenario facing British intelligence officials, and other security organisations, trying to distinguish potential terrorists from genuine asylum seekers.
Factor into that the number of disaffected and/or radicalised Muslim youth; waiting at home for their lead, and you have an idea of the threat facing us, members of the EUSSR, right now…
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 those two cities, along with those “large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them,” 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”? “May have”? Highly likely, even certain; I’d have thought.
And not just “…individuals from Syria;” either; really from just about anywhere in North Africa and the Middle East
The ease with which Daʿesh is managing to infiltrate the migrant smuggling routes helps to explain this week’s alarming Europol report, which states that Daʿesh has already set up secret training camps across Europe to prepare terrorists to carry out “special forces-style” attacks against the UK and other EUSSR countries.
“There is every reason to expect that IS (Daʿesh) or other religiously inspired terrorist groups will undertake terrorist attacks somewhere in Europe again, intended to cause mass casualties among the civilian population.”
Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said that, “Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.”
Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.
On continental Europe, the Schengen Plan allows for the unchecked, unrecorded, passport-free movement of anyone, from Greece or Italy, to Sweden, France or Spain. Of course, that includes their luggage; and weapons; and explosives.
In the UK, as well as being outside the Schengen Zone, we have the small advantage over the rest of Europe; 22miles of water called the “English Channel”
But it’s only a small advantage; we also have a long and mainly insecure coastline…
Membership of the EUSSR is actually the greatest threat to our national security
…………………………………………………………………………………
31st January
Even the Football fraternity is being targeted by “Project Fear”
As some of you will already be aware, I know nothing about football; I don’t like it and am not interested in it.
Therefore I have taken most of this from “Euro-Guido”
I hope they won’t mind…
Tory peer Karren Brady has come out with the idea that leaving the EUSSR would somehow knobble English football, making it hard if not impossible for top Premier League clubs (whoever they are) to sign the best talent from the European continent.
Lady Brady is apparently, the vice chairman of “Dave’s second team West Ham,”
Why would Dave have two teams?
I’m guessing that “West Ham” isn’t some form of pork product;
Anyway Lady Brady reckons:
“For clubs, free movement plays a big role in transfers and players’ contracts. Players from the EU can sign for UK clubs without needing a visa or special work permit, making it quicker and easier to secure top talent from across Europe to come and play in our leagues… Leaving the EU could have a big impact on foreign players, as independent analysis has shown that two-thirds of European stars in England would not meet automatic non-EU visa criteria and therefore might be forced to leave.”
As “Euro-Guido” says “Something doesn’t add up here.”
“…independent analysis has shown that two-thirds of European stars in England would not meet automatic non-EU visa criteria and therefore might be forced to leave”?
What a load of B**l**ks!
Who did that “independent analysis?
I wonder if Lady Brady would like to tell us…
“Euro-Guido” then tells us that, hundreds of non-EUSSR players have been easily signed by Premier clubs with no fuss at all.
With only a handful of exceptions, (don’t ask me!) non-EUSSR players have been granted fast-track work permits by the Home Office.
For example: ‘Arsenal’ signed Kolo Touré from Ivorian club ASEC Mimosas, ‘West Ham’ signed Carlos Tevez from Brazilian side Corinthians, (I suspect Lady Brady should know that one) and Dwight Yorke signed for ‘Aston Villa’ having previously only played in his native Trinidad and Tobago.
Apparently, not one of these players came from a member state of the EUSSR or was even playing for a side in the EUSSR when they joined the Premier League.
“Euro-Guido” then waxes lyrical,
“Let’s indulge the barmy fantasy that Brexit might force “two-thirds of European stars in England” to pack their kit-bag and jog on to sunnier climes; it would never happen, but what if it did?”
Apparently, 65% of Premier League players currently come from outside of England, with this proportion even higher in the top sides. (Isn’t “top sides” the same as “Premier League”? No? OK)
An exodus of foreign players would mean clubs would be forced to promote English talent.
This is something Greg Dyke (He used to be at the BBC, didn’t he? How did he get into this?) has been pushing for throughout his tenure as FA Chairman, (Oh, I see) lamenting that;
“Home-grown heroes are fast becoming an endangered species, particularly among the Premier League’s top clubs.”
So according to Brady, Brexit would make Premier League nurture home-grown talent, great news for young English players and even better for the future of the national team.
“Euro-Guido” then enters fantasy land, “In Lady Brady’s post-Brexit scenario, it’s not too far-fetched (apparently) to see how a revitalised England could win the World Cup…”
……………………………………………………………………………….
The Sun, of 31st January, brought us a rather unbalanced conversation between two “Tory Grandees;” one a professed “Don’t Know” and the other an already decided “In-at-any-price Remainer.” This is a conversation I thought I might join…
Norman Lamont, though “Undecided,” seems to have his head screwed on; in marked contrast to Malcolm Rifkind, the “In-at-any-price Remainer,” whose head is so poorly secured, he is lucky it hasn’t fallen off!
Norman says; “I have not made up my mind how to vote on the EU referendum. I won’t until I know what deal the PM has achieved on EU reform.”
Me: “Though, Norman you really don’t expect actual “reform,” do you, let alone the promised “Fundamental and Far-reaching” variety?”
I’ll let Norman continue without interruption:
“Although we have yet to see what he can negotiate, the “Yes” campaign has already started using its enormous war chest. I have just received a free newspaper, “Europe And You,” which tells me leaving the EU is unthinkable: Jobs will be lost, small businesses ruined, workers’ rights lost, our security put at risk. This is nonsense.”
“Trade between countries does not depend on people behind desks in Brussels, but on willing customers and willing sellers. Switzerland is not an EU member yet it exports more to the EU per head of the population than we do.”
“Britain is Germany’s largest market for cars, not because we are both in the EU but because British motorists believe German cars are of high quality. The scaremongers say that if Britain left, the EU would put tariffs on British goods.”
“Since the EU exports a lot more to us than we do to them, such a policy would be economic suicide as we would be forced to retaliate. What would happen to German cars or French agricultural products?”
“Then it is argued that we would lose out because we would have no say in the regulations in Europe. But China, the US and Japan all sell successfully into Europe without having the slightest say. It is normal when you export from one country to another to observe the laws of the other country!”
“We are told that outside the EU, London as a financial centre would be under threat. This too rings a bit hollow. There is more US than EU turnover on the London Stock Exchange.”
“Outside the EU, it should not be difficult for Britain to negotiate a free-trade agreement similar to the proposed EU/Canada deal, which will ultimately see 100 per cent of tariffs on industrial goods and 93.8 per cent of agricultural tariffs eliminated for both Canada and the EU.”
“The “In at any price” brigade won’t admit this. But European Commission ex-president Jacques Delors and Wolfgang Schauble, the German finance minister, have both said a UK/EU free-trade agreement should be negotiable.”
“The mechanism to leave the EU sets a two-year timetable. There would be no overnight, sudden change. Once our exit had been negotiated we would be rid of the European Parliament and the busy-bodying European Commission.”
“We would no longer be in danger of being sucked into a Federal Union. There is no reason why leaving the EU should be acrimonious. Outside the EU, Britain can continue to co-operate with Europe in areas such as foreign policy or science.”
“There are challenges in being outside the EU and risks in remaining in.”
Norman finishes with; “But one thing that will make me vote to leave, is a scare campaign. I still hope against hope the PM will surprise us all.”
Me: “The scare campaign, “Project Fear” has already started, Norman, you got the lying leaflet, “Europe And You.”
“And Dave is going to surprise nobody.”
I’m afraid I am unable to extend the courtesy of non-interruption to the “In-at-any-price Remainer.”
Malcolm Rifkind says; “We enjoy the best of both worlds in Europe.”
Me: “Exactly the usual sort of trite, meaningless catch-phrase we hear from Remainers. Which two worlds is that exactly, Malcolm?”
Malcolm: “Our French, German and other partners have accepted that we will keep the Pound and that we are not interested in joining the Eurozone.”
Me: “They appear to have accepted that for the moment; but for how long, with “Ever Closer Union” as their goal?”
Malcolm: “Likewise we, along with Ireland, are not part of the Schengen area. We continue to control our own borders.”
Me: “No, actually, Malcolm, we don’t.”
Malcolm: “For example, none of the Syrian migrants can enter Britain unless we decide to let them in.”
Me: “Just until they get EUSSR passports, in Germany, France or Greece, or wherever; then we won’t be able to stop them.”
Malcolm: “So we already have a relationship with the European Union that largely suits us.”
Me: “No, we don’t; that is why Dave was forced to promise an “In-Out Referendum;” he realised that it was because the EUSSR very largely does not “suit us” that enabled UKIP to give him such a fright.”
Malcolm: “If it didn’t we wouldn’t have one of the fastest growing economies in the Western world with falling unemployment over the past few years.”
Me: “We have that despite the EUSSR; not because of it. If we had followed those who advised joining the Euro, we’d have been in the same parlous state as the rest of the Eurozone.”
Malcolm: “David Cameron’s negotiations with our European partners will, if he is successful, resolve most of our remaining concerns.”
Me: “No, no, no, they won’t; and you are surely not so stupid as to think they will. “Our concerns” include; the billions of pounds shovelled into the unaccountable black-hole that is the EUSSR Budget; 75% of our laws originating in the unelected politburo of the EUSSR, to be rubber-stamped by the toothless European & UK parliaments; the Common Agriculture Policy, which accounts for less than 2% of EUSSR output, yet eats over 40% of the budget; the Common Fisheries Policy, which has managed the double whammy of all-but destroying the UK Fishing Industry at the same time as devastating fish-stocks in our waters; the chaotic Immigration policy that means we have no way of stopping any Tom, Dick or Harry coming into the UK from the EUSSR; a disastrous Refugee policy that first caused the migrant tsunami, and then compounded the chaos, by allowing Terrorists free access to continental Europe. I could go on, but I’m over-heating…”
Malcolm: “The Prime Minister is also negotiating reforms that would ensure that those coming to work in Britain from other European countries will have to wait four years before they can get tax credits and housing benefit. This is proving difficult but compromise proposals are coming from the European Commission to try to meet this demand.”
Me: “Not that it will make one iota of difference even if is granted. Workers from the EUSSR nations come to the UK to work; not collect benefits. They come because the UK minimum wage is a lot higher than its equivalents in their own countries; a situation that will not be improved when George’s “Living Wage” comes into effect.”
Malcolm: “My experience with the EU is that when the prime ministers and presidents are looking for solutions they find them. When they are looking for problems they find problems.”
Me: “Sorry, but that’s just more meaningless, trite waffle.”
Malcolm: “In this case, all 27 other members are very anxious that Britain should remain in the EU.”
Me: “Of course they are; the UK is the second biggest economy in the EUSSR; soon to be the biggest; they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them”
Malcolm: “They recognise that we have a lot to offer as a stable, prosperous democratic country.”
Me: “Stable & prosperous? Yes; but democratic? No, Malcolm; there isn’t a truly democratic country country in the EUSSR; just as there wasn’t in the USSR.”
Malcolm: “On our side we know that Britain, like France and Germany, is a middle-sized power compared to the United States and China. If the countries of Europe, of which we are one, wish to carry weight in global negotiations on trade, energy, the environment and climate change, Europe must speak with one voice. On these and like issues Britain shares the same deep interests as the rest of the EU.”
Me: “I don’t think there has been a single major situation in which “Europe has spoken with one voice;” not in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Balkans or the Ukraine; and certainly not with regard to the current refugee/migrant crisis.”
Still me: “And as for “global negotiations on trade,” The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a series of trade negotiations being carried out between the EUSSR and US, are taking place in secret. On that we can’t know if the UK “shares the same deep interests as the rest of the EUSSR,” because we haven’t been made privy to what those “interests” are.”
Malcolm: “We are not going to take a great leap into the unknown.”
Me: “It won’t be a “leap into the unknown;” Brexit won’t happen overnight, but it will mean that we will have a real government again; one that elected by us, is also accountable to us. The government, with your support want us to be scared about leaving the EUSSR.”
Still me: “But it’s them; they are the ones that are scared about leaving. They are actually frightened about Brexit. They are actually frightened of being totally accountable. None of them, including you, (having been first elected in 1974) have ever actually experienced true parliamentary democracy. They don’t know what National Sovereignty actually is, because they’ve never experienced that either. They have never had to make decisions as a Government on its own, without Big Brother’s help. Not one member of the cabinet has ever served in a UK Government that has had to make its own decisions. Not many of them will even remember a UK Government that did.”
Still me: “And that frightens them.”
Still me: “Michael Fallon (63) and Ian Duncan Smith (62) were 20 & 18 respectively when we joined the EEC on 1st January 1973. The day Tony Benn described as, “The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.” David Cameron was 6 and George Osborne was 1 year & 7 months old. Liz Truss, Environment Secretary and Stephen Crabb, Secretary for Wales weren’t even born.”
Still me: “Fallon & IDS are also the only two that were old enough to vote in the 1975 Referendum, on 5th June 1975. Fallon at 23 was a student activist on the “Yes” campaign, and the 21-year-old IDS was commissioned into the Scots Guards as a Second-Lieutenant, just three weeks after the referendum. Fallon is also the longest serving Cabinet member becoming an MP in 1983, 10 years after we joined the EEC, and surrendered our sovereignty and democracy. All but six ministers were first elected this century, to a parliament that had been without sovereignty and democracy for 30 years”.
Still me: “We complain about the lack of accountability within the Politburo and Courts of the EUSSR, but really, while 75% of our laws are handed down from there, how accountable is our own government? If anything goes wrong, “It’s Europe’s fault” and although it usually is, our government is always able to say, quite truthfully; Our hands are tied by EU Laws, Regulations and Directives”
Still me: “That’s why David Cameron, George Osbourne et al are frightened. If we leave the EUSSR, we will regain our national sovereignty and they, the UK Government alone will be responsible for our future. They, the UK Government will have to make the decisions. They, the UK Government will be fully accountable to the electorate, just as they should be.”
Still me: “And the prospect frightens them; that is their ‘Project Fear’”
Still me: “So Malcolm, you say, “We must be in there negotiating and not grumbling on the sidelines.”
Still me: “No, the time for pointless negotiation (and, for the UK in the EUSSR, it always has been pointless & fruitless) is past. We must leave; not to “grumble on the sidelines;” but to stand on our own two feet on the world stage.”
Still me: “That’s the normal condition for every advanced democracy outside the EUSSR;”
Still me: “That’s not a “leap into the unknown.”
Malcolm said; “The British public expects no less.”
Me: Abso-bloody-lutely!
…………………………………………………………………………………
During his “Hard-fought Renegotiations,” or more accurately, his “Pathetic pilgrimage with a begging-bowl” around the EUSSR, denying EUSSR citizens access to benefits for four years has been one of the Cameron’s chief conditions for the UK staying in the EUSSR.
That is, the least pathetic of his paltry pleadings, perhaps
The effectiveness of it would be unnoticeably nebulous, as the vast majority of EUSSR visitors come to the UK to work; not to claim benefits.
It could be said that it will have absolutely no effect at all; the UK’s minimum wage being so much higher than its equivalent in the Eastern provinces of the EUSSR. George’s new “Living Wage” will make the UK an even more attractive employment option for EUSSR citizens.
Then we come to the much vaunted “Emergency Brake”
Cameron is expected to tell European Council president Donald Tusk that any “emergency brake” on in-work benefits for migrants would have to apply immediately and last long enough “to resolve the underlying problem.”
Of course, that “underlying problem” as far as Cameron is concerned, is conning UK voters into voting to stay in the EUSSR.
So, the hand-brake lever would have to be pulled before the referendum, or at least the “when” would have to be agreed before we head to the polls.
The justification for making restrictions to immigration a central pillar of the negotiations assumes an immediate problem exists; if the brake is not pulled immediately, then when would it be?
The UK’s concerns over immigration aren’t driven by short-term pressure, but by long-term flows.
The so-called “emergency brake” will be no more than a stick to wave during the referendum in the hope that it is enough to assuage voters’ concerns while, ultimately, doing nothing to limit or control immigration.
…………………………………………………………………………….
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EUSSR and US.
As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations.
Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy is on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests.
So I don’t know about you, but I’m scared. I would vote against TTIP, except… hang on a minute… I can’t.
Like all of you, I have no say whatsoever in whether TTIP goes through or not.
All I can do is tell as many people about it as possible, as I hope, will you.
We may be forced to accept an attack on democracy but we can at least fight against the conspiracy of silence.
But worryingly, the covert nature of the talks may well be the least of our problems.
Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies.
This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.
The EUSSR Politburo (Commission) has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP.
However, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
30th January
Turkey; the country that, with David Cameron’s support, Angular Merkel is pushing to be fast-tracked into membership of the EUSSR
Currently there are many Turkish journalists in Turkish gaols, facing charges of Insulting the President.
Yes, that is a crime in Turkey…
Journalists are not the only ones threatened by a judiciary and law enforcement apparatus that is staunchly loyal to Erdogan.
On 15th January, police detained scores of academics whom Erdogan had labelled “dark people” for signing a declaration that denounced military operations against the Kurdish group, PKK.
Over 1,100 Turkish and 300 foreign academics signed the declaration that Turkish prosecutors think “insulted the state and engaged in terrorist propaganda on behalf of the PKK.”
Just before the arrests, Erdogan decried the signatories and called on the judiciary to act against the “treachery.”
“Just because they have titles such as professor, doctor in front of their names does not make them enlightened. These are dark people,” Erdogan said. “They are villains and vile because those who side with the villains are villains themselves.”
In their declaration, these “traitors” said they refused to be “a party to the crime” and called on the government to halt what they called a “massacre.”
For Turkish ‘democracy’ this is yet another low.
It confirms that this is a ‘democracy’ with rapidly diminishing freedom of speech.
It is ‘democracy’ where “…the ‘voice of the nation,’ which is practically the voice of the political majority and its glorified leader, intimidates and silences dissenting voices,” wrote the Turkish columnist Mustafa Akyol.
Meanwhile, The EUSSR, cherishing its relations with Turkey, prefers to look the other way and whistle.
All the EUSSR could say about the prosecution of the academics who signed the declaration was that it is “Extremely Worrying.”
Brussels cannot see that Turkish affairs passed the threshold of “Extremely Worrying” a long time ago.
Prominent journalist Can Dundar, who has been in jail on terrorism charges since 26th November, was right when he wrote in an open letter to Italy’s Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, that “…the rapprochement between Turkey and the European Union over refugees should not overshadow violations of fundamental rights and freedoms in Turkey during the country’s EU accession process.”
In reality, Turkey’s irregularities; Turkey’s judicial crushing of Protest & Dissent are too big to be hidden behind the usual diplomatic words such as “Concern” and “Worrying.”
Ahead of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s meeting in London with David Cameron, more than two dozen prominent writers, including David Hare, Tom Stoppard, William Boyd, Ali Smith, Sarah Waters and Monica Ali, called on the Cameron to urge the Turkish government to halt its crackdown on freedom of speech.
Over the past five months, intimidation, threats and even physical assaults against journalists, writers and publishers have become the norm in Turkey
Turkey is now more than “Worrying.”
…………………………………………………………………………….
So now we learn that the Deutsche Bank posted a full year loss of £5.1 billion (€6.8bn) on Thursday — higher than the expected €6.7bn.
With losses of €2.1bn in the fourth quarter of 2015–16, fears of the entire Eurozone toppling are becoming an increasing reality.
In a bid to patch up some of its central issues, the bank is now restructuring.
At the beginning of the week it revealed bonuses could be slashed by as much as 30% for staff, including investment bankers.
“Bonuses slashed by as much as 30%”?
Talk about rewarding failure;
I would humbly suggest that presiding over a full year loss of £5,100,000,000 is worthy of no bonus at all.
Deutsche’s fall in grace adds to Germany’s seemingly never-ending woes this year
Germany, which has a GDP of $3.4bn, is the biggest economy in the Eurozone and experts have warned if its economy, along with second biggest Eurozone economy France, crashes it would trigger a domino effect which would bring the entire currency crashing down.
But it is facing the most difficult start to a year in recent memory. The short term health of economies including France, Italy and Spain, is dependent on the continued growth of the German economy; but its industrial production growth has slipped to ZERO per cent and customer confidence has plummeted in a catalogue of disasters for Chancellor Angular Merkel.
Last week, under pressure, Angular admitted that Germany may fail to balance its books this year as it contends with the costs of letting in more than a million refugees in a bid to relieve the current crisis across Europe, and France’s economy, which recently entered a ‘state of emergency’, could act as a drag on the overall health of Europe.
Sorry, but when there’s talk of Germany’s & France’s economies nose-diving; the Euro crashing; there’s another voice whispering my ear;
“Win — win — win…”
………………………………………………………………………………
Germany is still struggling to come to terms with the appalling scenes that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, where gangs of young Arab refugees were blamed for a series of sex attacks against female revellers.
The sickening list of crimes reported in the German city runs to a staggering 821 complaints; ranging from indecent assaults to gang rape.
One attacker is alleged to have told police: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.”
All those arrested so far being identified as coming from North African countries such as Algeria and Tunisia. Half of those arrested are asylum seekers.
Yet now we see from EUSSR Politburo minutes that the “facts” are now being “adjusted.”
A presentation from Frans Timmermans, the first vice president of the Politburo and deputy to President Jean-Claude Juncker, said:
“As far as the crimes in Cologne were concerned, these were a matter of public order and were not related to the refugee crisis.”
The fact that “All those arrested so far being identified as coming from North African countries such as Algeria and Tunisia” is obviously an unfortunate coincidence.
Timmermans called for, “The unconditional rejection of false associations between certain criminal acts, such as the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, and the mass influx of refugees.”
The fact that “Half of those arrested are asylum seekers” must be another unfortunate coincidence.
We in Britain need to understand that when the million-plus migrants, now within Europe, gain citizenship of any EUSSR country they will all have a right to come to the UK.
And, if we remain a member of the EUSSR, there’s nothing we can do about it.
It is time to face up to the real choice,
To have the destiny of our country determined by an unelected Politburo in Brussels;
Or to give our children and grandchildren the freedom to shape their own future;
In an Independent, Democratic and Sovereign UK
……………………………………………………………………………….
On 29th January, The ‘Independent’ reported that UK embassies on the Continent have embarked upon a mission to sign up the country’s expatriate community to vote.
The report went on to say, quite wrongly, “…with Britons living in places like Tuscany or the Dordogne among those most likely to be adversely affected by a “leave” vote,”
The rights of those British citizens already working or living in another EUSSR country, or those of EUSSR citizens now in the UK, would be preserved under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Under this convention, withdrawal from a treaty releases the parties from any FUTURE obligation to each other but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.
This means that Brexit would not affect the rights of thousands of British citizens who are already living or working in other EUSSR countries, such as pensioners in Spain or France.
Then the ‘Independent’ report added, quite correctly, “… actively helping them to have their say could prove decisive to the end result.”
And unless those diplomats tell them the truth; the Brexit campaign could be adversely affected.
When it comes to any election, and especially the EUSSR referendum, British diplomats, like all civil servants, have a duty to be neutral.
But in the world of diplomacy, “Neutrality” can be just as flexible a concept as “Truth.”
…………………………………………………………………………………..
There have been several posts & newspaper articles belabouring reports from the Council of Europe and judgements from the European Court of Human Rights.
We must get the UK out of the EUSSR; but let’s get our facts right!
Lately there have been a lot of stupid scare stories published,
which do no justice,
but great disservice to the Brexit cause…
Two examples today (29th January);
In The Sun; “Britain accused of child cruelty by “barmy” Euro officials for allowing teenagers to deliver the morning paper.”
In the Express; “Meddling Eurocrats have provoked fury by claiming Britain is failing in its duty to uphold the “social rights” of migrants”
Both these headlines relate to reports from the Council of Europe
To blame these reports on the EUSSR just displays ignorance;
risks justified ridicule from “The Remainers”;
and makes Brexit campaigners,
as well as the usual “Talking-Heads” delivering sound-bites re “Meddling Eurocrats” look silly.
The Council of Europe (CoE), founded on 5th May 1949 by the Treaty of London, is a regional intergovernmental organisation which promotes human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in its 47 member states, covering 820 million citizens.
The CoE is SEPARATE FROM and NOTHING TO DO WITH the 28-nation EUSSR, but often confused with it. Unlike the EUSSR, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws, but in 1950 it drafted The European Convention on Human Rights. Its two statutory bodies are the Committee of Ministers, comprising the foreign ministers of each member state, and the Parliamentary Assembly, composed of members of the national parliaments of each member state.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, drafted by Council of Europe. It entered into force on 3rd September 1953.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court established to enforce the aforementioned European Convention on Human Rights.
We must get the UK out of the EUSSR; but let’s get our facts right!
………………………………………………………………………….
So, not happy with deciding 75% of our National Laws, and thus emasculating our the Government at Westminster;
The EUSSR is now proposing to interfere in Local government as well
And we have a Politburo report, compiled by Danish and German Euro-rats, calling for mandatory separate systems for collecting paper, glass and metal as well as food.
Has nobody told them that Household waste-disposal in the UK, is the responsibility of Local Authorities?
It’s paid for out of the Council Tax
How it is recycled is decided by the individual District or Borough Council, or by a Unitary Authority.
Central Government has no say in the Matter.
So my only response to the EUSSR would be;
“BUTT-OUT!”
……………………………………………………………………………..
27th January
Daʿesh is taking advantage of the EUSSR’s well-known incompetence; exploiting the unprecedented migrant/refugee crisis to infiltrate European civilisation; bringing their own brand of Wahhabi-Salafist Sunni mayhem with them.
The incredible incoherence and ineptitude of the EUSSR’s response to the crisis is proving to be a “Gift Horse” for them.
Or rather, given the way Daʿesh is exploiting the human catastrophe; more of a “Trojan Horse.”
At a time when the EUSSR’s leaders are struggling to come to terms with the numerous security and social implications of the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, Daʿesh is taking full advantage of the chaos.
By far the greatest challenge EUSSR officialdom faces in trying to manage the waves of humanity washing up on Europe’s southern coastline, is establishing the bona fides of those migrant/refugees; differentiating between Refugees, Economic Migrants and/or Terrorists.
No sane person welcomes a stranger into their home without first assuring themselves that the newcomer means them or their family no harm.
Such is the scale of the current crisis, however, with an estimated 1.5 million refugees said to have entered the EUSSR in 2015, it has proved impossible to effectively scrutinise everyone within the migrant/refugee tsunami.
The result is that Daʿesh has been able to use the migrant routes to disperse who-knows-how-many fighters throughout Europe, with instructions, and sufficient training, to carry out attacks similar to those in Paris last year.
It cannot be known how many are in Europe already; the Paris attackers were proof that some are. Even if the figure is as little as .01% of that 1.5 million; that’s possibly 150 men or women with evil intent; there were only eight or so caused that bloodshed in Paris…
Add to that the numbers of these, majority Sunni, refugees/migrants who variously sympathise with or actively support Daʿesh…
If you factor in the numbers of radicalised Islamists there are already in the UK; waiting, and you have some idea of the nightmare scenario facing British intelligence officials, and other security organisations, trying to distinguish potential terrorists from genuine asylum seekers.
Tracking known suspects has its own problems. In many cases, those known to have sympathies with Daʿesh, or other Islamist groups, once they have made their way to northern Syria, simply disappear. Once there, apart from receiving some basic training in terrorist techniques, many are given new identities and false passports before being promptly shipped back into Europe through the migrant routes, making it nearly impossible for intelligence officials to detect them.
The same can be said of those who travel to join other Islamist groups, such as the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra, also operating in Syria.
As a senior intelligence official said: “One minute we have them being tracked on our radar: the next they have disappeared into thin air.”
The ease with which Daʿesh is managing to infiltrate the migrant smuggling routes helps to explain this week’s alarming Europol report, which states that Daʿesh has already set up secret training camps across Europe to prepare terrorists to carry out “special forces-style” attacks against the UK and other EUSSR countries.
“There is every reason to expect that IS (Daʿesh) or other religiously inspired terrorist groups will undertake terrorist attacks somewhere in Europe again, intended to cause mass casualties among the civilian population.”
Rob Wainwright, director of Europol, said 5,000 European nationals had left to fight with militant groups in Syria and Iraq, and they pose significant threats upon returning to their countries. (No Shit, Sherlock)
The exploitation of migrant routes by Jihadi terror cells will certainly add to the pressure on EUSSR Politburo President Jean-Claude Juncker and his aides who, despite months of warnings that the refugee influx would seriously jeopardise European security, have failed miserably to appreciate the scale of threat.
Rather than trying to improve checks made on those apparently seeking refuge; EUSSR officials have typically preferred the easier option of lecturing member states on why they need to accept ever-larger migrant quotas.
The result is that European politicians now find themselves overwhelmed by a wealth of security and social concerns.
This week’s killing of 22-year-old care worker Alexandra Mezher, who was stabbed to death at a Swedish refugee centre, allegedly by a 15-year-old migrant, will result in those concerns increasing still further.
So far there has been no suggestion that the stabbing was a terrorist attack, though there is ample evidence that stabbing is the latest “In” method, fashionable among Islamists; but there is anger that someone who dedicated herself to supporting the dispossessed was allegedly murdered by one she was trying to help.
Germany is still struggling to come to terms with the appalling scenes that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, where gangs of young Arab refugees were blamed for a series of sex attacks against female revellers.
Tensions between all but the most liberally minded Europeans and recently arrived refugees/migrants will get worse.
Whether it be social breakdown, crimes due to “other-culture” gender-views or the increased likelihood of a terror attack, the high price of the EUSSR’s failure to adequately address the migrant/refugee crisis is quite clear.
Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said that far from fleeing warzones; “Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.”
Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.
William Hague puts a different emphasis on problems; “There is now the added public anger at a confused and ineffective response to the growing crisis of migration; this time a crisis that millions of people can foresee and understand themselves.”
“The biggest threat to the security of western nations and the lives of their citizens is a terrorist attack. This is a threat that has to be defeated, but it is not the one that will overwhelm our political systems. The crisis that would bring extremists and mavericks to power in major countries will be rooted in loss of control of migration or a renewed financial disaster.”
In other words; in his view, though terrorism is the “…biggest threat to the security of western nations;” it is the “…loss of control of migration or a renewed financial disaster,” that will “…overwhelm our political systems;” by bringing “…extremists and mavericks to power in major countries.”
Trump?
………………………………………………………………………………………
In the first analysis of a potential ‘Brexit,’ the pressure group MigrationWatch UK, has said a ‘No’ referendum vote could cut net migration to the UK by 100,000 a year.
Exiting the EU would allow the UK Government to impose visa requirements on migrants from the rest of Europe and allow in only skilled workers, it suggested.
Annual net migration to Britain is running at a record 336,000, in the year to June, up 82,000 year-on-year and a record high; far above the Government’s “tens of thousands” pledge, and mainly driven by migrants from eastern Europe.
Of the 1.33 million EU migrants who have arrived in Britain since 2004, 38% are in skilled jobs and 62% are in low-skilled work, including 28% in “elementary” positions such as labouring.
Lord Green of Deddington, chairman of MigrationWatch, which campaigns for tougher border controls, said: “Work permits for EU citizens would substantially reduce net migration and its resultant pressure on our population and public services.”
He added: “It is time to examine possible alternative immigration regimes. EU migration to Britain will continue at a substantial rate for the foreseeable future. Indeed, immigrants tend to generate further migration as their friends and relatives join them in their new countries.”
Only a fifth of EUSSR migrants who have come here since 2004 are higher-skilled workers, the MigrationWatch report said.
A ‘Leave’ vote would allow ministers to introduce a “more effective regime;” with new requirements for qualifications and experience in order to win a visa.
“The rights of those British citizens already working or living in another EU country, or those of EU citizens now in Britain, would be preserved under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969,” said a MigrationWatch spokesman.
“Under this convention, withdrawal from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligation to each other but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.”
Meaning that Brexit would not affect the rights of thousands of British citizens who are already living or working in other EUSSR countries, such as pensioners in Spain.
Likewise, the three million EUSSR citizens already here in Britain, including 1.1 million from Eastern Europe, would be allowed to remain.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Lord Rose, head of the campaign to keep the UK in the EUSSR, gave a TV interview yesterday…
As is common, he was asked to identify himself at the start of a Sky News interview, and promptly failed four times to correctly name the organisation which he leads.
The former Marks & Spencer boss first said, “Stuart Rose and I’m the chairman of Ocado, I’m chairman of — sorry — of Stay in Britain, Better in Britain campaign.”
Realising his mistake and laughing, he said: “Right, start again.”
So he tried again; “Stuart Rose and I’m the chairman of the Better in Britain campaign, Better Stay in Britain campaign.”
To summarise:
“Stay in Britain,” Wrong;
“Better in Britain Campaign,” No;
“The Better in Britain Campaign,” Nope;
“Better Stay in Britain Campaign,” Err, Stu, old son, there’s a very easy way to remember the “Britain Stronger in Europe” campaign; It’s …“BSE”!!
………………………………………………………………………………………
26th January
On 25th January, Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, said that the UK is considering new plans which would see it accept 3,000 child migrants from Europe.
There’s nothing wrong with that, is there…
Because it is so well known to everyone that the UK Social Services employ hundreds, maybe even thousands of Farsi, Pashtu or Arabic speaking Children’s Officers, who currently are sitting around with nothing to do;
killing time; drinking coffee etc; just waiting for another 3,000 stressed & traumatised foreign children to care for!
And think of all those vacant school places everywhere, which we’ll be able to fill; once more occupying all those teachers we have; currently twiddling their thumbs, at the front of empty classrooms!
She said that the children would be “over and above” the 20,000 migrants that Britain has already agreed to accept;
Of course they are…
But that’s OK; we’ve got stacks of room!
Even for the extended families of those 3,000 children; who are sure to follow just as soon as they can; probably only another 15,000 people…
Oh, I was forgetting those poor people in “The Jungle” camp near Calais…
The other day, an “Immigration and Asylum Tribunal” in central London, having heard that four Syrian refugees, living in the camp; all faced “intolerable” conditions and were desperate to be reunited with their siblings in Britain, ordered that they are brought immediately into the UK, because of their “right to a family life.”
That’s alright then, if a judge says so, it must be…
And we’re only talking about four men…
Four out of 7,000…
Of course there won’t be any others there who are suddenly “desperate to be reunited” with their families, will there?
Anyway, what’s 7,000 more matter?
So, 20,000 direct from a camp in Lebanon
3,000 children
And 15,000 in their families
And 7,000 from the “Jungle”
45,000
It’s so bloody lucky we haven’t got a housing shortage…
It’s not as though they’re going to be any trouble, are they?
There is no chance that they could be radicalised Muslims, is there?
………………………………………………………………………………….
Johanna Mikl-Leitner, the Austrian minister for the interior, showing bewildering ignorance, has said:
“If the Athens government does not finally do more to secure the [EUSSR’s] external borders then one must openly discuss Greece’s temporary exclusion from the Schengen zone. It is a myth that the Greek-Turkish border cannot be controlled.”
Meaning allow Greece; the original birthplace of democracy, but probably the most financially-challenged member of the EUSSR, to be flooded with Middle Eastern & North African migrants/refugees; with no hope of being able to cope…
She then adds, with typical Germanic superiority;
“When a Schengen signatory does not permanently fulfil its obligations and only hesitatingly accepts aid [read; foreign troops in country] then we should not rule out that possibility.”
“The patience of many Europeans [read; rich northern Europeans] has reached its limit. We have talked a lot, now we must act. It is about protecting stability, order and security in Europe [read; rich northern Europe].”
But, “stability, order and security” in Poor, southern Europe, especially Greece, apparently doesn’t matter.
EUSSR leaders are considering plans to suspend passport-free travel in the EUSSR-Schengen zone for two years amid concerns that 2.6million more people are forecast to arrive; and in two years, what, disappear again?
………………………………………………………………………………….
Milos Zeman, the Czech President, suggested that Britain and every other EUSSR nation should send 500 soldiers to bolster a European Border and Coast Guard. That would mean about 14,000 soldiers; intended to save the Schengen zone from collapse due to a vast influx of refugees.
Being stationed on the, mainly southern, borders of the Schengen zone; Greece & Italy; this would be the biggest & worst transfer of national autonomy to Brussels since the disastrous creation of the Euro.
Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, the UK is not a signatory of Schengen; an indication that we never did approve of it in the first place; its collapse is so not our problem.
Zeman said that at its current size, the 1,500-strong EUSSR border force is “comical;” warning that half a million more refugees could arrive in Europe before an enlarged force is in place.
For some reason, the UK has offered to send border officials on an ad hoc basis to provide “technical expertise” but will oppose any demands for soldiers.
Why not “refuse any demands for soldiers” instead of “oppose any demands for soldiers”?
Because “oppose” actually means we’ll probably give in eventually…
……………………………………………………………………………….
EUSSR Facts:
The UK gives the EUSSR £50m every day; £350m every week; £19bn every year. We get less than half back;
But the EUSSR stops us spending on OUR priorities for jobs in manufacturing, energy, regeneration, agriculture or fisheries.
The strong UK economy and a skilled workforce are what attracts international companies to invest here
not our membership of the EUSSR. The world’s biggest car maker Toyota pledges to stay in the UK after our exit from the EUSSR.
5 million jobs within the EUSSR depend on them exporting to the UK
Our EUSSR trade deficit is £62bn but we have a £27bn trade surplus with the rest of the world. The EUSSR can’t afford a trade war.
Agriculture within the EUSSR is 1.6% of all EUSSR output, and employs fewer than 5.5% of the population but the Common Agricultural Policy swallows £43billion a year; 40% of the EUSSR budget.
It adds £16 a week to each household’s food bill. (And it dumps food in Africa, impoverishing farmers there.)
…………………………………………………………………………………
Wrong then and Wrong now:
Lord Peter Mandelson; “Until we come off the fence over joining the Euro . . . we will slip backwards in Europe.”
PMSL: since then our economy has grown while those in the Eurozone have stagnated.
Ken Clarke MP; “The Euro has exposed the absurdity of many anti-European scares . . . public opinion is already changing as people can see the success of the new currency.”
“The success of the new currency.”? LOL
Alex Salmond MP; “Scotland would flourish if we cut ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.”
PMSL
Sir Richard Branson; “We cannot be members of the single market without being part of the single currency.”
LOL: since then, our exports to the rest of the World have expanded.
Lord Michael Heseltine; “Our non-membership of the Eurozone is threatening great swathes of British Industry.”
PMSL: since then, unemployment in Europe has soared.
Roland Rudd — Business for New Europe, Chair of Finsbury Group; “Business Leaders appreciate the success of the Euro… …It has defied the doomsayers who predicted failure.”
LOL
Sir Martin Sorrell — CEO of WPP; “If the Government rules out membership of the Euro (it) would be damaging for British-based business.”
PMSL: since then UK businesses have grown at a faster rate.
Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan; “Why take the currency risk with the Pound if you have the possibility of being risk-free in the Euro?”
“Risk-free in the Euro”? LOL
Sir Clive Thompson, CBI President; “The majority of firms were very much in support of joining the euro.”
PMSL: Rubbish then, and rubbish now! The CBI speaks only for Big Business, and then not all; most SMEs support Brexit.
………………………………………………………………………………….
25th January
So, George Osborne, having announced that the alternative scenarios to EU membership will be published by the government, has been warned that he will face legal action if the government tries to fix the referendum by publishing skewed or false information about the alternatives to staying in;
Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, concerned that the government could try to present a false picture, has warned:
“The government can do what it likes until the 28 day purdah period before the referendum.”
“However, if they publish something, it has got to be true otherwise they will be taken to court.”
Is that really going to make any difference?
By the time that any court has decided that the government has indeed published, “Skewed or false information,” the referendum will be long passed; won or lost.
There won’t be any gaol-time threatened; and any fine won’t bother the coffers of Goldman-Sachs
But this article raises another interesting point;
Some days ago, David Cameron said;
“Even though the question isn’t settled, I think if business backs my reforms, if you want to see the competitive Europe, if you want to see the flexible Europe, a Europe where you can be in the Eurozone and win or out of the Eurozone and win, I would argue, get out there and support those things.”
Leaving aside the points that it’s not “Europe”, but the European Union that we are arguing about;
And, how can “Business back” your reforms, when he hasn’t achieved any?
And won’t achieve any actual “reforms” even if the Politburo Euro-rats gives him every single thing he’s begged for.
It would seem that the government are a tad disappointed in the lack of response to Dave’s appeal for “Business” to, “get out there and support those things.”
Because now; we have George appealing for business leaders to, “play a full part in the referendum debate.”
He said in Davos, that he could understand why companies might be “shy” about speaking out on the EU question, but added that; “business will have a big role. I would encourage you all to be active in that debate.”
Actually, he might “understand,” but I wonder why, “Companies might be “shy” about speaking out on the EU question,”
Could it be that most of them don’t actually agree with George, Dave and the Remainers?
But are afraid to say so?
………………………………………………………………………………….
The UK needs to control all immigration.
As John Redwood says, “We favour students, people with skills our economy needs, people with money and ideas to invest, and people with sufficient money to pay their own way.”
We don’t need just cheap labour, or any other demographic liable to be even more burdensome on our straining welfare, health, education & other public services.
Reducing or limiting welfare benefits will have no effect on migrating workers from the EUSSR. The main attraction of the UK to migrants from the rest of the EUSSR is the availability of jobs that pay more than they’d get at home. This attraction will be enhanced by the introduction of the living wage; increasing the numbers of migrants from the low-pay & high-unemployment areas of the EUSSR.
Remainers tend to welcome unlimited migration; seeing the plentiful supply of new, cheap labour as an advantageous, low-cost alternative to creating the apprenticeships and starter jobs that we need for UK citizens.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Remember, though it was Ted Heath’s Tories that conned us into the EEC; it was Harold Wilson’s Labour Government that fraudulently kept us in the mess that then grew into the EUSSR
Both Heath & Wilson well knew then, that the planned end-game was a United States of Europe
At both 1974 General Elections, Labour’s manifesto promised renegotiation of Britain’s terms of EEC membership, to be followed by a consultative referendum on continued membership under the new terms if they were acceptable.
Renegotiation followed by a referendum; now, doesn’t that sound familiar?
Sadly, then, as now, the renegotiation achieved nothing; some alterations to tariffs for New Zealand lamb etc, and other paltry promised changes that were purely cosmetic and soon forgotten. The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin by 11th March 1975;
Wilson declared;
“I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.”
The Referendum question was, “Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?”
Harold Wilson recommended that the British people vote “Yes.”
And they did.
Now we need to reverse that, and get out.
Brexit
But, this is a Referendum; not a General Election.
The Brexit campaign is NOT seeking to get rid of, or form a Government.
The Brexit campaign is just that; a campaign for Brexit!
We are campaigning to get the UK out of the EUSSR; to regain Democracy; to regain our National Political Sovereignty.
That would mean that for the first time in 44 years, our elected Government would be able, without interference from an unelected politburo, to make those decisions for us.
If Brexit is successful, it will be up to the UK Government, of whatever colour to answer those, and many other questions
That is why it is so stupid and irresponsible of the present Government not to have contingency plans in place, just in case.
……………………………………………………………………………….
£10 billion, that’s £10,000,000,000, is a lot of money.
Each year, every year we give that, NET, to the EUSSR
If we achieve Brexit; the UK will keep that.
One of the main questions that would follow a Brexit vote in the referendum is how should we spend this Brexit bonus?
The cautious will say let’s reduce the deficit by NOT spending it.
The adventurous who want more growth will say let’s all have a Brexit tax cut, so we individually get to spend it because we pay less Income tax; a form of quantitative easing.
Those worried about the costs of health, schools and social services will say let’s boost our caring and educational services with some more spending.
We will be able to keep or spend the £10 billion and still give exactly the same amounts to farmers, universities etc as the EUSSR currently gives them now.
John Redwood suggests, that we discuss the question now, “The important thing is to open this debate. It’s good for morale to be discussing a better financial picture than the current one. It will remind all in the debate of a very positive large gain from exit.”
I’m not so sure that it is a question for now, but it might be an idea to ask the Remainers what they think is going to happen to our contributions if they win.
Recent years has shown remorseless pressure; changes of the rules & methods of calculation to get more money out of the UK.
How much more will be demanded from the UK to help the EUSSR meet the costs of the economic failures of the Euro?
How much more will we be expected to pay towards the recovery plans for the countries plunged into poverty by the Euro?
Our opponents will, no doubt claim we will have to pay something outside the club.
Why would that be true?
Most of the world trades quite successfully with the EUSSR without paying a penny or a cent into EUSSR funds.
There is absolutely no need for the UK to pay anything for the privilege of importing so much from Germany.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
24th January
…………………………………………………………………………………….
The BSE campaign has been touring the big US investment banks cap in hand asking for money.
Both JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have pledged six-figure sums to the Remain-in-at-all-costs camp.
These are the same banks that crashed the world economy then were bailed out by the British Tax-payers.
These are the same banks that paid their executives huge bonuses with that money.
These are the same banks that said they would leave London if we didn’t join the euro.
They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Tony Blair, who gave away £10 billion of our rebate, now pockets £2 million a year advising JP Morgan.
Goldman Sachs famously made billions out of cheating Greece’s accounts to get them into the Euro.
The only way to get a deal that helps you rather than big banks is Brexit; do you want to pay for bankers’ bonuses or spend our money on UK priorities?
…………………………………………………………………………………
Stephen Crabb, the Welsh Secretary,
(who wasn’t yet born on 1st January 1973, when the UK joined the EEC; on 5th June 1975, the date of the EEC Referendum, he was 2; he was first elected MP in 2005, 32 years after we joined the EEC)
Has always extolled the benefits of EUSSR membership, saying it is ‘a huge strategic advantage’ for Wales; now warns both sides in the referendum not to “bully” the electorate.
In a speech on Thursday, according to the Telegraph, apparently he will tell business leaders: “Anything that smells of ‘project fear’ from either side will fail.”
It’s probably best he tells David Cameron, as well…
…………………………………………………………………………………
Sir Nicholas Soames; MP since 1983;
Grandson of the man who in 1940 said, “We shall never surrender;”
A known Europhile, who was one of John Major’s ‘heavies’ in putting-down the Maastricht Rebels;
Warns that the potential rise in migration has been severely underestimated and calls for an end to the “open-door policy”, which they say poses a risk to “social cohesion”.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he warns that the migration crisis might make it “extremely difficult” for Mr Cameron to win the referendum.
NOT to be trusted;
He is NOT a Brexit supporter; merely calling for something that might make Cameron “winning” the referendum easier…
…………………………………………………………………………………
23rd January
Speaking on his LBC Radio, Nigel Farage said that the only success Mr Cameron had was to get “his big corporate mates” to say “we’re going to back you Prime Minister”.
He added: “Already this week Goldman Sachs have announced a big donation to the keep Britain in the EU campaign, JP Morgan have decided they’re going to put a big lump of money into keeping us part of the EU. He’s with his big mates in Davos who will shove millions into his campaign to keep us into the EU. And what you’ve got here is the unholy alliance of the big banks and big politics. Those very same big banks that behaved appallingly and had to be bailed out back in 2008; They’re going to tell us what to do in the future and my advice is we should ignore them.”
…………………………………………………………………………………..
BSE claim: “The EU has invested millions in important projects in London, including cultural programmes at the British Museum, £20 million funding for the cable car from the O2 to the Docklands and vital HIV and cancer research projects at London universities.”
But they fail to mention that this largesse is just a fraction of the billions we plough into the EUSSR each year, returned to us, so that their pet projects can then be labelled “EU Funded”
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Liam Fox has launched the national Grass-roots Out (GO) campaign to persuade voters to leave the EUSSR.
He said that he wanted to live in a country that was, “…an independent sovereign nation again.”
He condemned the “project fear” tactics of Cameron & The Remainers who have argued that British national security would be undermined by leaving the EUSSR.
“The real threat to security comes from uncontrolled migration and Europe’s open borders policy,” he said.
Dr Fox said he was “sad” and “angry” to see “a British Prime Minister take the begging bowl around the capitals of Europe just to change the benefit laws in our country”.
“The very best that the Prime Minister can get in this renegotiation is better membership of the wrong club,” he said. “It is not worthless but it is not a reason to stay in the European Union.”
Dr Fox said he wanted for Britain the same power that Americans, Canadians and Australians have to make their own laws, “control their own borders” and “to set their own destiny”.
“If you cannot make your own laws, if you cannot control your own borders, you are not an independent, sovereign nation and I want to live in an independent sovereign nation.”
He condemned the “pro-EU establishment peddling fear to the people of our country” and saying Britain’s security would at risk outside the EU.
“Let me tell you, as a former defence secretary, our security does not lie in the European Union,” he said. “The cornerstone of our security is NATO. It is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe since World War 2.”
In fact, Dr Fox argued, the EU was a threat to Britain’s security because the UK has to “pay directly for the failure of the euro project”, and is exposed to the risks of uncontrolled immigration.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Dominic Cummings, of Vote Leave, has said of Cameron’s renegotiations with the Euro-rats of the EUSSR, “This process has not been about trying to get fundamental change of the EU, or fundamental change of Britain’s relationship with the EU, or to solve the big problems of the EU. It is about how David Cameron manages his own personal interests and the internal politics of the Conservative Party. I think everyone pretty much realises that!”
“If you go back and look at what he has said over the years, nine tenths of the various promises haven’t even made it into his negotiation document, including all the big ones.”
“For example the Charter of Fundamental Rights; He gave a cast-iron promise that there would be “a total opt-out” from that. It’s not even in his four baskets.”
Tony Blair famously said it would have no more legal force than The Sun or The Beano
But, “As lots of American voices have pointed out, it gives the ECJ a lot more power over EU member states than the Supreme Court has over the states of America.”
“When Cameron comes back and declares victory, the reality will be that approximately nothing serious has changed in our relationship and the referendum will really be about: do we think this organisation is worthwhile?”
“If we weren’t members now would we join or would we look at it and say: “this thing is a basket case”?”
“From the government’s point of view, David Cameron will have to explain why he has changed his mind.
“He promised fundamental change, and there isn’t fundamental change. I think all reasonable people, including those on the Pro side, will accept that.”
“There is a widespread assumption that we have to use the Article 50 process, and that has a lot of risks. That is not true. We do not have to use the Article 50 process. There is a whole set of things like that that will come out during the course of the referendum.”
“Everyone holds up the Single Market as a wonderful thing without usually realising what it is. A rule brought in under the Single Market a decade or so ago was the Clinical Trials Directive. This regulates how the testing of drugs, including cancer drugs, operates in this country. There is no rationale whatsoever why, from the point of view of international trade, how a country organises the testing of cancer drugs should be an issue for supranational regulation.”
“We have something very valuable in Britain: civil servants try and stick to the law. They don’t want to cheat things, they don’t want to lie and they don’t want to do things the way they do things in lots of other European countries. And that has been very good for the country. One of the things I found most depressing in government was seeing how the EU process is corrupting that and making it extremely hard for people to stay honest. Ministers constantly have to lie about what the origins of things are. They constantly have to invent Potemkin processes. And civil servants say: “as good civil servants, we have to tell you that our advice is that this may be illegal.” And because it’s Britain and not Greece the ministers don’t just say “screw that, who cares if it’s legal?”; they have to take that seriously. There’s an inherent problem with this and there is no way out of it unfortunately while we stay part of the EU system.”
“There is a clear way in which we come to a new deal: we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and the supremacy of EU law, we negotiate a free trade deal with the EU (which is in all of our interests), we also have sensible laws on the free movement of people. At the moment government immigration policy is arguably the most stupid policy that we have. It is a free-for-all that doesn’t even stop convicted murderers from coming into the country from Europe; meanwhile it stops physicists from Caltech or software engineers from India coming in who can build things, who can contribute in valuable ways to this country as immigrants have done historically.”
“That is extremely stupid and extremely damaging, and outside the EU we would have a much more rational immigration system that would not do those things. Businesses that want to trade with the Single Market could trade with the Single Market but the rest of the domestic economy and the economy that is trading with the rest of the world would not have to abide by things like that stupid Clinical Trials Directive or “you can’t sell olive oil in barrels of more than five litres”.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
2016 could not bring a more important challenge.
The coming EUSSR referendum will define our country’s future.
The choice at the referendum will be to continue down the road of Ever Closer Union to a United States of Europe, or to have the freedom to make our own laws and determine our own destiny as those in so many other countries outside the EUSSR are able to do.
It is clear the EUSSR won’t even contemplate “Fundamental Change” in how they operate, so one thing is certain, when the referendum comes the status quo will not be a choice.
Widespread reform of the European Union is not going to be on offer — the continuing crisis of the euro and the shambles of open borders are taking up all the attention of EU leaders.
Many men and women across this country simply believe that too many of our laws are drafted overseas and imposed upon us without our consent.
The EUSSR is an artificial political construct which has existed for only a few decades.
To be sceptical about the EUSSR is not in any way to be anti-European.
What we need is a European system where we work together when it is in our mutual interest to do so, but are free to act separately when our unique national interests require it.
Unfortunately, such a loose model, more like the Common Market that we entered in the Seventies, will not be on offer at the coming referendum.
Already the pro-EUSSR political establishment has launched “Project Fear” with its scare stories and trying to make us believe that we cannot stand on our own two feet if we are outside the European Union.
The alliance of pro-European politicians, Banks, large international corporations and hordes of unelected Euro-rats tell us that we cannot be “isolated” or “go it alone” outside the EUSSR.
We would no more be going it alone than Australia or Canada or Norway or Switzerland.
Before the Common Market even existed, the UK was at the heart of a vast Commonwealth.
Today many of its members, such as Canada, India and Australia, have done very much better than many of EUSSR members.
The UK is also a permanent member of the Security Council, a key partner in NATO (not least because of our independent nuclear deterrent), a member of the G7 and G20 and has a special relationship with the US
Let’s be clear, the EUSSR is committed to being an increasingly integrated United States of Europe.
Make no mistake, “ever closer union” means exactly what it says.
We have just had proposals to establish a single European border force which can be deployed by the unelected Politburo in Brussels, even against the wishes of independent sovereign governments.
There can be no clearer warning sign of the longer-term intent, whatever the denials.
Why do the pro-EUSSR establishment increasingly want the UK’s laws to be made by unelected official overseas rather than by our own Parliament?
Why does it want control over UK borders to be determined somewhere other than the UK?
A country that cannot control its own borders cannot be truly independent.
The disgusting events in Cologne and other cities were a shock to Germany.
Most of the suspects are asylum seekers.
We in Britain need to understand that when the million-plus migrants gain citizenship of any EUSSR country they will all have a right to come to the UK.
And, if we remain a member of the EUSSR, there’s nothing we can do about it.
It is time to face up to the real choice, to have the destiny of our country determined by a Politburo in Brussels, or to give our children and grandchildren the freedom to shape their own future in an Independent, Democratic, Sovereign Nation.
………………………………………………………………………………….
A fortnight ago, David Cameron, who will lead the ‘remain’ campaign, come what may; launching “Project Fear” said that leaving the EUSSR is “not just a matter of jobs and trade but of the safety and security of our nation.”
The suggestion that it is the EU which has kept Britain safe from its enemies is one which Mr Cameron must find hard to make with a straight face. After all, when, absurdly, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the EU, he didn’t even bother to join the other EUSSR heads of government in Stockholm to collect the award.
He said then, quite correctly, that NATO was the main thing which had kept us safe.
In fact, the ambition of the EU to become a super-state, with its own army backing its own strategic objectives, is a challenge to NATO, not an attempt to strengthen the U.S.-led Western Alliance.
In his new book, “The UK’s In-Out Referendum: EU Foreign And Defence Policy Reform,” Dr David Owen declares: “If the only option in the forthcoming UK referendum becomes a minimalist renegotiation, in effect, window dressing and a disguised status quo, there is a real chance that the British people will, and in my view should, vote to leave the EU … to pretend that this country is too weak politically, economically and militarily to vote to leave the EU is absurd and deserves to be laughed out of court.”
But it is the military aspect, at the heart of the issue of ‘security’, which concerns most. British strategic interests are not the same as those of a number of other European countries, which are bound together in the Schengen ‘open border zone’, and yet there is a drive towards removing national vetoes on EU foreign and defence policy, as was prefigured in the Lisbon Treaty of 2007.
NATO has long been dominated by the vast U.S. military machine. The advocates of the EU as a single political and economic entity had always resented this: their countries’ miserly contributions to its budget reflect that fact. Yet there is not the slightest suggestion that they are actually prepared to put the resources into a ‘European army’ which would even begin to match up to their claims for influence.
If we were engaged in a defensive military conflict against an aggressor, who would you want as our closest ally and partner, the U.S. or the EU?
Thus, when the new Polish foreign minister said his country might accept Cameron’s demand for a four-year ban on in-work benefits for migrants to the UK from the EU, but only in return for more protection for Poland against Putin’s rapidly growing army, did he ask for a deployment of the vaunted ‘EU Rapid Reaction Force?’
No, he did not. He called for NATO.
Our status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has nothing whatever to do with our being a member of the EUSSR. It pre-dated that and would post-date it.
Above all, in the increasingly cyber-based nature of modern military strategy, Britain’s security is most vitally maintained and enhanced by our membership of ‘Five Eyes,’ the intelligence-gathering co-operation comprising the U.S., the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Again, that has zero to do with our membership of the EUSSR.
Truly, as David Owen says, the idea that our military security would be weakened by leaving the EUSSR “deserves to be laughed out of court.”
21st January
More chaos impending for the UK’s already imperilled immigration imbroglio;
Migrants in Calais have been given the green light to use European Human Rights laws to join their relatives who are already living in the UK.
In a decision that will have far-reaching implications for our border controls, the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in central London, having heard that the men all faced “intolerable” conditions in the camp and were desperate to be reunited with their siblings in Britain, ordered that four Syrian refugees living in “The Jungle” camp in Calais are brought immediately into the UK, because of their “right to a family life.”
The ruling appears to significantly widen the scope of the Human Rights Act, meaning that migrants can now use the act to argue that right to a family life encompasses siblings as well as dependents.
How long before that includes cousins, second-cousins, brother-in-law’s aunt’s cousin’s, ad infinitum?
Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher border controls, said: “The decision is simply wrong. It will encourage more and more to bypass the system for asylum.”
Meanwhile, there was fury over the EU’s attempt to change the rules which have allowed Britain to deport around 12,000 migrants since 2003.
On 20th January, the EUSSR decreed that the UK must accept its “quota” of migrants, approximately 90,000 refugees. If we refuse to accept the quota, the EUSSR has threatened that the UK will no longer be able to use the “Dublin Regulation” to deport foreigners illegally entering the country.
The Dublin Regulation is an agreement under which EUSSR member states are able to return refugees to the first EUSSR country they arrived in.
However, just as with any agreement that proves to be a bit awkward, the EUSSR’s unelected Politburo has torn it up and David Cameron’s bid to renegotiate our terms of membership lies in tatters.
European leaders are “so concerned” about the crisis that they might extend their February summit to discuss the situation, prompting fears that talks over the British referendum could be overshadowed.
Juncker’s Junta has dictated that henceforth the Dublin Agreement is conditional on member states accepting their imposed quotas of refugees. Senior Conservatives warned that there will be “chaos” in Calais because the changes to EU rules would create a “fast track for migrants” trying to enter the UK. The EU rule change will see thousands more refugees/migrants attempting to make the journey to the UK because there will be no chance of them being deported.
One Eurosceptic minister said: “What this shows is that when there are real issues that affect other countries in the European Union, in particular in areas like the Eurozone and Schengen, what matters to Britain is just an afterthought.”
Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, said: “We are very concerned by the noises coming out the Commission about changes to the Dublin agreement.”
Liam Fox, the former Conservative defence secretary, told ITV News: “What it would mean is a fast track for migrants coming to Northern Europe, including the United Kingdom. You can imagine the chaos you might see at places like Calais were that to happen.”
Peter Bone, Tory MP for Wellingborough, added: “Changing the rules would mean if migrants get into this country they cannot be sent back.
“It sends completely the wrong message. Thousands of migrants try and get their way in by storming the Channel Tunnel if this happens.”
Cameron’s old manifesto aim of cutting net arrivals from the current 336,000 a year to fewer than 100,000 was never convincing; but the Euro-rats’ move to coerce us into accepting a quota of 90,000 asylum seekers a year from the Middle East and Africa, while continuing to offer open access to EUSSR citizens, makes a complete mockery of his hopes.
It also exposes the futility of his negotiating stance, under which he seeks to discourage mass immigration merely by restricting EUSSR nationals’ access to British benefits. A fat lot of difference such tinkering will make, given the scale of the demographic tsunami facing us. With forecasts that up to four million migrants could reach Europe by the end of 2016, and quotas based on the size & economic factors, including employment stats, the UK’s quota will easily reach at least 160,000.
But on 20th January, Downing Street said that it will not agree to any system of quotas; we’ll see…
The message has gone out loud and clear from the Politburo: ‘We in the EUSSR, not the UK Parliament or British people, will decide who settles in the UK; if you refuse to cooperate, we will end your right to deport to their point of entry to the EUSSR.’
Without the ability to deport migrants under the Dublin rules, thousands of foreigners massing in Calais will have an extra incentive to attempt the journey to Britain.
This arbitrary Politburo move is disgracefully unjust, since Mr Cameron has displayed far more wisdom on the refugee crisis than any others in the EUSSR. It was his humane plan only to welcome families (not young single men) chosen from refugee camps on Syria’s borders. Thus, he hoped to deter asylum seekers from risking the lethal sea crossing to Greece and Italy.
An added advantage was that by vetting refugees in the camps, we could reduce the risk of importing terrorists and other undesirables.
But Angular Merkel had other ideas; in a perhaps politically fatal lapse of judgment, she threw open Germany’s borders to all.
The results have been as calamitous as they were predictable: a tidal wave of migrants, mostly men of working age, sweeping across Europe in quest of better lives. Among them, of course, are some who have brought with them religious animosities (not to mention a lascivious contempt for Western women).
No wonder Italy and Greece have been unable to cope, defying the Dublin Agreement in an act of self-preservation by waving migrants through without vetting.
Too late, after the mass sex attacks in Germany on New Year’s Eve, Mrs Merkel has realised her blunder.
Yet instead of strengthening border controls on Europe’s furthest shores, she is conspiring with the Commission to make all EU countries take a share of the new arrivals, according to population size and jobless rates.
Which brings us to the most bitter irony of all; As yesterday’s hugely encouraging jobs figures show (and much credit to George Osborne) this country is doing extraordinarily well. But this, in turn, makes us more attractive to migrants willing to work for low wages.
Indeed, the steady rise in real pay is stalling, while youth unemployment remains disturbingly high at 13.7 per cent, as settlers take the starter jobs.
Yet this is the context in which the Euro-rats seek to blackmail us into accepting tens of thousands more migrants, against voters’ express wishes.
As has been said; ‘If this is how they treat us now, before our referendum, imagine how they’d treat us if we voted to stay.’
Isn’t it looking increasingly as if we can kiss goodbye to any pretence of controlling our national destiny while we remain in the Brussels club? Panicking Europhile Ministers have said that it is now imperative that Mr Cameron holds a June referendum, warning that an escalation of the migrant crisis over the summer months would see the Brexit campaign succeed if the vote is delayed.
Meanwhile; BSE has sent pamphlets to 10 million homes.
It contains the usual selection of Remainers half-truths, lies and meaningless twaddle.
Including; “Being in the EU makes it cheaper to import vital goods from the EU, which means lower prices for every family.”
Tory backbencher Philip Davies said, “The only way food bills would go up is if David Cameron or whoever is Prime Minister put tariffs on food imports from the EU. Any prime minister who did that shouldn’t be prime minister and if it won’t happen then it just shows the claim is false. This ludicrous suggestion also completely ignores the fact that the biggest increase to food bills is the EU’s discredited Common Agriculture Policy.”
It also regurgitated the old scare-mongering lie that; “If we left the EU, 3 million jobs will be lost in Britain.”
This was first touted 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.”
That was an out-and-out lie.
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.”
What the treasury was referring to was a report by the then-director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, Martin Weale, which the old campaign for Britain to join the euro used to threaten the public.
As Arron Banks has pointed out; then as now, saying jobs are linked to trade with EUSSR members is quite different from saying jobs are dependent on EUSSR membership.
Martin Weale himself described the Europhiles’ interpretation of his work as “absurd”.
“It’s pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts…
Nobody could plausibly believe the figures [and] there is no reason why being outside the EU should necessarily involve mass unemployment.”
Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EUSSR, all our trade with those 27 other member-countries will immediately stop.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Will Straw, from “BSE”, faced Caroline Drewett, the “Leave.EU” Small Business Ambassador, in an on-line debate yesterday.
In that debate, Will Straw said, “We are not just better off in Europe; we are safer too.”
I very much doubt that the women of Cologne, Hamburg, Helsinki, Paris, Salzburg & Zurich felt very much safer by being in the EUSSR when they were sexually assaulted, over the New Year, in seemingly co-ordinated attacks, by gangs of Middle Eastern men.
In Cologne alone, on New Year’s Eve, around 500 “Arab and North African” men reportedly raped, sexually molested and robbed 90 German women.
Those young men in Cologne, in a few years time, will have EUSSR passports and be free to come to Britain
Described as the “Migrant Rape Epidemic”; in this instance the EUSSR is to blame, though its leaders are said to be unwilling to admit the cause: Brussels policy on open borders immigration and migrant quotas; and Angular’s stupid invitation for the refugee tsunami to come to Europe.
Over 1.4 million people are believed to have entered Europe from the Middle East and North Africa in 2015.
EUSSR bosses have been unusually silent on the issue of the migrant rape epidemic, with no statements about it from Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council or Martin Schultz, the President of the European Parliament.
The news that the EUSSR is unable or unwilling to deal with such a serious problem and major global news story comes as no surprise to us Europhobes; because we know that the organisation is not interested in the people of Europe, just political expansionism, the career political classes, and the European elite; the Euro-rats.
Daily Telegraph commentator, Allison Pearson, who said she had been undecided on Brexit, wrote, “The EU referendum is about nothing less than the safety & security of British women; we the Euro-clueless need to woman-up and vote for the right of our daughters & granddaughters to live as they choose & to smile in the street; no more Mrs-don’t-know, let’s get the hell out; I hope 2016 is our year of deliverance.”
Will went on; “Co-operation with our European allies through Europol allows us to fight international crime and terrorism more effectively.”
Somehow I don’t think the French would agree; that wasn’t exactly their experience in Paris, either at Charlie Hebdo or at the Bataclan Theatre.
The former attack, by terrorists of ‘al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular;’ and the latter, by ‘Daesh;’ found the EUSSR’s lack of borders, and the Schengen freedom to travel, totally ineffective in controlling or impeding the movement of Islamist fighters, plus their weapons, across continental Europe. And the Angular Merkel-invited swarm of refugees helped their entry into Europe
Even former Interpol chief Robert Noble has condemned the Schengen Area as “effectively an international passport-free zone for terrorists.”
He warned that the lack of EUSSR control over borders “is like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe.”
Will then said, “And we have deported over 5,000 criminals to EU countries under the European Arrest Warrant. By standing together with our European partners, we keep Britain’s streets safer.”
First countries don’t “deport” under the European Arrest Warrant. Leaving aside its rights & wrongs, it’s an “Arrest” warrant; as its name implies suspects are arrested, and then extradited by the issuing country. What he meant to say was over 5,000 criminals, wanted in other EUSSR countries have been extradited; including Welsh teenager Andrew Symeou, extradited to a vermin-infested, Greek prison where he was held without trial for almost a year on bogus charges, without the British authorities ever getting a chance to evaluate the case against him.
To be clear, the EAW has seen just under 700 criminals brought to charges in the UK Since it was first implemented in 2004
Meanwhile, a Freedom of Information request from 2011 revealed that criminals across the EU are taking advantage of free movement to carry out 500 crimes in Britain every week.
That is about 25,000 a year; about 255,000 since 2004; and we’ve successfully employed the EAW 700 times!
It makes more sense to control our borders to reduce crime than to have an arrest warrant that could easily be replaced by international agreements that protect our citizens.
A bit later on, Will said, “None of the ‘Leave’ campaigns have a thought-through plan for leaving. They do not know what our relationship with the EU would be if we left, how we would retain free access to the single market, or how we could deal with international problems better by cutting ourselves off from our allies.”
My answer to that is the same as that I gave to George Osbourne when he made a similar comment.
George said:
“There are people advocating that we leave in that referendum. They are going to have to answer the question what is the alternative, are we going to have free movement of people, are we going to have to pay into the European budget in order to have access to their market in any way.”
And I replied,
“No, George, actually we do NOT have to answer those questions. This is a Referendum; not a General Election. The Brexit campaign is NOT seeking to form a Government. The Brexit campaign is just that; a campaign for Brexit! We are campaigning to get the UK out of the EUSSR; to regain Democracy; to regain our National Political Sovereignty.”
“That would mean that for the first time in 44 years, our elected Government would be able, without interference from an unelected politburo, to make those decisions for us. If Brexit is successful, it will be up to the UK Government at the time, to answer those, and many other questions”
“That is why it is so stupid, reckless and irresponsible of the present Government not to have contingency plans in place, just in case.”
Leaving the EUSSR would leave our own parliament and legal system as sovereign.
We would be in charge of our own borders.
We would have our own representatives on key international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation.
We would be outside the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.
We would no longer have to pay our current very heavy net membership dues, nor would we be in danger of being second class members of a United States of Europe because we were not in the Euro.
…………………………………………………………………………………
20th January
“Cynical and Negative” is how John Redwood describes “Cameron & The Remainers” campaign so far; leaving many Undecideds, “…struggling over whether an independent UK would be stronger and more influential, or isolated and sidelined.”
It is important to debunk their lies and myths.
The UK’s power will not be diminished one iota by Brexit.
First off, when we stop handing the EUSSR fifty smackers a week, we’ll have more of our own money to spend; that is a gain
We will still have the same economic strength, the same income and the same armed forces the day after as the day before.
We will not be less secure.
Our defences will still rest on our own armed forces, our own vigilance, and our partnership with NATO.
We will still have the same “Five eyes” intelligence sharing arrangements with our allies; the UK will still be a leading member of NATO, just not in the EUSSR.
“Five Eyes,” UK intelligence sharing with the US, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, is nothing to do with the EUSSR.
When Poland’s Foreign Minister suggested that Warsaw could accept Cameron’s proposal for a four-year ban on in-work benefits for EUSSR migrants in exchange for greater protection against the Russian threat, what he was asking for was NATO troops in NATO bases, not the deployment of an EUSSR Rapid Reaction Force.
The claim that the EUSSR is the source of peace within Europe is historically illiterate, scaremongering tosh.
As Steve Baker, MP for Wycombe, has pointed out NATO is basis of Britain’s national security policy; countering those arguing that leaving the EU would make the UK less safe.
NATO which includes non-EUSSR states like, Norway, USA and Turkey, was founded in 1949, well before the Treaty of Rome, and continues to guarantee the peace of Europe even now.
Far from keeping Europe secure, attempts by the EUSSR to create a common European army threaten to undermine European security by rivalling NATO, while EUSSR austerity policies, particularly in the Mediterranean, have inflamed resentments and created tensions between member states.
This is ‘Project Fear’ in action; disappointing but not surprising.
Far from having less influence over trade and commerce, following Brexit, the UK will regain her rightful place at the top trade tables of the world.
Instead of being represented, or more accurately, misrepresented by an unelected EUSSR official, the UK will once again have her own seats on these global bodies.
That will undoubtedly give us more influence.
The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy (soon to be 4th) and would be able to negotiate deals with other large economies like the USA, India and China; contrary to the absurd claims of some; that we would be unable to negotiate independent trade deals.
For years the EUSSR has desperately been trying to negotiate a free-trade deal with the US (it still is): does that suggest it is somehow opposed to close commercial ties with states outside its own customs union?
Above all, it seems to have eluded scaremongers that the country with consistently the highest employment rates in Europe . . . isn’t in the EUSSR. This is Switzerland, which has negotiated a series of bilateral trade treaties with the EU, and which pays a fraction of the fees Britain does for full membership.
The chorus of continued Europhile scaremongering was joined yesterday by the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.
She penned a sentimental article in which she asked us to think of “our children” who would be “cut off from the world” in the event of Brexit.
We will not be “…cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.”
By leaving the EUSSR the UK can reconnect with the rest of the world, in our own right.
John Redwood also makes the point, “We will be taken more seriously by Germany and France from outside, as they will no longer be able to sideline and outvote us as they can all the time we remain in.”
As Leave.EU Co-Founder, Arron Banks has said, “The United Kingdom is a great country; we can stand on our own two feet on the world stage.
That’s the normal condition for every advanced democracy outside the European Union;
That’s not a “leap in the dark.”
…………………………………………………………………………………
Yet more regulation from the EUSSR damaging UK businesses…
Rules preventing venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes from buying out the management of failing businesses or undertaking acquisitions came into effect before Christmas, as part of the Finance Act 2015. Naturally, like 75% of UK law, these rules came from the EUSSR, which believes venture capital should only invest in new companies under a certain age.
“One of the things the EUSSR hated about the UK was that our venture capital industry was able to support management buyouts. That was the evil that European bureaucrats didn’t like,” says David Kaye of Puma Investments, a venture capital firm.
Close to my heart, Pubs are the sector likely to be hardest hit by the changes, as venture capital investment has proven invaluable for the flailing industry in the last decade.
Pubs, having in past decades suffered the double whammy of the quite legitimate Breathalyser Legislation and the more doubtful Smoking Ban, are nowadays facing stiff competition from supermarkets selling cheap booze. Many have closed as a result.
Some have been forced close to bankruptcy, and specialist investors have clubbed together in enterprise investment schemes to turn them around.
Investors would spend hundreds of thousands on re-fitting premises and installing mod-cons such as microbreweries, which would attract a different crowd when the pub re-opened.
But that kind of investment is now closed off.
“Even if a pub is on its knees, is doing terribly and dying, it is considered a trading asset,” explains Steven Kenee of enterprise investors Downing, adding that this would likely make it ineligible for investment to save it.
“This change is going to be massive. Enterprise investment was a route that an awful lot of pub companies used. It brought life and soul back into high streets that were dying. There is going to be a huge gap in the market for funding.”
Although the rules came into effect before Christmas, they are yet to be tested, leaving uncertainty over how they work in practice. “Today, under the rules, there is a grey area,” says Kaye.
Kenee adds: “The rules say enterprise investors are not allowed to approach a trading business. But we just don’t know how they are going to be taken in practice… It’s a new world.”
…………………………………………………………………………………..
The UK’s membership of the EUSSR is the source of many, many problems; most of which I am well aware of.
But one that hadn’t even occurred to me involves the licensing of taxi drivers.
To obtain a license, cab drivers must pass a criminal background check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS, previously known as CRB, the Criminal Records Bureau). But the playing field is dangerously far from level when it comes to checks for drivers from elsewhere in the EUSSR.
It is a straightforward process for UK residents. The DBS keeps on file every single criminal offence. Any offences committed by a prospective employee can be easily pulled up and checked against set criteria.
Non-UK residents have to contact the equivalent of the DBS in their home country, usually via the embassy in London.
The details are then sent to the UK. The picture can then become very foggy as very few countries in Europe keep as scrupulous records as in Britain. For instance, in both Germany and Belgium, after three years crimes that led to a jail sentence of six months or less are no longer kept on file.
Sentences are generally shorter in mainland Europe too. In Germany the penalty for indecent assault of a child is often less than six months jail time. So it is not inconceivable, even quite likely that a convicted child-molester from the EUSSR could obtain a taxi license in London.
In fact, a whole host of crimes may fail to show up on a DBS check, crimes that would invalidate an application for a taxi license if the authorities were aware of them.
Scott Kimber, a London cabbie for 20 years is naturally all too aware of this problem; writing in an article for “Leave.EU” he says, “Someone who has committed some very serious crimes could quite easily arrive in the UK, apply for a taxi drivers’ license, pass their DBS and the next day they’ll be driving vulnerable passengers around London, or anywhere in the UK for that matter.”
The blame lies with the EUSSR because the UK isn’t allowed to put in place a system that discriminates against EU drivers.
“For instance,” Scott continues, “We undergo DBS checks every three years to retain our licenses. A good way to filter out the dangerous characters would be to ban applications from people who lived in the UK for less than three years, or more, preferably. Even then, a dodgy character would be able to slip through the net. Basically, the only way to ensure the system is safe is to leave the EU. It sounds dramatic, but that’s the reality.”
Then I experienced another “Light bulb moment”!
But on this occasion, I have to admit this bulb in question must have been one of those long-life energy-saving things the EUSSR insists on…
Starting as a very dull luminescence; it was fully 20 minutes before the full glare struck me;
This problem extends far beyond licensing taxi drivers…
Since my retirement I have had to submit details for these checks on three occasions; as a School Governor; as a Director of a Housing Association and as a Community Transport driver. (Don’t fret, as an ex-copper I was declared ‘clean’ each time.)
But there are hundreds of jobs that require these checks.
Does this anomaly mean that there are convicted child-molesters, from EUSSR nations working in the UK as Teachers, Doctors, or Social workers; or in any other sector involving the vulnerable?
Do we know?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
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?)
Anyway BSE have punted out some pamphlets; as expected they contain a lot of spurious scaremongering; that’s “Lies”
You may or may not know that in the Houses of Parliament, it’s against the rules to call someone a “Liar,” or describe what they say as a “Lie.”
Churchill famously once tried to circumvent this rule by describing one opponent’s statement as a “Terminological Inexactitude.”
But, believing, (when the Race Relations Act permits,) in calling a spade a spade, I will stay with “Lie.”
Spurious scaremongering “Lie” # 1: ‘Benefits of EUSSR membership are worth £3,000 per year to every household’
BSE use research by the EUSSR-funded CBI to claim that the average household is better off because of the EUSSR. This research is flawed. As “Channel 4’s FactCheck” concluded in 2013 when it was first published, ‘this very precise number is not based on any real evidence’. They noted that the EUSSR-funded CBI’s estimate was ‘way more optimistic than most other estimates, and we don’t really know how the EUSSR-funded CBI researchers have arrived at this figure.’ That won’t stop BSE though, will it? Why worry about truth when it’s the story that counts?
Spurious scaremongering “Lie” # 2: ‘Cost of imports would increase if we left the EU’
BSE stupidly assume that we won’t get a free trade deal with the EUSSR. Such a deal is obviously in the interests of EUSSR member states, which sell us £61.7 billion more in goods and services than we sell them. Even the pro-EU CBI has admitted that it is ‘highly likely’ that we will secure a free trade agreement. And why would any sane UK government put a tariff on imports from the EUSSR?
Spurious scaremongering “Lie” # 3: ‘Three million jobs are linked to trade with EUSSR’
This, as Americans might say, is a “Doozy.” It was touted 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.”
That was an out-and-out lie. 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.”
What the treasury was referring to was a report by the then-director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, Martin Weale, which the old campaign for Britain to join the euro used to threaten the public.
As Arron Banks has pointed out; then as now, saying jobs are linked to trade with EUSSR members is quite different from saying jobs are dependent on EUSSR membership. Martin Weale himself described the Europhiles’ interpretation of his work as “absurd”;
“It’s pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts…Nobody could plausibly believe the figures [and] there is no reason why being outside the EU should necessarily involve mass unemployment.”
Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EUSSR, all our trade with those 27 other member-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 EU, 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 EU!
Spurious scaremongering “Lie” # 4: ‘Countries that want access to Europe’s market must accept free movement’ (ie unlimited EUSSR migration)
This out-and-out lie is so patently ludicrous that I’m a bit, not-a-lot, but a bit surprised even BSE would spout it. Canada has a free trade deal with the EUSSR without having to accept unlimited EUSSR migration; South Korea has a free trade deal with the EUSSR without having to accept unlimited EUSSR migration; Peru has a free trade deal with the EUSSR without having to accept unlimited EUSSR migration; do I need to go on?
Spurious scaremongering “Lie” # 5: ‘Leaving the EUSSR would move our border controls from Calais to Dover’
Quite simply; France and Britain have negotiated bilateral deals whereby UK immigration officers are stationed in Calais. These agreements were made after we joined the EUSSR through separate old treaties between the UK and France, and are not related to our EUSSR membership at all.
……………………………………………………………………………………
Apparently “Cameron & The Remainers” are going to “Pull-a-Rabbit-out-of-a-Hat”
But Lord (Nigel) Lawson has instead, “Let-the-Cat-out-of-the-Bag”
There, two metaphors for the price of none!
The former chancellor, speaking of David Cameron’s so-called “Hard-fought renegotiations” has said;
“In my judgement, even if he gets 100 per cent of what he’s asked for… it is inconsequential, just as in 1975 Harold Wilson came back and conned the people of this country into believing he’d secured a fundamental reform when of course he hadn’t”
In a report in the Daily Mail, 17th January, we were told that David Cameron is “…poised to secure an emergency brake on immigration,” from the EUSSR
(Note to the Editor of the Daily Mail; Our country’s name is not “Britain;” it 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”)
An emergency brake on migration; an idea that was suggested by Cameron’s old school friend Boris Johnson, but had been dropped prior to Cameron’s begging trip to Europe; it wasn’t one of the four paltry “Demands” he set out with on his grovelling tour of Europe. Now apparently it is “…back under consideration.”
What exactly do they mean by “Emergency brake”?
An “Emergency brake” on a vehicle is the term Americans use for the hand-brake; employed by most of us the keep the vehicle stationary.
Stationary, ie unchanged, is not the situation the UK needs re immigration.
I suspect they mean some sort of temporary cessation of immigration from the EUSSR…
How long this brake would be held on for, they don’t say;
It is after all, supposed to be a surprise; a “Rabbit-out-of-a-Hat”
I suspect, just until the referendum is over or it is ruled out by the European Court of Justice, whichever is soonest.
The Daily Mail reporter continued, “Following the completion of the deal, the Sunday Times said Mr Cameron would press on with domestic law relating to the European Court.”
It has been suggested that Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, has been asked to amend the European Communities Act, 1972, to accommodate this “Emergency brake.”
The European Communities Act, (ECA) 1972 is the legislation that originally handed the EEC (now the EUSSR) and its European Court of Justice, precedence over the UK Parliament and UK Law respectively.
What, at the time, Tony Benn described as, “The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.”
The report continued, “Separate changes to UK law are expected to involve reforms to Britain’s relationship with the European Court of Justice to ensure Parliament is fully ‘sovereign’ in Britain.”
Utter Tosh! The UK Parliament hasn’t been “fully sovereign” since 1972.
The European Court of Justice deals in EUSSR law; not National laws; they have no effect on ECJ decisions. Once a country has signed over precedence to the ECJ, as in the ECA, 1972, that’s it;
Unless, EUSSR law is amended; requiring Treaty Change, as it would affect all 28 members; the ECJ can, and surely will rule any amendment to the ECA, 1972, that put a stop, temporary or otherwise, to EUSSR immigration; contrary to EUSSR law; ordering it to be “Unapplied.”
The Daily Mail report went on; “and agreements that …the UK’s membership should be confirmed as part of an ‘outer circle’.”
I take it that that would that be an outer circle of one; the UK circling aimlessly around the rest of the EUSSR like some sort of moon; or a vagrant hopelessly knocking on 27 doors, begging for handouts…
And Cameron et al think that would be an improvement?
Can he really imagine the British voting for that?
The report continued, “It is said that the 27 other EUSSR leaders would sign an agreement re-branding Britain as a different sort of member in a two-tier Europe.”
Some sort of second class member; 27 members at the top table and the UK, alone or sitting with the servants?
I say again, “And Cameron et al think that would be an improvement?”
“Can he really imagine the British voting for that?”
Anyway, this too, would be thrown out by the ECJ; even if, as I suspect will be suggested, such a document is deposited with the UN. The ECJ has previously ruled that it is not bound by such agreements, unless accompanied by Treaty Change. It has also ruled that it is not bound by UN resolutions.
“Tory grandee,” and noted Europhile Ken Clarke; President of the Conservative Europe Group; Co-President of the pro-EUSSR body British Influence and Vice-President of the European Movement UK, said; “I expect a deal to be done at the EU summit next month.”
Yes, we all do, but let’s remember what Nigella’s dad just said;
“In my judgement, even if he gets 100 per cent of what he’s asked for… it is inconsequential, just as in 1975 Harold Wilson came back and conned the people of this country into believing he’d secured a fundamental reform when of course he hadn’t”
And I’d trust his “Judgement” more than any of “Cameron & The Remainers”
………………………………………………………………………………………
David Cameron having decided to bring back “Project Fear” got me thinking about “Fear”
And I had a light-bulb moment…
I realised that it is the Government that is frightened. They want us to be scared about leaving the EUSSR. But it’s them; they are the ones that are scared about leaving. They are actually frightened about Brexit.
They are frightened of suddenly being totally accountable. None of them have ever experienced true parliamentary democracy. They don’t know what National Sovereignty actually is, because they’ve never experienced that either. They have never had to make decisions as a Government on its own, without Big Brother’s help. Not one member of the cabinet has ever served in a UK Government that has had to make its own decisions. Not many of them will even remember a UK Government that did. And that frightens them
Michael Fallon (63) and Ian Duncan Smith (62) were 20 & 18 respectively when we joined the EEC on 1st January 1973. The day Tony Benn described as, ““The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.” David Cameron was 6 and George Osborne was 1 year & 7 months old. Liz Truss, Environment Secretary and Stephen Crabb, Secretary for Wales weren’t yet born.
Fallon & IDS are also the only two that were old enough to vote in the 1975 Referendum, on 5th June 1975. Fallon at 23 was a student activist on the “Yes” campaign, and the 21-year-old IDS was commissioned into the Scots Guards as a Second-Lieutenant, just three weeks after the referendum. Fallon is also the longest serving Cabinet member becoming an MP in 1983, 10 years after we joined the EEC, and surrendered our sovereignty and democracy. All but six ministers were first elected this century, to a parliament that had been without sovereignty and democracy for 30 years.
We complain about the lack of accountability within the Politburo and Courts of the EUSSR, but really, while 75% of our laws are handed down from there, how accountable is our own government? If anything goes wrong, “It’s Europe’s fault” and although it usually is, our government is always able to say, quite truthfully; “Our hands are tied by EU Laws, Regulations and Directives”
That’s why David Cameron, George Osbourne et al are frightened;
If we leave the EUSSR, we will regain our national sovereignty and they, the UK Government alone will be responsible for our future. They, the UK Government will have to make the decisions. They, the UK Government will be fully accountable to the electorate, just as they should be.
And the prospect frightens them; That is their “Project Fear”
………………………………………………………………………………………
At both 1974 General Elections, Labour’s manifesto promised renegotiation of Britain’s terms of EEC membership, to be followed by a consultative referendum on continued membership under the new terms if they were acceptable.
Renegotiation followed by a referendum; now, does that sound familiar?
Sadly, then, as now, the renegotiation achieved nothing; some alterations to tariffs for New Zealand lamb etc, and other paltry promised changes that were purely cosmetic and soon forgotten. The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin by 11th March 1975;
Wilson declared; “I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.”
The Referendum question was, “Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?”
Harold Wilson recommended that the British people vote “Yes.”
During the subsequent referendum campaign, almost all the British press & media called for a “Yes” vote. The communist ‘Morning Star’ was the only national daily to back the “No” campaign.
The “Yes” campaign enjoyed much more funding, thanks to the support of many British businesses and the CBI. According to the treasurer of the “Yes” campaign Alastair McAlpine, at the time, business was, “…overwhelmingly pro-European; the banks and big industrial companies put in very large sums of money.”
John Mills, the national agent of the “No” campaign recalled, “We were operating on a shoe-string compared to the Rolls Royce operation on the other side.”
Much of the “Yes” campaign was focussed on personal attacks on its opponents.
According to Alastair McAlpine, “The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-Marketeers as unreliable people; dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path… It wasn’t so much that it was sensible to stay in, but that anybody who proposed that we came out was off their rocker or virtually Marxist.”
It’s a tad ironic that the supporters of an organisation modelled on the Soviet Union should accuse its opponents of being Marxist!
Tony Benn, was Harold Wilson’s Industry Minister at the time, and one would have expected people to realise that he knew what he was talking about when he said that there had been; “Half a million jobs lost in Britain and a huge increase in food prices as a direct result of our entry into the Common market.”
But his claims were ridiculed by the “Yes” campaign and other Ministers; the ‘Daily Mirror’ labelled Benn the “Minister of Fear” and other newspapers were similarly derisive.
And so, relying heavily on the tactics of putting the fear of God into the electorate, and ridiculing those that we now know were telling the truth; the “Yes” campaign won convincingly…
………………………………………………………………………………….
“Cynical and Negative” is how John Redwood describes “Cameron & The Remainers” campaign so far; leaving many Undecideds, “…struggling over whether an independent UK would be stronger and more influential, or isolated and sidelined.”
It is important to debunk their lies and myths. The UK’s power will not be diminished one iota by Brexit.
First off, when we stop handing the EUSSR fifty smackers a week, we’ll have more of our own money to spend; that is a gain. We will still have the same economic strength, the same income and the same armed forces the day after as the day before.
We will not be less secure.
Our defences will still rest on our own armed forces, our own vigilance, and our partnership with NATO. We will still have the same “Five eyes” intelligence sharing arrangements with our allies; the UK will still be a leading member of NATO, just not in the EUSSR. “Five Eyes;” UK intelligence sharing with the US, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, is nothing to do with the EUSSR.
When Poland’s Foreign Minister suggested that Warsaw could accept Cameron’s proposal for a four-year ban on in-work benefits for EUSSR migrants in exchange for greater protection against the Russian threat, what he was asking for was NATO troops in NATO bases, not the deployment of an EUSSR Rapid Reaction Force!
The claim that the EUSSR is the source of peace within Europe is historically illiterate, scaremongering tosh.
As Steve Baker, MP for Wycombe, has pointed out NATO is basis of Britain’s national security policy; countering those arguing that leaving the EU would make the UK less safe.
NATO which includes non-EUSSR states like, Norway, USA and Turkey, was founded in 1949, well before the Treaty of Rome, and continues to guarantee the peace of Europe even now.
Far from keeping Europe secure, attempts by the EUSSR to create a common European army threaten to undermine European security by rivalling NATO, while EUSSR austerity policies, particularly in the Mediterranean, have inflamed resentments and created tensions between member states.
This is ‘Project Fear’ in action; disappointing but not surprising.
Far from having less influence over trade and commerce, following Brexit, the UK will regain her rightful place at the top trade tables of the world.
Instead of being represented, or more accurately, misrepresented by an EUSSR official, the UK will once again have her own seats on these global bodies. That will undoubtedly give us more influence.
The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy (soon to be 4th) and would be able to negotiate deals with other large economies like the USA, India and China; contrary to the absurd claims of some, that we would be unable to negotiate independent trade deals.
The chorus of continued Europhile scaremongering was joined yesterday by the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.
She penned a sentimental article in which she asked us to think of “our children” who would be “cut off from the world” in the event of Brexit.
We will not be “…cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.”
By leaving the EUSSR the UK can reconnect with the rest of the world, in our own right.
John Redwood also makes the point, “We will be taken more seriously by Germany and France from outside, as they will no longer be able to sideline and outvote us as they can all the time we remain in.”
As Leave.EU Co-Founder, Arron Banks has said, “The United Kingdom is a great country; we can stand on our own two feet on the world stage.
That’s the normal condition for every advanced democracy outside the European Union;
That’s not a “leap in the dark.”
19th January
The “Hard-fought renegotiations” may be ongoing, but David Cameron has given up waiting for his deal with the unelected Euro-rats of the EUSSR Politburo
He has made up his mind: he wants Britain to vote to stay in the EUSSR; a strategy has been devised and the campaigning has already begun
In the Scottish referendum campaign the strategy was called “Project Fear;” based on the very real and major economic problems an independent Scotland would have faced, and still would face
But for this cover version of “Project Fear” the lyrics have been changed. “Cameron & The Remainers” won’t be singing about fears of an economic collapse.
The UK creates more jobs than the rest of the EUSSR put together, can Cameron really argue that we need to be a member to maintain prosperity?
The UK is the World’s fifth, soon to be fourth largest economy; does he really believe we’re too small to go it alone?
How can the Prime Minister of a country whose recent success owes much to staying out of the single currency and the Schengen agreement, argue that the UK must at all costs remain in the club that came up with those disastrous ideas?
As Lord Lawson, referring to our economy recently, said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”
This time the “Project Fear” lyrics, according to James Forsyth, writing in The Spectator, on 14th January, are going to be about Safety & Security.
“Cameron & the Remainers” are actually going to try and make us afraid that if we vote to leave the EUSSR, we will endanger our Safety & Security!
Like being in the EUSSR is keeping us safe…
This is actually so laughable that I thought James Forsyth was making it up.
But he quotes one senior member of the government summing up the case for remaining like this:
“Who’ll be happiest if we vote to leave? Vladimir Putin; Do we want that?”
Leaving aside the fact that it was heavy-handed EUSSR meddling in internal Ukrainian politics, that was at least partly responsible for the Ukrainian crisis in the first place; the existence of the EUSSR, and the UK’s membership of it, didn’t stop Putin annexing Crimea, did it?
And it didn’t stop Russia pushing to the forefront in Syria, did it?
And as Forsyth says, “When Poland’s Foreign Minister suggested that Warsaw could accept Cameron’s proposal for a four-year ban on in-work benefits for EUSSR migrants in exchange for greater protection against the Russian threat, what he was asking for was NATO troops in NATO bases, not the deployment of an EUSSR Rapid Reaction Force.”
The implication of “Project Fear” here is that the EUSSR has kept peace in Europe; that it has prevented war; that if we leave, somehow we’ll be at risk of a war.
In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, 17th January, a group of historians, said it was “groundless” to claim that “the EU has been responsible for ending Europe’s wars”
They also said, “Only “myth-makers” could attribute peace in Europe since World War 2, to the existence of the EU”
“The claim that the EU is the source of peace within Europe cannot go unchallenged,” they wrote. “NATO includes non-EU states such as the USA and Turkey, was founded in 1949, well before the Treaty of Rome, and continues to guarantee the peace of Europe even after the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact.”
They added that the claims that security would be compromised if the UK left the EUSSR were “historically illiterate” and amounted to “scaremongering.”
The historians argue that the EUSSR failed to intervene in conflicts in non-EUSSR countries, especially in the Balkans and has often been little more than a “talking shop.”
In addition, initiatives to create a common European army threaten to undermine European security by rivalling NATO, while EUSSR austerity policies, particularly in the Mediterranean, have inflamed resentments and created tensions between member states.
And what about terrorism? What about Daesh?
Can we expect a “senior member of the government” to ask,
“Who’ll be happiest if we vote to leave? Islamic State; Do we want that?”
“Cameron & the Remainers” won’t be so crass as to actually suggest that, but they do think the terrorist threat strengthens the case for the UK staying in the EUSSR
Forsyth continued, “Before Christmas, he told the editor of this magazine and me, that jihadism meant that the EU needed a stronger external border, which Britain could help reinforce. He wanted a ‘better exchange of information’ because ‘it’s no good simply sitting behind your own borders if you don’t know which people are coming in from which European countries. If you can’t check them against your own warnings list, then you’re not safer.’”
Let’s just analyse that statement…
First, Cameron said, “…jihadism meant that the EU needed a stronger external border, which Britain could help reinforce.”
That sounds like something the EUSSR needs; not what the UK needs. The UK needs stronger borders of its own
The next sentence, “It’s no good simply sitting behind your own borders if you don’t know which people are coming in from which European countries.”
He is right, but co-operating with other countries against terrorism doesn’t need them to be members of the EUSSR, and Five Eyes [UK intelligence sharing with the US, Canada, Australia & New Zealand] is nothing to do with the EUSSR.
The last part, “If you can’t check them against your own warnings list, then you’re not safer;” sounds like a “Leave.EU” statement. It is an excellent argument for our own border controls; one of the things that make Brexit so essential.
So that is going to be one of the “Cameron & The Remainers” main arguments; that Britain has better protection against Islamic terrorism as part of the EUSSR.
Somehow I don’t think the French would agree; that wasn’t exactly their experience in Paris, either at Charlie Hebdo or at the Bataclan Theatre.
The former attack, by terrorists of ‘al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular;’ and the latter, by ‘Daesh;’ found the EUSSR’s lack of borders, and the Schengen freedom to travel, totally ineffective in controlling or impeding the movement of Islamist fighters, plus their weapons, across continental Europe. And the Angular Merkel invited swarm of refugees helped their entry into Europe
So no protection from Terrorism in the EUSSR
But it’s not just Terrorists that “Cameron & the Remainers” will claim membership of the EUSSR protects us from; apparently it’s ‘ordinary’ criminals, paedophiles and ‘organised crime’, too.
Now let’s see; under EUSSR rules any citizen of any member state, is allowed to travel to, and live in, any other member state, without any control. The Schengen Plan allows anyone, from anywhere in the world, once inside the Schengen Area, to travel anywhere else in the Area, without even showing a passport. How on earth can anyone believe any of that protects anybody from “‘ordinary’ criminals, paedophiles and ‘organised crime’”?
Thankfully, the UK opted out of Schengen; but France, probably to their eternal regret, didn’t; meaning that criminals wanted in the UK only have to get to France, and can then travel, unimpeded & unrecorded, anywhere in the Area.
New Eastern European EUSSR Member-States are the source of most ‘organised crime’ in London; with a significant Turkish component; so it becomes apparent that far “protecting us from ‘organised crime’,” the EUSSR has facilitated its mass transfer to the UK from Eastern Europe, and will be enlarging on that when Turkey joins.
It is common knowledge that Angular Merkel, with Cameron’s ardent support, is trying to fast-track Turkey’s application; despite President Erdogan’s moves to make it “The Islamic Republic of Turkey”; with him as life-time President.
Not much EUSSR protection from ‘organised crime’, is there?
Maybe Cameron & the Remainers’ claim that membership of the EUSSR “protects us from paedophiles” will hold more water.
Remember Rotherham?
It conservatively estimated that 1,400 children were sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Abuses described include abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.
I know the EUSSR can’t be blamed for that, but those 1,400 kids could testify that it didn’t “protect” them one little bit either.
And I very much doubt that the women of Cologne, Hamburg, Helsinki, Paris, Salzburg & Zurich felt very “protected by the EUSSR” when they were sexually assaulted, over the New Year, in seemingly co-ordinated attacks, by gangs of Middle Eastern men.
In Cologne alone, on New Year’s Eve, around 500 “Arab and North African” men reportedly raped, sexually molested and robbed 90 German women.
More than 650 women have now come forward to file criminal complaints over the attacks, around 45 per cent of them for sexual assault.
Described as the “Migrant Rape Epidemic”; in this instance the EUSSR is definitely to blame, though its leaders are said to be unwilling to admit the cause: Brussels policy on open borders immigration and migrant quotas; and Angular’s stupid invitation for the refugee tsunami to come to Europe.
Over 1.4 million people are believed to have entered Europe from the Middle East and North Africa in 2015.
EUSSR bosses have been unusually silent on the issue of the migrant rape epidemic, with no statements about it from Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council or Martin Schultz, the President of the European Parliament.
The news that the EUSSR is unable or unwilling to deal with such a serious problem and major global news story comes as no surprise to us Europhobes; because we know that the organisation is not interested in the people of Europe, just political expansionism, the career political classes, and the Euro-rats: the European elite.
There you have it; “Project Fear”; the latest version; a cover version by “Cameron & the Remainers” of the Scottish Referendum hit by “Better Together”
It will be a flop.
Brexit supporters do not fear leaving the EUSSR for any reason; least of all Safety & Security.
When it comes to terrorism, we know the EUSSR is a huge hindrance rather than any sort of help or “protection.”
EUSSR Law and its courts have repeatedly made it difficult, if not impossible to extradite those accused of supporting, or being involved in terrorism; and have regularly opposed the deportation of criminals
Security is one of the best reasons for voting to reclaim sovereignty:
The UK must take control of its own security rather than trust in EUSSR co-operation.
And as leaving the EUSSR will mean tighter border control;
That will make our country & people safer;
What’s not to like?
