The “Leaflet of Lies”
Dave started out saying (lying) that he was prepared to walk away from the EUSSR, perhaps even lead a Brexit campaign; but now he’s saying that Brexit would be madness.
What changed?
Oh yes, what is officially called the “Decision of the Heads of Government;” his “Fundamental and far-reaching reforms,” that he achieved via “Hard-fought, forthright and uncompromising negotiations.”
More accurately; “Dave’s Dismal Deal;” a trivial mish-mash of meaningless “measures,” paltry “promises” and half-arsed “assurances;” none of which will survive its first encounter with the European Court of “Justice.”
That was all he brought back so triumphantly after his orchestrated, choreographed and stage-managed renegotiation farce.
That’s all that’s changed…
Now Dave is sending a “Leaflet of Lies” to every household in the country, costing £9 million, at the taxpayers’ expense.
This is a disgraceful waste of our money that reflects very badly on Cameron and the government.
Dave & the Remainians are starting to panic as the polls show that people are increasingly backing Brexit.
The threats and shrillness of the PM show he’s losing control and people have stopped believing “Project Fear.”
The value of the threats is slowly diminishing in voters’ minds.
For “Project Fear” to work, its lies have to be credible; they aren’t.
But in the “Leaflet of Lies” we find them all; along with the usual spurious Remainian arguments:
False Claim (Lie) 1: ‘The UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU’.
The term “Special Status” is used nowhere in the “Decision of the Heads of Government.”
It means nothing to the European Court of Justice, which will continue to treat the UK as it treats every other member state. In 1979, the ECJ stated that; “The equality of Member States before Community law is at the very root of the Community legal order.”
The EUSSR is fundamentally unreformed and remains unreformable; even if promised changes to the Treaties are made, but there is no guarantee that they will.
The leaflet even claims that as a result of the renegotiation, “…we will not join the Euro.”
In a letter to Euro-rat Tusk in November 2015, (long before the “renegotiation”) Dave admitted that the United Kingdom already has “…a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone.”
False Claim (Lie) 2: ‘We will keep our own border controls’.
Every EUSSR citizen will retain the right to enter the UK, without let or hindrance, i.e. without any form of control; including any criminals.
The European Court is undermining what limited checks we can still carry out.
In December 2014, it decided that the UK could not require third country nationals who are married to EUSSR citizens to obtain a permit from UK authorities to be able to enter the UK. The British Government is instead obliged in principle to accept as valid permits issued by other EU countries. This is despite the fact that forgery of such permits is “systemic.”
This decision makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter the UK using forged documents.
EUSSR law also prohibits the UK from automatically denying EUSSR citizens who lack travel documents entry into the UK, and forbids the UK checking on a systematic basis whether EUSSR citizens are lawfully resident in the UK.
EUSSR law requires the UK to admit EUSSR citizens who can produce an EUSSR passport. Yet we have no control over the way other EUSSR countries issue their passports.
All EUSSR countries have a sovereign right to sell passports and Malta, the first port of call for many North African “migrants,” is not alone in doing so; but they do have a residency qualification; all of 6 months!
False Claim (Lie) 3: ‘The UK will not be part of further political integration.’
Such claims have been made time and time again by successive British Governments.
On every occasion, they have been proven to be false.
In 1971, the Heath Government claimed that, “…there is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.”
The Wilson Government claimed in 1975 that the UK’s sovereignty would not be compromised because, “…it is the Council of Ministers, and not the market’s officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree.”
John Major even claimed that British sovereignty had been enhanced by the Maastricht Treaty, asserting that, “…the very centralising tendency that many are so worried about was addressed and corrected at Maastricht.”
Whereas we all know that “further political integration” or “Ever Closer Union” is the byword; the leit motif of the EUSSR; and it leads inexorably towards the stated original & final goal of the “United States of Europe”
False Claim (Lie) 4: ‘there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system for new EU migrants’
The Government has admitted, in answer to a written question, on 22nd February, after the European Council meeting, that these proposals may never come into force, stating: “Details of the proposals for restricting in-work benefits for EU nationals will be subject to further negotiation and we cannot speculate on these.”
The 2015 Conservative Manifesto stated: “We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years.”
This promise has been broken.
The denial of “non-contributory in-work benefits” will, “…be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing access to such benefits to take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State.”
This makes clear EUSSR migrants will be able to claim in-work benefits during their first four years in the UK.
Even if these proposals do come into force, they are far short of what the Prime Minister promised. The OBR has said they will have “not much” impact on migration.
The emergency brake can only be invoked, “…during a period of 7 years.”
This means that the UK will not be able to use the emergency break after 2023.
The emergency brake can only be invoked, “…on a proposal from the Commission;” by the EUSSR Council.
The “Decision of the Heads of Government” states that. “…the Council could authorise” the brake, not that it will.
The UK has no right to activate the emergency brake by itself.
In November 2014, the Prime Minister rightly dismissed the idea of, “…some arcane mechanism within the EU, which would probably be triggered by the European Commission and not by us… …some sort of EU led, EU determined brake, which would be determined and applied probably by the European Commission,” adding, “I don’t actually think that would be effective.”
It would seem that all his “hard-fought renegotiation” achieved is exactly an “…arcane mechanism… …triggered by the European Commission and not by us… …some sort of EU led, EU determined brake… …determined and applied… …by the European Commission.”
And he’s right; it won’t “…be effective” at all
And, since child benefit is not a ‘non-contributory in-work benefit,’ the emergency brake will never apply to it.
False Claim (Lie) 5: ‘By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.’
Even the Head of the IN campaign has admitted this claim is false. Lord Rose of Monewden, Rosie to his friends, has said that, “…nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe… It’s not going to be a step change or somebody’s going to turn the lights out and we’re all suddenly going to find that we can’t go to France, it’s going to be a gentle process.”
Mind you, Rosie is the man who not only forgets what his campaign group’s name is (BSE — LOL); but also admitted that Brexit would cause significant wage increases for UK workers; saying that this would “…not be a good thing”
False Claim (Lie) 6: ‘The Single Market makes it easier and cheaper for UK companies to sell their products outside the UK, creating jobs as a result.’
It is widely accepted that the costs of the “Single Market” outweigh its benefits.
As the UK Government admitted in 2005, the “Single Market costs Europe’s consumers up to 7 per cent of EU GDP.”
In 2004, the incoming European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, admitted that the cost of EUSSR regulation was as high as 4% of GDP, twice the estimated benefits of the “Single Market.”
Just 6% of British businesses export to the EUSSR. Nonetheless, 100% of British business must comply with EUSSR law.
EUSSR legislation costs British businesses at least £33.3 billion per year, over £600 million per week
There is no evidence that the single market has been of economic benefit.
Countries outside the “Single Market” have seen their exports to countries in the EUSSR rise faster than those within the “Single Market.”
As the pro-EU commentator Wolfgang Münchau noted, just a few days ago, “The Single Market had no discernible impact.”
False Claim (Lie) 7: ‘Being inside the EU also makes it more attractive for companies to invest in the UK, meaning more jobs. Over the last decade, foreign companies have invested £540 billion in the UK, equivalent to £148 million every day.’
This is extremely misleading.
The Government counts every single pound invested into the UK over the last decade from every country, regardless of whether the country is in the EUSSR or not.
It is ridiculous to link all investment into the UK to the UK’s membership of the EUSSR.
Rosie, Head of the IN campaign, BSE, has admitted this argument is, “…all a red herring and it is just scaremongering,” stating: “The reason that people want to come to this country is because we have a flexible workforce, because we have stability, because we’ve got a growing economy, because we’ve got strong IPR, because this is a place to do business.”
“I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that everybody is going to suddenly go offshore, I don’t believe that for one moment and to make sure that that doesn’t happen we have to ensure that we continue to have the right environment, an environment which is invested in, i.e. let’s invest in infrastructure. To make sure that we’ve got the right tax regime, to make sure that corporation tax is attractive to people who invest here. To make sure that we invest in the right number of people so that we’ve got these apprenticeships, we’ve got these people who are fit and ready to come into the workforce, that will dictate whether people want to have their businesses domiciled here so I think this is all a red herring and it is just scaremongering.”
Of course, to keep all that; the infrastructure, the right taxes, the right people; we need control; we need to make our own decisions; not be told what to do by faceless, unelected Euro-rats in Brussels.
False Claim (Lie) 8: ‘If the UK voted to leave the EU the resulting economic shock would risk higher prices of some household goods’.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Dr Mark Carney, refused to agree with the claim that leaving would lead to an economic shock, despite being asked his view several times during a recent Treasury Committee hearing.
The Governor confirmed that: “The global risks, including from China are bigger than the domestic risk.”
The pro-EUSSR CBI released a report that stated, “…our model estimates suggest that total real UK GDP could be around 36–39% higher in 2030 than in 2015 in the two exit scenarios.”
The paper also admitted that growth will continue in the short term and that, in the long term, economic growth will be stronger outside the EUSSR compared to remaining inside.
The independent House of Commons Library has concluded that EUSSR membership actually increases the costs of consumer goods, stating that the EUSSR’s Common Agricultural Policy “…artificially inflates food prices,” and that “…consumer prices across a range of other goods imported from outside the EU are raised as a result of the common external tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by the EU. These include footwear (a 17% tariff), bicycles (15% tariff) and a range of clothing (12% tariff).”
False Claim (Lie) 9: There would be ‘pressure’ on the value of the pound.
The UK recorded a current account deficit of £96.3 billion in 2015.This could be substantially reduced if we leave the EUSSR.
In 2014 (the last year for which data are available), the UK recorded a £12.3 billion balance of payments deficit with the EUSSR institutions.
This means that Brexit could substantially cut the current account deficit.
The EUSSR-funded “Oxford Economics Group” has concluded that if the UK voted to leave the EUSSR, “In most cases… the UK’s trade balance improves.”
There is no evidence that the increased prospect of a leave vote is having a substantial effect on the currency or is driving movements in the foreign exchange markets.
The pound has been strengthening against the US dollar over the last month from $1.3871 on 26th February to $1.4013 on 6th April.
This is despite the fact that the polls have shown a consistent improvement in the Brexit campaign’s position.
False Claim (Lie) 10: ‘A vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty.’
This is so typical of the misleading and depressingly pessimistic scaremongering of “Project Fear”
Greenland left the EUSSR in less than three years.
It voted to leave the then European Economic Community on 23rd February 1982 and the new Treaty was signed at Brussels on 13th March 1984. It entered into force on 1st February 1985 and provided for the abolition of tariffs, quotas and measures equivalent to quotas on Greenland’s principal export, fish.
And, as “They need us more than we need them” (see below); we have considerably more negotiating strength than Greenland.
The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was concluded in less than two years.
Formal negotiations for the free trade agreement began in Canberra on 18th March 2003.
The agreement came into effect on 1st January 2005.
The US Government states that: “…as a result of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, tariffs that averaged 4.3 percent were eliminated on more than 99% of the tariff lines for U.S. manufactured goods exports to Australia.”
The Switzerland-China free trade agreement was negotiated in a little over two years.
There were 9 rounds of negotiations between April 2011 and May 2013 which, “…produced a deal praised by both sides for its quality and its breadth, covering goods, services, investment, and competition.”
The agreement entered into force on 1st July 2014.
False Claim (Lie) 11: ‘From next year, mobile phone roaming charges will be abolished across the EU, saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.’
The implication here is that in the event of Brexit, UK customers would lose that saving or worse; pure scurrilous scaremongering.
The Minister of State for Culture and the Digital Economy, Ed Vaizey MP (who is a Remainian) has stated that market access in telecommunications would continue after Brexit. He said just last year; “If we were to withdraw from the European Union; I still think that British consumers would benefit. It is dangerous for any government Minister to comment on what may or may not impact on people’s views when they vote in this referendum. As we experienced with the Scottish referendum, it may be that everything, including the kitchen sink, is thrown into the argument and that roaming charges become part of that debate, but my instinct is that, should the British public decide to leave the European Union, that will not impact on their roaming ability in Europe.”
False Claim (Lie) 12: ‘Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services’.
The Government has already admitted that: “The EU will open its market in services significantly for Canadian firms.”
The Canadian Government states that: “CETA covers all aspects of our broad trading relationship with the EU, including goods, services, investment, government procurement and regulatory cooperation.”
The European Politburo (Commission) has said that the Canadian deal includes services, financial services, mutual recognition of qualifications and procurement.
So; just a downright lie then…
False Claim (Lie) 13: ‘Our EU membership magnifies the UK’s ability to get its way on the issues we care about.’
This claim is so blindingly obviously, stupidly false that I’m really amazed it’s here.
The UK has been outvoted every time it has voted against an EU measure; 72 times in total.
40 of these defeats have taken place since David Cameron became Prime Minister.
This costs the UK taxpayer £2.4 billion a year.
We do not get our way on the issues we care about.
Since the UK joined the EEC in 1973, it has lost 101 out of 131 cases before the European Court, a failure rate of 77.1%.
Since Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, the UK has been defeated on 16 occasions: a failure rate of 80%.
EUSSR rules mean that we don’t have the power to intervene to get our way at home.
The Government has acknowledged that its scope to intervene in the steel crisis is limited by EUSSR “State Aid” rules.
The Business Minister, Anna Soubry MP, has said, “We have to be very careful because we have to be compliant with state aid rules.”
Another downright lie then
False Claim (Lie) 14: ‘EU cooperation makes it easier to keep criminals and terrorists out of the UK.’
The EUSSR’s own Frontex Agency has recently concluded the EUSSR makes us less safe.
Frontex has said that: “The Paris attacks in November 2015 clearly demonstrated that irregular migratory flows are used by terrorists to enter the EU… there is a risk that some persons representing a security threat to the EU are taking advantage of this situation… there is clearly a risk of persons representing a security threat entering the EU.”
EUSSR law makes it much harder to remove suspected terrorists.
Where the Home Secretary believes a suspected terrorist should be excluded from the UK, but believes disclosing the case to the suspect would damage national security, the European Court of Justice has ruled that: “…the person concerned must be informed, in any event, of the essence of the grounds on which a decision…” against him is taken.
The Court of Appeal has since ruled that these rights under EUSSR law, “…cannot yield to the demands of national security.”
This means the Home Secretary either has to disclose information that might prejudice national security or allow suspected terrorists into the UK.
EUSSR law prevents the UK from removing violent criminals, such as violent killer Theresa Rafacz, a Polish national who killed her husband, kicking him in the face while he lay on the ground defenceless and drunk.
Mr Justice Hart ruled the offence involved “gratuitous violence.”
Nonetheless, Mr Justice Blake later ruled that EUSSR law prevented her removal.
False Claim (Lie) 15: ‘EU membership brings economic security, peace and stability’.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Dr Mark Carney has said: “We do think there are risks from remaining in the European Union and risks particularly related to the development of the Euro area.”
Leading historians have dismissed the claim that the EUSSR has brought peace to Europe; having shown that it was NATO that was and still is responsible for peace in Europe.
The Secretary of State for Defence during the Falklands War, Sir John Nott, has pointed out that: “The only time the EU actually took charge of security was during the Bosnian War. Its mishandling of that crisis led to more than one million people being displaced and up to half a million being killed or wounded,”
It is NATO, and NATO alone, which provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.
Compare the “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces by a NATO run campaign during the first Gulf War to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EUSSR-inspired intervention in Libya in 2011.
The EUSSR has handled the situation in the Ukraine extremely badly. EUSSR meddling sparked the crisis in the first place and leaked telephone conversations have shown that US officials have taken to requesting that the EUSSR is excluded from the whole process.
Spurious Argument 1: ‘The EU is by far the UK’s biggest trading partner. EU countries buy 44% of everything we sell abroad’.
True, but spurious; non-EUSSR countries by 56% of what we sell abroad.
You don’t have to be part of the EUSSR to trade with the EUSSR.
As the Prime Minister has accepted: “If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would… Of course the trading would go on. There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on.”
The UK’s trade with the EUSSR has been in decline over the last decade; the share of our exports that go to the EUSSR has been reducing. In 2005 they bought 52% of what we sold abroad.
Switzerland sells a larger share of her exports to the EUSSR than we do, but is not part of the EUSSR.
Spurious Argument 2: The Government cites industries it claims would be affected by a leave vote.
In each sector, it is in the EUSSR’s interests to maintain access to the UK’s markets or in the UK’s interests to escape from EUSSR red tape.
“Aerospace;” the vast majority of British exports of aerospace are sold to countries outside the EUSSR. The ONS notes: “In 2013, non-EU exports accounted for around 74% of total aerospace exports, with EU exports making up the remaining 26%.”
“Financial services;” Rosie, the Head of the IN campaign has admitted that: “We are very good at what we do in terms of financial services. They cannot do without us.”
According to the Bank of England, in February 2015, “75 banks located in the European Economic Area “passported” their services into the UK;” over 800 insurance firms in the EEA have passported their services into the UK as of September 2015.
There is no prospect of EU firms choosing to cut off their access to the world’s greatest financial centre. Deutsche Bank alone employs 8,000 people in the UK and has chosen, “…to base its largest investment banking operations in the City of London, a centre of global flows of trade and wealth.”
‘Chemicals and pharmaceuticals;’ in 2014, the EU sold the UK £11.0 billion more in chemicals than the UK sold to the EU. In the same year, the EU sold the UK £4.7 billion more in medicinal and pharmaceutical products than the UK sold to the EU. They need us more than we need them.
‘Food manufacturing;’ in 2014, the EU sold the UK £14.6 billion more in food and live animals than the UK sold to EU. They need us more than we need them.
‘IT and telecoms;’ in 2014, the EU sold the UK £4.5 billion more in food and live animals than the UK sold to EU. They need us more than we need them.
‘Transport;’ in 2014, the EU sold the UK £46.5 billion more in machinery and transport equipment than the UK sold to the EU. They need us more than we need them.
Spurious Argument 3: ‘Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU’.
The implication here is that Brexit would bring the loss of those 3 million jobs…
Bollocks.
The Government deliberately conflates trade with countries in the EUSSR with EUSSR membership.
It is not necessary to be part of a political union to trade freely with the EUSSR.
Many countries around the world have free trade agreements with the EUSSR without accepting the supremacy of EUSSR law or paying billions to the EUSSR.
We will strike a free trade deal.
The Executive Director of the IN Campaign, Will Straw, has admitted: “We have not and have never claimed that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU.”
Then why bring it up?
Because, that IS the implication of the statement.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has accepted trade would continue, meaning jobs would not be put at risk. He said: “If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would … Of course the trading would go on … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on.”
The ‘3 million jobs’ figure was invented by the pro-Euro campaign group, Britain in Europe, in 2000, as part of their attempts to scrap the pound. The economist whose work they traduced, Dr Martin Weale, has dismissed the figure as, “…pure Goebbels,” stating that, “…in many years of academic research, I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.”
Spurious Argument 4: ‘Since 2004, using the European Arrest Warrant, over 1,000 suspects have faced justice in UK courts and over 7,000 have been extradited.
This deliberately conflates EUSSR membership with the ability to have working extradition agreements.
We have extradition agreements with many countries around the world, including the United States, without accepting the supremacy of US federal law.
Recently, we extradited a murder suspect from Ghana in just a few weeks
The UK could continue to be part of the European Arrest Warrant, if we want to, following Brexit.
As the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has confirmed, police and security cooperation would continue. When he was asked: “But we could still have tools like the European Arrest Warrant and sharing of databases even if the UK left the EU?” Anderson replied: “I think that’s very likely.”
The ECJ has just made it much harder to extradite suspects, ruling they cannot be removed to face trial because of prison conditions in another member state.
If we end the supremacy of EUSSR law, we could also stop the European Arrest Warrant being abused by foreign prosecutors, as it has been.
Spurious Argument 5: ‘The EU also guarantees many employment rights.’
It does; but so do many other countries outside the EUSSR, and after Brexit, the UK would as well.
If the Government are claiming that Brexit risks employment rights, they are effectively claiming that after Brexit no Prime Minister could be trusted to protect them.
The UK introduced employment rights before it joined the EUSSR, for instance, the Right to Strike (1913), the right to paid holiday (1938) and the right to equal pay for equal work (1970).
Brexit campaigners have been clear that employees’ rights will be protected following Brexit.
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph;
“It is time Downing Street stopped lying about how it threatens others about what might happen unless they crush dissent; but it is at least consistent with the dictatorial nature of the club to which they wish us to remain a member, which reminds me more and more of the old Soviet Union.”
That, Simon, is why I call it the EUSSR. It is not just reminiscent of the USSR; it’s a clone of it; just as the European Commission is a clone of the old Soviet Politburo.
