2016-06-14

Author: TonyGosling

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:49 pm (GMT 0)

WHY WE MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

A BRIEFING NOTE BY PETER MORGAN

1. The Big issues

2. What happens after we leave?

3. The European Empire

4. Why must we leave?

5. However did we get to this state?

PETER MORGAN has worked and played in Europe since 1955.

- In 1955-56 he was a Royal Signals officer stationed in Austria and

Bavaria in a unit responsible for intercepting signals traffic from the

Russian army in Hungary.

- In 1966-69 and again in 1975-80 he was on the staff of IBM

Europe, living and working in Paris with Europe-wide responsibilities.

- From 1989 to 1994 he was Director General of the Institute of

Directors. The IOD was active in the public policy arena and in this

period he worked on the 1992 Single Market programme and was deeply

involved with the ERM, EMU (the euro), the Social Charter and the

Social Chapter. On the morning after the Maastricht Treaty, it was Peter

who featured in the item on the Treaty in the BBC Today programme.

- In 17 of the last 21 years, Peter was a UK delegate to the European

Economic and Social Committee based in Brussels, which he visited

30-40 times a year. The Committee is tri-partite. Peter was an ‘employer’

representative. The role of the Committee is to give its opinion on

upcoming legislation to the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

This meant a considerable involvement in EU legislation and the

legislative process.

- He was a director and chairman of a mutual life insurance

company (1980-89) and a Member of the Council of Lloyd’s (2000-09).

- In 2005 Peter published a book – Alarming Drum, Britain’s

European Dilemma - in the context of the EU Constitution that was then

being drafted

1. BRITAIN MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

THE BIG ISSUES

Self Government is the central issue. The British

Empire based its existence on the argument that ‘good’

government was better for the governed than selfgovernment.

The ‘Remain’ case is based on the same

premise – that government by the EU Empire is better

than British self-government. (See part 3 – The European

Empire). In this case ‘good’ government equates to

access to the Single Market and the protection of

workers’ rights. It also includes freedom to move around

the Empire to experience other cultures, other

universities, other holidays and other work places.

Finally, there is a perception that the Empire is a

guarantor of Member State security.

In order to maintain the illusion of ‘good’ EU

government, the present British government and its

acolytes have launched a dishonest campaign to create an

aura of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about the selfgovernment

alternative. The extent of the misrepresentation

is staggering.

The basic point is that the EU Empire is not well

governed. It is not at all democratic. Its system is the

absolute opposite of democracy. As the British Empire

disintegrated in the face of freedom movements seeking

self-government, so will the EU Empire. Britain is the

cradle of democracy. (See part 4 – Why must we leave).

Westminster is the mother of parliaments. It is right that

we strike the first blow. The Remain campaign talks

about reform in Europe, but the only likely change will

be to consolidate the Super State in response to the

multiple crises faced by the Union – euro crisis, refugee

crisis, unemployment crisis, economic stagnation and a

political crisis from both the left and the right.

The apparent benefits of EU style ‘good’ government are

more illusory than real. (See part 2 – What happens after

we leave?). Trade will continue, holidays will continue,

security will be maintained, subsidies and subventions

will continue. We are not ‘leaving’ Europe, we are

leaving the European Union. We are not ‘cutting

ourselves off’ from Europe. With some adaptation, things

will carry on as before.

The young in particular need reassurance that they will

not be cut off. You have to be 60 years old to remember

that before joining the EU we travelled all over western

Europe when we were young, Inter-railing, hitch-hiking,

Youth-hostelling, etc. Mediterranean homes were not a

problem. In 1964 Sue and I received an apartment on the

Costa del Sol as a wedding present. This freedom will

continue, with the bonus that today access to Eastern

Europe is also possible.

The real difference will be that we take back control of

our country and our borders. Westminster will legislate

for Britain; the Supreme Court will actually be supreme,

we will still need migrants, but we will decide who they

should be.

Britain has no more reason than America to give up its

independence. Britain is a big and powerful country:

- Permanent member, UN Security Council

- One of 9 nuclear powers

- 5th ranked armed forces in the world

(behind USA, Russia, China and India)

- 5th largest economy in the world

- 4th most traded currency in the world

- All the top universities in Europe

- Ranked number 3 in FT global 500 companies

- Ranked number 1 in FT Europe 5oo companies

-10th largest population amongst G20 countries

- Forecast to be largest population in Europe by 2050

- English is the world’s first language

People who have being listening to Cameron and other

leaders continually talking down British prospects will

be astonished by these statistics. It makes you wonder

how we came to be in the EU in the first place. (See part

5– How did we get into this state?). It is time to leave.

Our forefathers went to war for parliamentary democracy.

We must mobilise to get it back.

2. BRITAIN MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE LEAVE?

Machiavelli told his Prince that he needed to plan carefully

when introducing any major change because those who think

that they may be adversely affected will protest vigorously

while those who may benefit will keep their heads down and

wait to see what happens. Most of the concerns about Brexit are

illusory, but the disgraceful government campaign to create fear,

uncertainty and doubt (FUD), has the single purpose of

frightening the general public into rejecting change. But the

long-term goal, a democratic Britain in control of its borders and

its future, is a prize worth fighting for.

The main point is that treaties between sovereign states – the

UK and the EU – will replace our present subordinate status vis

a vis the EU. The most obvious example of what a Treaty can

achieve is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO – that

has underpinned our security since the end of the Second World

War. Over that period NATO has done as much, if not more than

the EU, to keep the peace in Europe

Security.

NATO will still underpin British security when we leave the

EU. We will continue to be a Member of Interpol, because it is

an international organization. We will continue to be a member

of Five Eyes, the world’s most important intelligence alliance

comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United

Kingdom and the United States. The multilateral UKUSA

Agreement binds these countries in a treaty for joint

cooperation in signals intelligence. GCHQ in Cheltenham is the

most powerful intelligence organisation in Europe. The EU will

need a treaty for intelligence cooperation with the UK involving

GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. Further aspects of security cooperation

would involve the British voice at the Security Council, the

armed forces and the British nuclear deterrent. A modified

European Arrest Warrant should be agreed to apply to cases of

terrorism and serious criminality. When applied, the existing

blanket warrant removes habeas corpus and trial by jury, the

corner stones of British Liberties.

Education and Science

UK universities lead Europe and there can be no doubt that the

EU will seek cooperation in Education and Science. Shanghai

University publishes the most authoritative ranking of world

universities. Overall, the UK has 3 in the top 20, Switzerland 1,

EU 0; in the next 20: EU has 2, UK 1. In the top 100, UK has 9

and the rest of the EU has 18.It is implausible to suppose that

there will not be a free academic interchange between the UK

and the EU.

UK ranks equally well in the science and technology disciplines.

In Science top 20: UK 2, Eu 1, Switzerland 1; in the next 20:

UK 3, EU 2, Switzerland 1. In Engineering top 20: UK 2,

Switzerland 1, EU 0; in the next 20: UK 0, EU 2, Switzerland 1.

In Life Sciences top 20: UK 3, EU 0; in the next 20, UK 1, EU

3, Switzerland 1. In the medical top 20: UK 3, EU 1; in the next

20: UK 2, EU 4, Switzerland 1. These skills underpin the future

wealth of an independent Britain. They should also be the basis

for academic interchange with the EU and the rest of the world.

Note that these comparisons are between one country, Britain,

and all the other 27 EU countries.

TRADE

The share of world output accounted for by the 28 current

members of the EU has fallen from 30% to 17% between 1980

and 2015. It is not that EU output has fallen much; it has just not

kept up with the growth in world trade. Four fifths of world

trade now takes place outside Europe. The UK share of world

trade has also fallen. The shortfall is in Asia and it is there,

rather than in the EU that the UK needs to concentrate.

Although we must leave the Single Market after Brexit, trade

with the EU will continue to flow – that’s what trade does.

Which politician will tell French farmers or Bavarian 1Motor

Werkers that they have decided to put barriers in the way of

trade with Britain? Scotch whisky manufacturers are big

Remainers because the EU is a big market. But do they think

that Italy, Spain and Portugal will no longer sell us wine; or that

France will no longer sell us wine, champagne and cognac? The

UK is the next biggest market for champagne after France itself.

The trade scare stories are the most despicable of the

government’s FUD tactics. They should be working to facilitate

trade, not alarming our trading partners. There will be no change

until the 2-year transition is over, by when it will have been in

the mutual interest of both parties to organize bi-lateral market

access. Fears about spiteful retaliation should be discounted

because the trade will have to flow. As Mrs. Thatcher famously

said, “You can’t buck the market”.

Not being involved in EU market regulation will not be an issue.

After all, America, Japan and China adapt to EU requirements;

so will the UK.

We are also told that trade agreements will be problematical but

the facts suggest otherwise. Obama may say that Britain would

go to the back of the queue, but his opponents disagree and the

facts are that Britain and the USA are the largest direct investors

1 The % of BMW sales by country is as follows: China 21%, USA 18%, Germany

13%, UK 10%. UK sales are bigger than the next 3 markets – France, Italy and Japan

combined, soothe UK clearly has plenty of leverage to make trade deals

in each other’s countries while an EU deal with the USA seems

impossible for as long as France has a say. With compatible

Anglo-Saxon views on markets and a shared basis of language,

common law and commercial law, a trade deal should be a shoein.

In this context the CBI (which is on the Brussels payroll) is its

usual short term, unprincipled (in respect of British democracy),

pragmatic self and, as usual, because it is blinkered, it is wrong,

as it was wrong about both ERM and EMU. I know – I was

there. The largest CBI members are multinational companies

with polyglot boards of directors with no stake in British

democracy and British liberties.

Economics and the City

It was not the City, nor the Treasury, nor the Bank of England

that kept the UK out of the euro. It was, in effect Jimmy

Goldsmith, whose promise of a referendum on the euro during

the 1997 general election campaign caused Blair to make a

similar promise. This meant that Britain did not join the euro

because the vote could not be won. Let us hope that the

government, with the Bank, the Treasury, the City and the CBI

pimping out the FUD, will be thwarted once again by the

commonsense of the people.

The euro crisis is unresolved. In the language of the economists,

the troika (Commission, IMF, ECB - to which you can add

Germany) is kicking the can down the road. When they finally

grasp the nettle, they only have two options: either to eject the

over- indebted Member States from the Union or mutualize the

debt and create an integrated European state. The former option

could create chaos. The latter option will create an EU of which

the UK cannot form a part. Either way, we are better off out of

both the EU and the euro, with sterling managed by the Bank of

England.

Part of the FUD generated by the UK troika – Bank, Treasury,

City – is that the fifth largest economy in the world is somehow

going to become a basket case overnight while the crisis ridden

EU is a paragon of stability and some sort of haven. The troika

should be realistic about the opportunities presented by Brexit.

Much of the financial services industry will be unaffected,

except that the regulators can take the opportunity to adapt the

Brussels regulations to the realities of London markets, instead

of being forced to live with French-inspired regulations that

seemed designed to undermine the City. Modification of the

AIFM directive should bring back the Hedge funds. The spectre

of FTT (Financial Transaction Tax) will be removed and HSBC

can shelve its plans to move to Hong Kong. Investment banks

are clearly concerned which is why Goldman Sachs has given a

substantial six-figure sum to the Remain campaign. As one of

the architects of the banking crisis, Goldman Sachs’ views

should probably be ignored. After all, if these bankers are clever

enough to earn their astronomical paychecks, they should be

clever enough to establish a role for London in global financial

markets.

A crass example of the FUD coming out of the Treasury is the

warning that London house prices could fall by 10%. Isn’t that

good news? Have not lower London house prices been the goal

of policy makers for decades?

Social

The social dimension of the EU is not concerned with social

security and minimum wages, or at least not yet – the EU yearns

to get involved in such matters. At present the EU focus is on

workers’ rights – Social Charter, Social Chapter in the Treaties,

Working Time Directive, etc. After the Thatcher government

brought order into trade union affairs, the unions sought refuge

in the Workers Rights activities if the EU. As the Thatcher

administration proved, labour relations in Britain are best dealt

with in Westminster. The leader of the Labour party has said that

Britain should remain in the EU because Westminster cannot be

trusted with labour legislation. In other words, the British people

are not to be trusted. This is to be expected from Labour, but

how is it that Cameron agreed publicly with the TUC assertion

that trades unions need the protection of the EU. What a betrayal

of British democracy!

Migration

Migration is a pivotal issue in this referendum. People are

concerned about the social impact of uncontrolled migration

from the EU even though they know that they benefit from the

skills the migrants bring and the positive economic impact they

make. It would be wrong to halt migration from Europe but we

must have control over it. We also need to ensure that we create

room for skilled migrants from outside Europe, especially from

India and China that are now being turned away because the EU

influx is out of control.

We should assume that for British workers seeking jobs in the

EU, the EU would replicate controls put on migrants from the

EU to Britain. Since our controls will make sense, we should

expect that EU controls would be equally rational.

Immigrants are vital for the economy but we must have control

of the flow. A Slovakian hospital nurse said to me recently that

if we did not get control of migration, we would lose our

Britishness!

Holidays in the EU

What happens to holidays? The answer is the same as that for

trade. Vacation traffic will not stop. We will not be cut off.

Spain , Portugal, Italy, G 2 reece and Ireland all need our holidaymaker

pounds because the euro has crippled their economies.

There is no question of visas being needed. Since we are not in

Schengen, we already show our passports. What will be needed

are a reciprocal air transport protocol and a revised E111

medical scheme. Both should be straightforward because they

are mutually beneficial. The 27 are in our debt on medical

expenses.

EU Subsidies and Subventions.

Many organizations and many individuals receive more or less

financial support from the EU. NGOs are notorious clients of

the EU. These are the Machiavellian beneficiaries of the EU,

throwing their support behind the Remain campaign. They

worry about the money being cut off. They forget that it is our

money and that for every £100 we send to the EU, we only get

£50 back. When we leave the EU, the other £50 will be

available for new subsidies while existing subsidies and

contributions can be maintained until needs have changed. If the

government were honest, it would give the necessary

undertakings instead of spreading FUD over the issue. Senior

politicians in the Leave team should be making pledges to

farmers, fishermen, remote islanders, scientists, NGOs and

others that they will be looked after. This is a gap in

understanding the LEAVE programme must close.

2 The ranking of British holidaymakers in the main EU destination countries is Spain

1, France 2, Italy 4, Greece 2, Portugal 2, Ireland 1, Germany 3, Austria 5

The Celtic Fringe

The Celts seem to prefer EU government to Westminster

government. All 3 nations are hooked on EU regional aid,

discounting the scale of support they receive from Westminster

under the Barnett formula. Residents of the Highlands and

Islands, sheep and dairy farmers all need reassurance that

Westminster after Brexit will compensate them as necessary to

mitigate their geographical disadvantages.

As the Irish home-rule campaigners proved, while the

Westminster Parliament works well for the government of

Britain, it does not necessarily serve the specific interests of the

Celtic nations. A more federal structure, including home rule for

England, is clearly needed. It is ironic that while pressing for

independence in the United Kingdom, the Celts seem less keen

on independence from Brussels, even though their clout in the

United Kingdom is some orders of magnitude greater than it

could ever be in Brussels. This is a measure of the distrust of

Westminster. A federal solution must be on the agenda after

Brexit.

3. BRITAIN MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

THE EUROPEAN EMPIRE

Britain must leave the EU in order to become self-governing

again. This section of the paper explains the characteristics of

the EU that define it as an Empire.

Membership

The European Union is a Super State made up, for the moment,

of 28 subordinate Member States. It is most probable that 10

more states will be added in the coming years. Britain has

nothing in common with any of them.

There are five recognized candidates for membership: Turkey

(applied in 1987), Macedonia (applied in 2004), Montenegro

(applied in 2008), Albania (applied in 2009) and Serbia (applied

in 2009). All candidate countries except Albania and Macedonia

have started accession negotiations. Bosnia-Herzegovina and

Kosovo, whose independence is not recognised by five EU

Member States, are recognised as potential candidates for

membership by the EU. Bosnia-Herzegovina has formally

submitted an application for membership, while Kosovo has a

Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU, which

generally precedes the lodging of membership application.

According to its Eastern Partnership strategy, the EU is unlikely

to invite any more of its post-Soviet neighbours to join the bloc

before 2020. However, in 2014 the EU signed Association

Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and the

European Parliament passed a resolution recognizing the

“European perspective” of all three post-Soviet countries.

This means that another 10 countries are in line to become

Member States of the European Union, bringing alien

perspectives and further diminishing the British presence in the

Union. If an independent Scotland were to join the EU in this

time frame, it would have strange bedfellows!

Fundamentals

The Four Freedoms of the EU are the free movement of goods,

workers, capital and services. They also include the right to

establish a business (if you can cope with the local

bureaucracy). These freedoms are fundamental to the creation of

the Union. They are sacred. If, like the British, you had not

planned to be part of the Super State, and find yourself unable to

control migrant flows, whatever their economic contribution,

these freedoms seem less sacred. It should not be forgotten that

freedom for the young to explore Europe existed long before we

joined the EU.

Following the Schengen Treaty there are no border controls,

because Member States now form a Super State that has no

internal borders. Britain and Ireland did not sign the treaty.

Events in Syria and elsewhere have shown that the Schengen

concept was fundamentally flawed. Signatories are opting out. A

Union without internal borders will not be possible until the

Union is more tightly integrated with a strong border force.

Britain has no interest in giving up control of its borders to such

a force. After Brexit, the borders between Britain and Ireland

will remain open.

The Euro is the Union currency. There were 3 main reasons for

the introduction of the Euro, known formally as EMU -

Economic and Monetary Union – which formed part of the

Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

1) To fulfill a French goal to wrest control of European

monetary policy from the Bundesbank whose Deutschmark

dominated Europe. As it turns out, this was a big mistake.

France is floundering in the wake of Germany while the Euro

has enabled Germany to grow even richer so that it now calls the

shots in the Eurozone.

2) For the architects of the EU Super State, the common

currency had been the Holy Grail. It would be the route to full

integration. After all, you cannot have a currency without a

country to back it. It would also stimulate wealth creation,

making Europe rich and uniting its people. The outcome has

been misery, unemployment, economic decline, political

extremism and a north south divide whereby Germany prospers

and southern Europe is in despair. This is not necessarily bad

news for the integrationists because if the Union is not to fall

apart completely, it will have to be more tightly integrated so

that the impossible debt levels of so many impoverished

Member States can be assumed by the Union as a whole. This

cannot happen without more political integration. When that

happens, non-Euro members like Britain and Denmark will be

marginalized, with Euroland deciding for Euroland, with little

consideration for anyone outside. There are only two possible

scenarios for the Eurozone: disintegration or integration. Britain

should use the June 23 referendum distance itself from both

scenarios that would be equally bad for Britain.

3) To appease the EU’s visceral dislike of the Anglo-Saxon

world by challenging the supremacy of the US dollar. In this

they have had some success, with the Euro achieving the status

of a reserve currency. All around the world, nations hold a

proportion of their reserves in Euros. Therefore, if the Eurozone

implodes, there will be a crisis. This is why the world’s major

finanical institutions –World Bank, IMF, US Federal Reserve,

etc. – are so anxious and why the Greek crisis has been allowed

to fester for six years because Brussels thinks that if a country

leaves the Eurozone, it will undermine confidence in the euro

even though it the Eurozone would actually be more stable

without Greece. Even though Britain is not a member of the

Eurozone, a Brexit could be seen as a vote of no confidence in

the EU and, by extension, the Eurozone. This is why all the

firepower of these institutions deployed by Obama and others, is

aimed at putting the fear of God into the British people. It is a

naked attempt to subvert the democratic choice of the British

people to prop up the misconceived and misbegotten euro.

British democrats should stand firm against this intimidation.

Our long-term future is at stake and should not be traded off

against a financial crisis not of our making.

So much for the EU fundamentals –Free movement, Schengen,

Eurozone. They are not well conceived but they are fundamental

building blocks for the imperial Super State.

EU POWERS

The EU now makes all the important laws for the UK. There is a

dispute about how much UK legislation comes out of Brussels.

It is certainly more than half but rather than argue numbers, it is

more important to consider the extent of powers enjoyed by the

EU.

Eu powers are called ‘competencies ‘. They have been increased

progressively since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. There has been

a whole series of treaties in which power was transferred to

Brussels but the key milestones have been the 1976 Single

Europe Act that turned the Common Market into the Single

Market, the 1992 Maastricht Treaty that turned the European

Community into the European Union and the 2006 TFEU

(Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), otherwise

known as the Lisbon Treaty. The T-EU was, in fact, a

repackaging of the EU Constitution, which France and the

Netherlands had blocked by referendum. As the competencies of

Brussels have been increased, so has each Member State been

stripped of its right to veto legislation that may be detrimental to

its interests. Each state is subject to the tyranny of the majority.

The UK has lost more votes in Brussels than any other Member

States.

There are four levels of EU Competency:

- Exclusive Competence, which means that only the EU can act.

- Shared Competence, which means that Member States can act,

until the EU acts, in which case the EU overrides Member

States. In effect, these are also EU powers.

- Competence to support, coordinate or supplement actions of

Member States, in other words, supervision of national acts.

- Competence to provide arrangements within which Member

States must coordinate policy, in other words, requiring Member

States to act.

Exclusive Competencies

Customs union (elimination of tariff barriers in the internal

market), competition policy, monetary policy (for the

Eurozone), common agricultural policy (CAP), common

fisheries policy (CFP) and common commercial policy such as

negotiating WTO agreements

Shared Competencies

Internal market, which means everything to do with all industry

sectors from steel to banking to information technology, social

policy, which covers all the work place legislation, economic,

social and territorial cohesion, which means regional aid,

environment, which means everything from greenhouse gases to

dustbins, consumer protection, transport –road, rail, air and sea,

energy – fossil fuels, renewables, etc., Trans-European networks

(TEN), whether, road, telephones electricity grids or any other

inter-European networks, Justice and Home Affairs - an area of

freedom, security and Justice, Public Health, Research,

technological development and aero-pace, humanitarian aid and

development coordination.

Supervision

Human Health, industry, culture, tourism, education, vocational

training, youth, civil protection, and sport

Policy Coordination

Economic policy, Employment, Social policies - following the

euro crisis Member State budgets are reviewed and approved by

Brussels and countries in the Eurozone are sanctioned when

they are out of line. Employment and social policies are

included in these reviews.

Member States are not Self-Governing

These powers clearly put Brussels at the centre of an Empire,

even if we ignore associated developments like the European

army. With this range of powers in Brussels, it is not possible to

describe Member States as self-governing. Most important

legislation originates in Brussels, while national parliaments are

progressively losing more authority and power. To restore selfgovernment

to Britain, we mist leave the EU.

4. BRITAIN MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

WHY WE MUST LEAVE

To restore self-government, the UK must leave the European

Union. For the Remain campaigners who urge us to stay with

the ‘good’ government of the EU, it is time for them to accept

just how bad the governance of the EU really is.

The Westminster system of law making is simple, reliable and

has worked for 750 years. It is the model for most

Commonwealth parliaments and for the US Congress. In

essence, constituencies select candidates with different views,

then elect the candidate with views most acceptable to the

constituents, then the elected member represents his constituents

in parliament, accounts for his or her actions in meetings with

constituents and, if the constituents are satisfied, he or she will

be put forward again as a candidate in the next election. The

House of Commons drives the legislation, the House of Lords is

a revising Chamber. Legislation is initiated by Ministers, who

are also MPs, and also accountable to their constituents. This

process links legislation to the concerns of the electorate and the

will of the people. At each election, the people, the electorate,

pass judgement on the government’s record by the election of

MPs. This is democratic government tried and tested in the

‘Mother of Parliaments’.

Now consider what passes for democracy in the European

Union. We have seen the range of EU competencies. Laws in

these competencies affect the wealth and welfare of every

British citizen, but British citizens have virtually no control over

the outcomes.

European Commission

Elected representatives of the people do not initiate legislation.

The right of initiative rests with the European Commission. This

is a highly paid civil service with a Commissioner in charge of

each department. There are 28 Commissioners, one appointed

by each Member State. They are un-elected and their quality and

competence is variable. Much of the Commission’s programme

is ideological in origin and somewhat detached from the

concerns of the European citizens. This is another reason why

Brussels is distrusted. .

The two most recent British Commissioners have been Lord Hill

3and. Baroness Ashton.

3 Lord Hill was appointed as an EU Commissioner in 2014. Hill worked

in the Conservative Research Department (1985–86), before becoming a

Special Adviser to Kenneth Clarke at the Department of Employment,

Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Health until 1989.

After working for Lowe Bell Communications (1989–91), he joined the

Number 10 Policy Unit (1991–92) and served as Political Secretary to

PM John Major and Head of the Prime Minister's Political Office (1992–

94) during the Maastricht Treaty negotiations.

Subsequently, Hill worked at Bell Pottinger Group from 1994 until 1998

as a senior consultant, before leaving to become a founding director of

Quiller Consultants.

In May 2010, he was created a Life Peer, taking office as Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State for Schools in the Department for Education.

Lord Hill succeeded Lord Strathclyde as Leader of the House of Lords,

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the Conservative

Party in the House of Lords in January 2013.

The choice of Lord Hill as a EU Commissioner was controversial. It had

been expected that a better-known politician would have been nominated

to follow Ashton.

Both are unknown t 4 o the general public and neither has won an

election to represent the people

Legislative Acts initiated by the Commission are generally

subject to a process of co-decision by the Council of Ministers

and the European Parliament. Both institutions need to approve

legislation. It would be wrong to confuse these two bodies with

the two Chambers at Westminster, because neither can respond

to the will of the British people.

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers is a blanket term for councils of

national government ministers responsible for the main domains

of Brussels power such as the environment, together with a top

council of prime ministers. The 28 countries have weighted

votes according to population. When the Commission initiates

4 Baroness Ashton replaced Peter Mandelson as the European

Commissioner for Trade in 2008. Between 1977 and 1983, Ashton

worked for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) as an

administrator and in 1982 was elected as its national treasurer and

subsequently as one of its vice-chairs. From 1979 to 1981 she was

business manager of the Coverdale Organisation, a management

consultancy. From 1983-89 she was director of Business in the

Community.

For most of the 1990s, she was a freelance policy adviser. She chaired

the Health Authority in Hertfordshire from 1998 to 2001 and she became

a vice-president of the National Council for One-Parent Families

She was created a Labour Life Peer in 1999. In 2001 she was appointed

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education

and Skills. In June 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown appointed

Ashton to HM Cabinet as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord

President of the Council. As Government Leader in the House of Lords,

she was responsible for steering the Lisbon Treaty through the Upper

House.

an act like many of the recent financial services acts, which

Britain opposes, Britain cannot stop approval if it is in a losing

minority, because it has no veto.

A recent study has shown that the UK government was on the

losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU

government in the 2009-15 period: jumping from being on the

minority (losing) side only 2.6% of the time in 2004-09 to being

on the minority (losing) side 12.3% of the time in the 2009-15

period. Also, the next most frequent “losing” governments,

Germany and Austria, were only on the minority side 5.4% of

the time in this period.

Britain should not be in a position of having laws forced upon it

by countries with many of which it has little in common. Britain

should restore its democrat legislature and have accountable

lawmakers to make its own laws. There is no practicable way to

hold to account British ministers who acquiesce in legislation in

Brussels that harms British interests.

European Parliament

The European Parliament compounds the EU democratic deficit.

It it is part of the problem, not part of the solution Take, for

example, the South East England constituency comprising the

counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire East Sussex,

Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and

West Sussex. The population of the constituency is 8.5 million.

There are 10 MEPs which males 1 member per 850,000 of the

population (pop). Membership of the EP favours the smallest

countries that generally have a per pop ratio around 4-500,000,

while the smaller are at about 250,000 and the three smallest

constituencies at about 70,000. Clearly, the distribution of seats

is unfair, but the whole system is nonsense.

4 UKIP, 3 Conservative, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal and 1 Green MEP

represent the constituency. How can they relate to 8.5 million

people and get around 9 counties? The answer is that they don’t

and so the voters do not know who they are. Party conclaves

establish candidate lists. Manifestoes are immaterial. Most

people do not vote. Many that do vote support UKIP to protest

about the whole rotten system. In Brussels, the MEPs join one

of the 7 parliamentary parties. Few British people are aware of

these parties and what they stand for. The parties are partly

driven by ideology and partly by lobbying from non

governmental organizations (NGOs) and partly by large

corporations that have spent a great deal of money to secure

legislation adapted to their interests. The people who have no

influence are the constituents. At the end of the day, MEPs do

not account to the electorate for their actions. They are

unaccountable and even if our 10 MEPs wanted to do something

for their constituents, even if they had the support of all 73

British MEPs, their voices would still be lost in a parliament of

751 members.

The only possible reason why the British people accept EU

government, with so much power exercised in the democratic

black hole of Brussels is that they do not understand what is

going on. It is laughable that the USA and Canada urge us to

stick with it. They both have the democracy that we used to

have, and there is no way that they would give it up. We should

get our democracy back.

****

5. BRITAIN MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU

HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS STATE?

The British are so used to being governed reasonably well that

many now take it for granted and are indifferent to the form that

that government takes. In particular, the undemocratic natures of

European Union government, and the erosion of British

democracy are not generally understood. This is because we

have been spared the horror of living with Schengen and the

Euro, and because it is in the self-interest of MPs to conceal the

true scale of Brussels control of Westminster legislation.

The progressive submission of Westminster to Brussels has been

hidden from the people. How did it happen?

Misunderstanding the British Economic Malaise

British government paranoia in the 1960s and early 1970s was

based on the idea that the Common Market was the reason why

the economies of the countries in the European Community

were performing well while Britain was performing badly.

Disastrous Heath Negotiations

Edward Heath would do anything to join the Market. He broke

up the sterling area, renounced the Dominions, gave up the

fisheries and accepted an unfair financial settlement. Of course,

his analysis was quite wrong. Continental economies were being

hugely stimulated by the vast scale of post war reconstruction

coupled with delayed entry of many regions into the 20th century

with installation of electricity and inside toilets for the first time.

This phase would pass, as would the economic outperformance.

Wilson and Referendum

The Wilson government which followed Heath finally gave the

British people a say on Europe, but the conduct of the

referendum was dishonest and in many ways a precursor for the

present campaign. Wilson claimed to have renegotiated the

terms, but nothing substantial had been achieved. The

referendum question was to stay in or leave the Common

Market. The comparison with the present referendum is obvious

– Remain concentrates on the market and avoids any recognition

of the Brussels Super State. The government document sent to

every household can now be seen to have been a pack of lies. At

that referendum, most British people were led to believe that

they were joining a free trade area while in reality we were

joining the EC, the European Community, with a Court of

Justice which could and would begin to undermine the will of

the Westminster Parliament.

Thatcher Government Reforms

The basic British economic problem was the persistence of a

neo-socialist post war settlement that culminated in an IMF

rescue - the sort of thing that happens these days to Greece and

Argentina. The situation was resolved and Britain’s standing

was restored after the Thatcher government had re-established

the market economy. That government also negotiated a rebate

to mitigate the unfair terms of our annual payments to the EU.

Maastricht and Major

In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty turned the European Community

into the European Union. This gave Brussels a swathe of new

powers that Westminster would lose and increased the power of

the European Court. The conduct of the Major government was

reprehensible on two counts. First, the legislation allowing the

Prime Minister to sign the Treaty actually failed to get a

majority in parliament. On a vote of confidence, the

government won by a majority of 3 votes. To use a vote of

confidence for such a profound constitutional decision was

clearly an abuse of power, bit the failure to call a referendum

was a more profound abuse of parliament’s omnipotence. In the

Wilson referendum the British people had voted to join a

Common Market and had found themselves in the European

Community. Now the decision was much bigger and parliament

was deeply divided, yet the people were not consulted.

Blair and the Euro

The power of the referendum, or the threat of it, was the reason

why the Blair government did not take Britain into the Euro.

The significance of that episode is that the establishment, many

politicians, the CBI and the foreign bankers all wanted Britain in

the Euro and said that our world would fall apart if Britain did

not join. They were wrong; it is the Euro that has fallen apart,

not Britain. The same cast of short term oriented self interested

players are behaving in the same way in this campaign. They are

not to be relied on.

Brown and the Constitution

In this saga of government duplicity and democratic denial, the

last two acts are the most shameful. The penultimate act that

brought shame on all of the so-called democracies of the

European Union was the proposal to extend the powers of the

EU even further by a constitutional treaty. This was such a big

step that many governments, including the UK, decided to call

referendums. After France and the Netherlands said ‘No’, and

before the UK could vote, Brussels took the treaty off the table.

In its determination to subvert national democratic will, Brussels

had previously caused a number of Member States to rerun

referendums until they got the results they wanted. Brussels now

needed to do the same thing, but on a grander scale. Step one

was to redraft the constitution as a treaty – The Lisbon Treaty –

keeping all the key provisions of the constitution, but dressing

them up differently. The second step was to arm-twist Member

States to accept that this treaty had nothing in it that warranted a

referendum. This was not true and the acquiescence of Member

States in this fraud is in a large way responsible for the universal

distrust of Brussels and national parliaments that is manifest

across the EU today. It is because Gordon Brown reneged on his

commitment to a referendum in Britain that pressure from UKIP

and others forced Cameron to accept that a referendum was

unavoidable. Now that we have it, let’s use it to restore selfgovernment.

The Cameron Referendum- An orgy of FUD

The final act in the saga is the behaviour of the government and

its misconduct of the referendum. Once again, there has been a

meaningless renegotiation. The government talks about a

reformed Europe, but there is no reform. A one-sided document

has gone to every household at taxpayers’ expense, and barely a

day goes by without a distorted representation of post Brexit

Britain from either the Cabinet Office or the Treasury. In a

campaign to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) they are

determined to prevent the restoration of democratic government

in Britain.

June 23d – A Defining Moment.

When history comes to be written, Cameron’s referendum

campaign, belittling Britain, creating post Brexit panic, denying

his people their democratic heritage, is likely to be judged as

infamous, inglorious and ignominious.

Our forefathers went to war for parliamentary democracy.

We must mobilise to get it back.

*****
_________________
www.rethink911.org

www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org

www.mediafor911truth.org

www.pilotsfor911truth.org

www.mp911truth.org

www.ae911truth.org

www.rl911truth.org

www.stj911.org

www.l911t.com

www.v911t.org

www.thisweek.org.uk

www.abolishwar.org.uk

www.elementary.org.uk

www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149

http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Show more