The European Union

EU NO

What has the EU got to do with political correctness I hear you ask. Only in that it operates in much the same way - by lies and stealth as all non-democratic organisations do. It seems odd to me that we fought a 45yr cold war against an undemocratic, unaccountable monolithic Soviet Bloc and yet our government seems hell bent on staying part of another one. While other countries around the world seek independence, the EU is so backward looking that it seeks to rob countries of their independence. It ignores history which shows that forcing together different people and cultures under one law ends in disaster. The EU will ultimately fail just like the USSR did and for the same reasons.

A brief history

You can read about it below or just watch this 30 min video which explains how initially we were deceived and betrayed and how it continues today.

The EEC was conceived by Germany at the end of the Second World War as a peaceful method of dominating Europe after the more aggressive alternative had failed. It was formally initiated with The Treaty of Rome in 1957 as a entity designed from the start to facilitate 'the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe'. When we twice applied to join, France did us the only favour it has ever done us by saying 'NON'.

When Ted Heath applied again in 1972, the answer was unfortunately 'Oui' but we had to give away our very valuable fishing rights in return. Ted Heath of course, was very careful not to mention this to us or indeed Parliament and very careful not to mention the long term aim of the EEC. Did he know that it was a political union he was really signing up for? Asked this very question on TV just before he died, he gave a wry smile and said 'Of course I did'.

We had an opportunity to come out in a referendum in 1975 but the then Labour government was then in favour of staying in and having plenty of taxpayers money to spend, their campaign dominated.The BBC was very much on the 'stay in' side as well. I didn't vote as I felt that I had no idea of the real issues involved and I thought that no one had explained the 'pros' and 'cons'.

When a Conservative government returned to power in 1979 under Margaret Thatcher, she was much more skeptical of the EU. She managed to reduce our contributions by half but she was still duped into accepting QMV (Qualified Majority Voting). But when she later saw the effect of it, she realised that she had been duped and was not pleased. She said 'Europe is always blind, cowardly, ungrateful and incorrigible - a continent without hope'.

John Major did not learn from Margaret Thatcher's mistakes either. He thought he had agreed an 'opt out' for the UK over the Social Policy section in the Maastricht Treaty (which otherwise would not have been ratified). Unfortunately, the European Court of Justice had other ideas and reneged on the deal. This incensed John Major so much that he wrote a personal letter of appeal to Jacques Santer. Needless to say nothing has changed. This characterises the modus operandi of the EU which operates by lies, stealth and gradual creep. Then came the debacle of joining the EMU. Conflict twixt Thatcher & Lawson seems to have left us totally unprepared. Poor Norman Lamont took the flak and we had to withdraw from the mechanism after currency speculators caused a run on the pound.

When Tony Bliar took over in 1997, he threw himself whole-heartedly into the EU which is somewhat surprising since he was all for coming out of it in 1983. He quickly ratified the Amsterdam Treaty by using a guillotine motion to force it through Parliament with the absolute minimum of debate and bad publicity. From that point on we had little say in our own affairs and now about 80% of new laws are made in Brussels and just rubber stamped on to our Statute Book. We still retained some control over immigration and our borders although of course the government never bothered to use it. However, the Prime Minister solemnly assured the nation that Britain still had ‘complete control' over its immigration policies. Indeed, we enjoyed ‘the best of both worlds' because ‘unless we opt in (to European rules) we are not affected by them'.

In early 2005, when Michael Howard made his policy statements about restricting numbers of immigrants to the UK, within hours a European Union spokesman popped up to point out that this would be illegal under European Law. A red faced Downing Street spokesman was eventually forced to admit that in October 2004, former Home Secretary David Blunkett signed away Britain's veto over asylum, immigration and border control policies and over the past five years Britain has signed up to three EU directives designed to create a common European asylum system. These effectively cede control to Brussels over where asylum seekers should make their claims, how they should be treated, and how they qualify as refugees. More lies and more stealth.

Of course, we ourselves are also to blame for some of the damage the EU does to us. This is because our PC masters see the EU as somewhere to lay the blame for what they actually do to us themselves. So when the EU comes out with a directive, most countries look at it and pick the bits they like and ignore the rest. Not so us. For example, a directive on abattoirs was 12 pages long when it left Brussels – but ran to 96 pages by the time it had been turned it into British law. In France, by contrast, the directive was reduced to just 7 pages.

And how often when travelling in EU countries do you notice things that seem commonplace there but would give our local Health & Safety Inspector an epileptic fit if seen here? Being British, we play the game while other EU countries don't.

The latest nonsense to come out of the EU is that from 2011 all new cars sold will have to have their headlights permanently wired on. This has been condemned by all our motoring organisations as totally unnecessary, dangerous and will be responsible for the deaths of many motor-cyclists, not to mention the pollution aspect of it all.

Below: Health & safety spanish style; working on a roof without a shirt, hi-vis jacket, helmet, harness or scaffolding!

No Health & Safety No Health & Safety

 

How it works and why it is undemocratic

First of all, the unelected bureaucracy, the Commission, has the monopoly to propose all new laws. Second, the Commission’s legal proposals are then negotiated in secret by the shadowy Committee of Permanent Representatives, or bureaucrats from the nation states, known as COREPER. Decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers, again by secret vote. The EU pretends that democracy is maintained because decisions are taken in the Council by national Ministers, who were elected as national MPs. But the point remains that the EU Parliament itself is excluded from the process, except as a rubber stamp when the decisions have been taken. The whole thing is modeled on the old USSR.

Parliament can scrutinise and debate EU legislation but they are unable to change anything unless that change is unanimously agreed by all the Member States in the Council of Ministers. No such changes have ever even been suggested by Parliament. They can also debate and vote on each new EU Treaty, but again change has to be unanimously agreed by all the Member States in the Council of Ministers. (MEPs can only speak for a maximum of two minutes in any debate then their microphone is turned off)

Once an area of national life has been ceded to control from Brussels, it can never be returned to national Parliaments. This is known in Euro-speak as the ‘Acquis Communautaire’ - or ‘powers acquired by the Community’. In plain English this translates as the ‘ratchet’, which can only grind in one direction toward the “ever closer union of the peoples of Europe”.

The EU is corrupt and corrupting from top to bottom. Its own internal auditors have refused to sign its accounts for the last 12 years. 10% of the entire budget 'disappears' in fraud or 'gross mismanagement' yet whistle blowers generally just get fired or sidelined. One job MEPs are elected to do is to hold the Commission to account over things like this, yet as you can tell from their own expenses, they are part of the problem not part of the solution. You only have to look at the antics of the UKIP to see they are more than happy to keep their snouts firmly in the trough.

In early 2008, an internal audit discovered that many MEPs are up to their neck in fraud; the total amount is over £100 million. The report was kept locked up and hushed up and only the budgetary committee was allowed access to it. That was the way it was to stay but for a brave Lib-Dem MEP called Chris Davies who memorised details and refused to be gagged. He has called for the guilty to be prosecuted but I wouldn't hold your breathe given the EU's track record on fraud.

The cost

The government refuses all requests to carry out an independent cost analysis of what our membership of the EU actually costs us, laughingly saying that the benefits of membership are 'obvious'. Well not to me or millions of others they aren't. The EU costs the UK an enormous amount of money for us to be members. There are direct costs and indirect costs. The direct costs are what we pay to the EU as a subsidy (although they very kindly give us some of our money back) and cost us around £8.7 billion a year, a total of £213 billion since 1972.

In the most recent study done by the Bruge Group think-tank, the indirect costs of membership were also assessed.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) costs equates to another £15.6 billion.

Over regulation equates to another £26 billion. (This has also been estimated by several other governments to cost them around 2% of GDP).

Some say we should add £1 billion for the destruction of our fishing industry and also £48 billion that we have spent on pointless water directives.

Food also costs the average family of four an additional £20 a week (£1000 a year) on their food bill. Half of this goes on subsidies to farmers and half in the extra costs of the food compared to that on the open market.

The think-tank estimates the true cost of membership to be about £60.1 billion this year.

This equates to about £1000 per year for every adult & child in the country. The EU is costing us over £1 billion every week or about £114,000 every minute just for taking away our right to govern ourselves. Sounds a very poor deal to me.

Withdrawal is the only answer

When confronted with the above costs, no obvious benefits and the loss of self government, surely the best option is to withdraw? 'Not so' lied Mr Blair when asked. He claimed it would be a disaster for our jobs and trade as nearly 60% of our trade is with the EU' .

This isn't true. The government's own figures clearly show that nearly 60% of our exports of goods goes to the EU. But only some 40% of our total exports go to the EU (goods plus services plus investment income).

But Brussels' dictats are inflicted upon the whole of our economy, so the real point is that only some 10% of our jobs and 10% of our GDP, are involved in trade with the EU (which is declining and in deficit). Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the rest of the world (which is growing and in surplus). The remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic economy. So the mangy 10% tail is wagging our very healthy 90% dog.

And as they sell us far more than we sell them, if we left they would be the ones wanting us to sign a trade deal with them. So we get back all the benefits of self determination, have an extra £60 billion to spend in our own economy and still keep our trade with the EU. Sounds a very good deal to me.

And lets look at the other countries in Europe that actually do this - Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. Oh and which are the richest countries in Europe? That's right: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

So why do they lie to us?

This is where we came in! I have racked my brains as to the reasons why. After all, while in opposition in the 1980s, Tony Blair was vociferous in his condemnation of the EU. I think you can sum it up as follows:

  • As all the main UK political parties are now riddled with political correctness, the EU fits their model better. Styled on the old USSR, it is undemocratic, centralistic and decisions are far removed from what the majority of people want. It is unaccountable.
  • It gives the vain career politician a larger stage to prance on.
  • It gives the career politician a larger expense budget

Back comes the Constitution

In July 2007, the constitution that was rejected by France and the Netherlands in 2005 has found its way back on to the agenda. Not called a constitution now, several of Europe's leaders and even commissioners have pointed out that it is virtually the same thing. European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, admitted the old and revived texts were "as close to each other as was possible". The Irish prime minister said 90 per cent of the constitution remains in the treaty and the Spanish foreign minister said it was nearer 98 per cent. Yet Gordon Brown has reneged on his promise that the constitution would be put to a referendum in the UK. More lies and more stealth.

Watch 'Britain on the Brink', a film about the past, present and future of the EU superstate.

This informative film charts how we have been lied to from the outset and how we are still being lied to now. In the final stages of the EU becoming a superstate, find out how our British way of life will cease and be replaced by us just being a few European regions, ruled by the EU.

Video courtesy of Sanity, Teignmouth, Devon


Delicious Delicious submit to reddit Stumble It! Share