Brexit and EU Referendum = EU impose 'no Brexit'?

[TonyGosling]

FACT 1: The EU has been a shrinking market for 10yrs, hence they want more countries.
FACT 2: The UK is the 2nd largest Economy in the EU.
FACT 3: The UK is the 5th largest Economy in the World.
FACT 4: The EU is an INTERNAL MARKET only.
FACT 5: The EU only accounts for 40% of UK Trade and is shrinking.
FACT 6: The ROW accounts for 60% of UK trade and is growing.
FACT 7: GDP (Per Person) '55-'75 grew 164%, from '75-'95 only grew 155% (11% lower after joining EEC)FACT 8: GDP (Per Person) '95-13 grew 133.5% (another 20yr drop of nearly 20%).
FACT 9: You don't understand Economics.
FACT 10: The figures DON'T LIE - they show membership of the EU is holding us back.
FACT 11: The worlds best economies are NOT in the EU.FACT 12: The worlds largest economies trade is up to 70-80% with ROW, not EU.

What BBC won't tell you about Brexit: Decline of Britain since 1973 EEC Tony Gosling. Why leave EU?

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM

[TonyGosling]

Any remainers in the house?
Brexit - the movie

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k

And some context perhaps?

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goq_jx5r_Fc

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

BREXIT THE MOVIE FULL FILM

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

BREXIT THE MOVIE is a feature-length documentary film to inspire as many people as possible to vote to LEAVE the EU in the June 23rd referendum.

BREXIT THE MOVIE spells out the danger of staying part of the EU. Is it safe to give a remote government beyond our control the power to make laws? Is it safe to tie ourselves to countries which are close to financial ruin, drifting towards scary political extremism, and suffering long-term, self-inflicted economic decline?

BREXIT THE MOVIE shows a side of the EU they don't want us to see: the sprawling self-serving bureaucracy, the political cynicism, the lack of accountability, the perks, the waste, the cronyism, the corruption.

BREXIT THE MOVIE cuts through the patronizing intellectualism of the noble, higher goals of 'Project Europe', to reveal the self-interestedness of the political-bureaucratic class which runs and benefits from the EU.

BREXIT THE MOVIE highlights the danger of becoming a prisoner in an insular, backward-looking Fortress Europe. And it explores the exciting opportunities that open up to us when we look beyond the narrow confines of the EU.

BREXIT THE MOVIE looks to the future, arguing forcefully and persuasively that it is safer and wiser to live in a country which is free, independent, self-governing, confident and global.

For more information, visit www.brexitthemovie.com

[conspiracy analyst]

Brexit Globalisation and the Globalist Left

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol12/vol12_no1_%20Brexit_Gl obalization_Bankruptcy_Globalist_Left.html

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Pro-EU Propaganda in Britain Goes into Overdrive
27.05.2016 Author: Steven MacMillan
http://www.journal-neo.org/2016/05/27/pro-eu-propaganda-in-britain-goe s-into-overdrive/

In recent months, the British establishment has engaged in the most blatant and concerted propaganda campaign since the Scottish independence referendum or the Iraq war. Every day, the establishment spreads more fear in an attempt to keep Britain in the European Union (EU); with this propaganda campaign completely undermining the democratic process.

In April, the British government spent nearly £10 million on a pro-EU propaganda leaflet which they sent to every household in the UK. Even though every-minute of every-day taxpayers’ money is wasted on killing innocent people in imperial wars abroad, openly spending approximately £10m on a propaganda leaflet is surely one of the biggest wastes of taxpayers’ money in recent years; especially in a country where Greek-style austerity is trying to be forced upon the people, and public service cuts have been a key feature of the current Tory government.

It also raises an important question: can a referendum that is called by a government be classified as fair, free and democratic, when the very same government is running a concerted propaganda campaign to coerce the citizens to vote in a particular way? In a free and democratic society, the citizenry should be allowed to vote and not be bullied and terrified into voting in a certain way. In a free and democratic society, the government should stay largely neutral and allow the people to decide for themselves. In a free and democratic society, the government serves the citizens; the citizens are not at the behest of the government.

The EU referendum is just another example that democracy in Britain is merely an illusion; it has no basis in reality. Even if the government does not rig the referendum directly – there was some speculation that the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was rigged – they have engaged in information warfare to the point that the referendum is already rigged in the favour of Britain remaining in the EU. At this point, it is highly unlikely that Britain will vote to leave the EU on the 23rd of June. Whatever your opinion is on the matter, everyone should recognise that a government engaging in a blatant propaganda campaign over an issue of this magnitude is antithetical to the democratic process.

It should also be noted that the British people were not allowed to vote on whether they wanted to join the EU in the 1970s. In 1973, Britain joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU. It was not until two years later that the British people were allowed to vote, after they had adjusted to the status quo of EEC membership. With a 65% turnout, 67% voted in favour of remaining in the EEC. But the central point – which is often misleadingly presented – is that the British people voted to remain in the EEC, they were never asked whether they wanted to join in the first place. A referendum in 1973 on whether Britain wanted to join the EEC may have produced a different result, yet the political elite had no interest in the wishes of the people.

It is clear that the establishment wants Britain to stay in the EU, and is merely holding a referendum in order to appease anti-EU voices and maintain the façade of democracy in Royal Britannia. The list of individuals who are part of the Western establishment and want Britain to stay in the EU continues to expand by the day. Starting with David Cameron and the current government, pro-EU voices include: Barack Obama; Tony Blair; Peter Mandelson; Angela Merkel; Gordon Brown; and numerous former North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) chiefs.

The European project is part of a much grander agenda by the global elite, and it is improbable that the British people will be allowed to vote to leave in June

[TonyGosling]

Interesting comment if true
Big IF
Interesting the lengths the liars will go to...

[TonyGosling]

Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federali sts-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels12:00AM BST 19 Sep 2000
DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.
The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.
The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.
The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds.
The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.
The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.
It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".

[Thomas Tol]

The idea for the Federation of Europe probably started here?

The United States of Europe on the eve of the Parliament of peace
by Stead, W. T. (William Thomas), 1849-1912

Published 1899.

https://archive.org/details/unitedstateseur01steagoog

He was also responsible for this:

The Americanization of the world;
by Stead, William T[homas] 1849-1912. [from old catalog]

Published [1902]

https://archive.org/details/americanizationo01stea

Looks like long term plans coming to fruition.

Oh...and Goldman Sachs.

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what- price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

[TonyGosling]

Christine Marie
5 Jun 2016
It was a mistake to Brenter into the EU in the first place. Now is the time to make your Brescape. Either that, or face Brextinction as a culture.

[TonyGosling]

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
Question 1 of 3
Which of these was the earliest document to contain principles of limited government that were later reflected in the United States Constitution?
Magna Carta.
Petition of Right.
English Bill of Rights.
Second Treatise of Civil Government.

The Role of Government
https://www.docsoffreedom.org/readings/the-role-of-government

Imagine for a moment living under a government that possessed unlimited and undefined powers, such as Communist China or Nazi Germany. What rights do you have now that you think you would lose? To whom, or to what, would you turn if you thought the government were treating you unfairly? How many of your own choices in life—what college to attend, what career options to pursue, whether to marry or have children—do you feel you would be free to make?


If contemplating life under such a government seems depressing, that is because it is. Individual liberty and personal happiness cannot coexist with unlimited government. At the same time, there would be little security for our rights without government or under a government that does not possess sufficient power to effectively promote the public good. Striking this delicate balance has been a centuries-long endeavor in Anglo-American history. Initial strides towards limited government came in the Magna Carta (1215), which embodied the principle that the king’s powers were limited and subject to English law. Nearly five hundred years later, the Petition of Right (1689), citing the Magna Carta, reminded the king that it was the law, not a king, that protected the rights of Englishmen. For most of human history it was accepted that the political legitimacy of a king was derived from God, not from man, and that both law and liberty were subject to God’s will. Focusing on the king’s violation of a half-century of accepted British common law and the traditionally respected rights of Englishmen, the Petition of Right supported the conviction that liberty required that government be limited. Furthermore, liberty interests might supersede kingly authority. It also inspired the English Bill of Rights (1689) which contained strict limits to the power of the monarchy and identified certain inalienable political and civil liberties enjoyed by all Englishmen, regardless of royal prerogative.


Together, these three British documents, Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights, contained the basic tenets of limited government that would come to influence the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A philosophical shift in thinking about the proper role and source of government itself was also underway in the late 1600s, and was given effective voice in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690). Locke argued that governmental legitimacy was based on the consent of the governed and on a responsibility to protect natural rights. While the Petition of Right acquiesced to the notion of the divine right of kings and merely reminded the king that previous monarchs had respected traditionally accepted liberties, Locke’s argument was radically different: people not only voluntarily agree to be governed, but possess rights that flow from nature itself, not from kingly decree. Further, the very purpose of government is not to rule but to protect those rights.


“The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their [lives, liberties and property]” (John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690).
Locke also argued that when a government no longer had the consent of the people, or did not adhere to its proper role of protecting fundamental liberties, then the people have the right to change or overthrow it. Thomas Jefferson would echo these arguments in the Declaration of Independence (1776), asserting that “the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [wrongful seizure of power].” Therefore, according to Jefferson, the king was “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”


Ch 1 john locke
In the Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), John Locke argued that governmental legitimacy was based on the consent of the governed and on a responsibility to protect natural rights.
Once free of Great Britain and wary of living under a government that possessed too much authority, Americans set out to form a new nation. The first attempt came in the Articles of Confederation (1781), which adhered very closely to the principle of limited government; perhaps too closely. The Articles established a “firm league of friendship,” and was little more than a loose association of sovereign nation-states with a weak central government. It could not adequately tax or regulate foreign and interstate commerce. It had neither an executive nor judicial branch to enforce its laws or mediate disputes. Further, any alterations to the Articles that might address these weaknesses had to be unanimously approved by the states, making changes nearly impossible. By 1787, it became obvious to many that the Confederation government was too limited in its scope and authority, and a convention was called in Philadelphia to address its deficiencies.


What emerged from the Constitutional Convention elevated limited government from mere theory to a practical governing philosophy. Through a series of complex structures, innovations, and mechanisms, the U.S. Constitution both empowers and limits government, while providing the framework for each successive generation to regulate that balance.


One feature of the Constitution that both empowers and limits the national government’s reach is the enumeration of powers. Article 1, Section 8 sets out the specific and finite powers that the national government may exercise. Although Article 1, Section 8 only specifically addresses the legislative (or law-making) branch of the national government, its enumeration of powers also provides de facto [in fact] limits on the president (who enforces the law) and on judicial officials (who interpret and apply the law) as well.


Ch 1 con con
What emerged from the Constitutional Convention elevated limited government from mere theory to a practical governing philosophy.
The Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers, enforced through a system of checks and balances, is another feature that serves to limit our government. Liberty is most threatened when any person or group accumulates too much power. The Founders, therefore, divided our national government into three distinct branches and gave to each not only specific powers, roles, and modes of election, but ways to prevent the other two branches from taking or accumulating power for themselves. The president, for example, is commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. However, it is the legislative branch that can declare war, and raises and maintains the armed forces through funding. Congress may impeach the president if it believes he is abusing authority as his commander in chief. Likewise, the president may refuse attempts by Congress to micro-manage wartime decisions on the basis of his role as commander in chief.


This system serves to limit government by first lodging the various powers of government in different branches, then pitting those branches against one another in a jealous quest to preserve their power.
Perhaps the most definitive limitations on government are found in the Bill of Rights. A firewall protects a computer from outside attempts to harm it, so too does the Bill of Rights guard fundamental rights, natural and civil. In fact, far from most Americans’ popular understanding of the Bill of Rights as a “giver” of rights (ask most Americans where they get their right to free speech and the answer will almost always cite the First Amendment), it is actually the “limiter” of government authority. The First Amendment’s words, for example, that “Congress shall make no law…,” significantly constrain governmental action in the areas of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. In similar fashion, the Fourth Amendment limits the executive branch’s ability to invade one’s home without probable cause and a warrant, and the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from authorizing drawing and quartering as punishment for a crime.


The Bill of Rights does convey some rights. For example, the right to a jury trial. Unlike freedom of conscience, which James Madison understood to be a natural or pre-societal right, a jury trial is not a natural right. A decent and defensible civil society will convey protections ensuring fair trials. Liberty and anarchy are incompatible. Liberty and unlimited government are, too. The Constitution, through its unique approaches to balanced government, was designed to harmonize these positions by protecting rights while promoting competent government.


TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
Question 1 of 3

Which of these was the earliest document to contain principles of limited government that were later reflected in the United States Constitution?

Magna Carta.
Petition of Right.
English Bill of Rights.
Second Treatise of Civil Government.

[outsider]

'End the EU, a CIA Covert Operation' By Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44865.htm

[cogbias]

What about the so-called "secret constitution"? I could believe this one, in part at least.

It explains a lot, and what i'm interested in is whether the BBC's remit changes also, "in times of war". I'm sure it probably does. Certainly in World War 2 the BBC was a massive part of the propaganda arm of the west, with reach all over Europe.

Now it's this sort of Social Media Crusade, and it is capable of also changing the constitution. There is no online constitution, which is something people would like as a control mechanism. I'm sure that is what groups like the Bilderberg would be discussing.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
13 JUNE 2016 • 9:13AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-th e-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/
Houses of Parliament
At heart, the Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament. All else is noise

With sadness and tortured by doubts, I will cast my vote as an ordinary citizen for withdrawal from the European Union.

Let there be no illusion about the trauma of Brexit. Anybody who claims that Britain can lightly disengage after 43 years enmeshed in EU affairs is a charlatan or a dreamer, or has little contact with the realities of global finance and geopolitics.

Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

For some of us - and we do not take our cue from the Leave campaign - it has nothing to do with payments into the EU budget. Whatever the sum, it is economically trivial, worth unfettered access to a giant market.


Today's EU is a deformed halfway house that nobody ever wanted
We are deciding whether to be guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether to submit to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy, with no right of appeal.

It is whether you think the nation states of Europe are the only authentic fora of democracy, be it in this country, Sweden, the Netherlands, or France - where Nicholas Sarkozy has launched his presidential bid with an invocation of King Clovis and 1,500 years of Frankish unity.

My Europhile Greek friend Yanis Varoufakis and I both agree on one central point, that today's EU is a deformed halfway house that nobody ever wanted. His solution is a great leap forward towards a United States of Europe with a genuine parliament holding an elected president to account. Though even he doubts his dream. "There is a virtue in heroic failure" he said.

The Project bleeds the lifeblood of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable
I do not think this is remotely possible, or would be desirable if it were, but it is not on offer anyway. Six years into the eurozone crisis and there is no a flicker of fiscal union: no eurobonds, no Hamiltonian redemption fund, no pooling of debt, and no budget transfers. The banking union belies its name. Germany and the creditor states have dug in their heels.

Where we concur is that the EU as constructed is not only corrosive but ultimately dangerous, and that is the phase we have now reached as governing authority crumbles across Europe.

The Project bleeds the lifeblood of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable or legitimate at a European level. It draws away charisma, and destroys it. This is how democracies die.

"They are slowly drained of what makes them democratic, by a gradual process of internal decay and mounting indifference, until one suddenly notices that they have become something different, like the republican constitutions of Athens or Rome, or the Italian city-states of the Renaissance," says Lord Sumption of our Supreme Court.

Brexit
Democracies deny internally by a slow process of constitutional erosion, like the City state of Athens
It is a quarter century since I co-wrote the leader for this newspaper on the Maastricht summit. We warned that Europe's elites were embarking on a reckless experiment, piling Mount Pelion upon Mount Ossa with a vandal's disregard for the cohesion of their ancient polities.

We reluctantly supported John Major's strategy of compromise, hoping that later events would "check the extremists and put the EC on a sane and realistic path."

This did not happen, as Europe's Donald Tusk confessed two weeks ago, rebuking the elites for seeking a “utopia without nation states" and over-reaching on every front.

“Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,” he said.

If there were more Tusks at the helm, one might still give the EU Project the benefit of the doubt. Hard experience - and five years at the coal face in Brussels - tells me others would seize triumphantly on a British decision to remain, deeming it submission from fear. They would pocket the vote. Besides, too much has happened that cannot be forgiven.

EU referendum - video guide to the In and Out campaignsEU referendum - video guide to the In and Out campaignsPlay!01:36
The EU crossed a fatal line when it smuggled through the Treaty of Lisbon, by executive cabal, after the text had already been rejected by French and Dutch voters in its earlier guise. It is one thing to advance the Project by stealth and the Monnet method, it is another to call a plebiscite and then to override the outcome.

Need I remind readers that our own government gave a "cast iron guarantee" to hold a referendum, but retreated claiming that Lisbon was tidying up exercise? It was no such thing. As we warned then, it created a European supreme court with jurisdiction over all areas of EU policy, with a legally-binding Charter of Fundamental Rights that opens the door to anything.

Need I add too, that Britain's opt-out from the Charter under Protocol 30 - described as "absolutely clear" by Tony Blair on the floor of the Commons - has since been swept aside by the ECJ.

It is heartening that our judges have begun to resist Europe's imperial court, threatening to defy any decision that clashes with the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the core texts of our inherited constitution. But this raises as many questions as it answers.


Nobody has ever been held to account for the design faults and hubris of the euro, or for the monetary and fiscal contraction that turned recession into depression, and led to levels of youth unemployment across a large arc of Europe that nobody would have thought possible or tolerable in a modern civilized society. The only people that are ever blamed are the victims.

There has been no truth and reconciliation commission for the greatest economic crime of modern times. We do not know who exactly was responsible for anything because power was exercised through a shadowy interplay of elites in Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels, and Paris, and still is. Everything is deniable. All slips through the crack of oversight.

Nor have those in charge learned the lessons of EMU failure. The burden of adjustment still falls on South, without offsetting expansion in the North. It is a formula for deflation and hysteresis. That way lies yet another Lost Decade.

Has there ever been a proper airing of how the elected leaders of Greece and Italy were forced out of power and replaced by EU technocrats, perhaps not by coups d'etat in a strict legal sense but certainly by skulduggery?

On what authority did the European Central Bank write secret letters to the leaders of Spain and Italy in 2011 ordering detailed changes to labour and social law, and fiscal policy, holding a gun to their head on bond purchases?

What is so striking about these episodes is not that EU officials took such drastic decisions in the white heat of crisis, but that it was allowed to pass so easily. The EU's missionary press corps turned a blind eye. The European Parliament closed ranks, the reflex of a nomenklatura.

While you could say that the euro is nothing to do with us, it obviously goes to the character of the EU: how it exercises power, and how far it will go in extremis.

...the accession of thirteen new countries since 2004...has changed the chemistry of the EU beyond recognition
You can certainly argue from realpolitik that monetary union is so flawed it will lurch from crisis to crisis until it ruptures, in the next global downturn or the one after that, and will therefore compel the European elites to abandon their grand plans, so why not bide our time. But this is to rely on conjecture.

You can equally argue that the high watermark of EU integration has passed: the Project is in irreversible decay. We are a long way from the triumphalism of the millennium, when the EU was replicating the structures of the US federal government, with an EU intelligence cell and military staff in Brussels led by nine generals, and plans for a Euro-army of 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships to project global power.

You can argue too that the accession of thirteen new countries since 2004 - mostly from Eastern Europe - has changed the chemistry of the EU beyond recognition, making it ever less plausible to think of a centralized, close-knit, political union. Yet retreat is not the declared position of the Five Presidents' Report, the chief blueprint for where they want the EU Project to go. Far from it.

In any case, even if we do not go forward, we may not go backwards either. By design it is almost impossible to repeal the 170,000 pages of the Acquis. Jean Monnet constructed the EU in such way that conquered ground can never be ceded back, as if were the battleground of Verdun.

We are trapped in a 'bad equilibrium', leaving us in permanent friction with Brussels. It is like walking forever with a stone in your shoe.

But if we opt to leave, let us not delude ourselves. Personally, I think the economics of Brexit are neutral, and possibly a net plus over 20 years if executed with skill. But it is nothing more than an anthropological guess, just as the Treasury is guessing with its cherry-picked variables.

We are compelled to make our choice at a treacherous moment, when our current account deficit has reached 7pc of GDP, the worst in peace-time since records began in 1772 under George III.

We require constant inflows of foreign capital to keep the game going, and are therefore vulnerable to a sterling crisis if foreigners lose confidence.

We have the worst current account deficit since the reign of George III
We have the worst current account deficit since the reign of George III
I am willing to take the calculated risk that our floating currency would act as a benign shock absorber - as devaluation did in 1931, 1992, and 2008 - but it could be a very rough ride. As Standard & Poor's warned this week, debts of UK-based entities due over the next 12 months amount to 755pc of external receipts, the highest of 131 rated sovereign states. Does it matter? We may find out.

The Leave campaign has offered no convincing plan for our future trading ties or the viability of the City. It has ruled out a fall-back to the European Economic Area, the "Norwegian" model that would preserve - if secured - access to the EU customs union and preserve the "passporting" rights of the City.

The EEA would be a temporary haven while we sorted out our global trading ties, the first step of a gradual extraction. The Leavers have not embraced this safe exit - or rather, less dangerous exit - because it would mean abandoning all else that they have pledged so promiscuously, chiefly the instant control of EU migrant flows.

By this fourberie they have muddied the water, conflating constitutional issues and with the politics of immigration. We risk a Parliamentary crisis and shrieks of betrayal if the Commons - discerning the national will - imposes the EEA option on a post-Brexit government, as it may have to do.

We leave Ireland in the lurch, at risk of an economic shock that it did nothing to provoke. Those Leavers who chatter cavalierly of resiling from the (non-EU) European Convention of Human Rights should be aware that the Good Friday peace accords are anchored in that document, and if they do not understand why it matters that just 12pc of Ulster Catholics support Brexit, they are not listening to Sinn Fein.

However unfair it may seem, the whole Western world deems Brexit to be an act of strategic vandalism at a time when Pax Americana is cracking and the liberal democracies are under civilizational threat.

Without rehearsing well-known risks, we have a Jihadi cauldron across much of the Levant and North Africa; Vladimir Putin's Russia has ripped up the post-War rule book and is testing Nato every day in the Baltics; China's construction of airfields along international shipping routes off the Philippines is leading to a superpower showdown with the US.

The Leave campaign was caught off guard when Barack Obama swept into London to make it the US view brutally clear, followed by Japan's Shinzo Abe, and a troop of world leaders. You do not unpick the web of interlocking global ties lightly.

One hopes that Brexiteers now understand what they face, and therefore what they must do to uphold British credibility if they win. We must be an even better ally. But by the same token, the people of this country have every right to take this one chance to issue their verdict on four decades of EU conduct.

Remain invokes Edmund Burke, but he should really be the pin-up philosopher of the Brexiteers
Remain invokes Edmund Burke, but he should really be the pin-up philosopher of the Brexiteers
To those American friends who ask why we cavil at compromises with Europe when we "pool sovereignty" - an inaccurate term - with scores of bodies from NATO to the United Nations, the answer is that the EU is not remotely comparable in scale, ideology, or intent to anything else on this planet.

Remainers invoke Edmund Burke and the doctrine of settled practice, but settled is the one thing the EU has not been in its irrepressible itch for treaties and its accretion of power, and Burke is a double-edged sword.

He backed the American Revolution, not to create something dangerously daring and new, but rather to restore lost liberties and self-government, the settled practice of an earlier age. Americans of all people should understand why a nation may wish to assert its independence.

This is my decision. It may go against my own interest, since I hope to live out part of my remaining years in France - though countless Britons lived there contentedly in 19th Century before we ever had such a thing as the European Union, and no doubt will continue to do so long after it is gone.

I urge nobody to follow my example. It ill behoves anyone over 50 to exhort an outcome too vehemently. Let the youth decide. It is they who must live with the consequences.

[fish5133]

The online polls ive seen seem to suggest 60 to 70% out. The Labour remain were canvassing outside a local school and around 95% of the parents all said out. But the bookies have it the other way round 70% remain 30% out. . The recent talk at Westminster Chapel was 60% remain. but after the talk their had been a swing to leave.

This got me started in 1997. Not a lot different except we finally have a vote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dxZ1MoyXNA

[TonyGosling]

British defense secretary Michael Fallon has warned that leaving the E-U could threaten the West’s security.
<V>
Fallon was speaking at a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels. Fallon said this is the first time a country might leave either NATO or the European Union, saying NATO and the EU are twin pillars of U-K’s security. He also described the situation as dangerous since as it would undermine the collective security of Western Europe. Opinion polls over the last four days have suggested that the "Leave" camp is leading in Britain once again. This, after other polls last week showed supporters of Britain remaining in the E-U were ahead with a narrow lead.


Brussels, June 14, 2016 (AFP) -
Britain's defence minister on Tuesday warned that the country faced a "very dangerous moment" as polls showed voters increasingly in favour of quitting the European Union in a referendum next week.
"This is a very dangerous moment. No country has ever left either NATO or the EU which are the twin pillars of our security," Michael Fallon told reporters on the sidelines of a NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels.
"For a major country like Britain to leave either of those partnerships would weaken the collective security of the West," he said.
"I would hope voters think very, very hard about the real risks to our security of voting to leave."
Recent opinion polls show a growing lead for "Brexit," with voters ignoring a host of blunt warnings by Prime Minister David Cameron and international bodies that leaving the EU would badly damage the economy and undercut Britain's standing in the world.
European Council President Donald Tusk warned Monday that Brexit could spell the "destruction" of Western political civilisation.

[TonyGosling]

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.
*****

[outsider]

'The British Empire's European Union' Allen Douglas:
http://www.cecaust.com.au/docs/brit_empire_eu.pdf
An Australian guy from Citizens Electoral Council of Australia gave it to me outside Camden Town Hall, where I attended a (very spirited) Lexit (Left Out) meeting.

The magazine is extremely informative; I have only got to page 7 (of 54) and already I have about 10 things I want to check on.
Due to the short time before the Referendum, I've put this up before finishing the mag and checking some stuff, but it certainly seems pukka.

[TonyGosling]

Paxman in Brussels: Who Really Rules Us? Documentary 2016

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGOzhhOAF8

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

‘Brexit’ could send shock waves across U.S. and global economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/18/how-brexit-coul d-hurt-america/

By Ylan Q. Mui WonkblogJune 18
What you need to know about "Brexit" Play Video3:22
On June 23, Britain faces a fateful decision: whether or not to leave the European Union. And the world will be watching. (Daron Taylor,Jason Aldag,Danielle Kunitz/The Washington Post)
Britain's departure from the European Union could send shock waves across the global economy and threaten more than a trillion dollars in investment and trade with the United States.

International policymakers are ramping up their warnings of the dangers of a British exit - popularly known as "Brexit" — from the political and economic alliance that has united Europe for the past four decades. Voters in Britain will decide whether to leave or remain in the European Union in a referendum on Thursday, but financial market volatility has already spiked as polls show a growing desire to abandon the partnership.

The decision carries hefty consequences for American businesses, which employ more than a million people in Britain. The United States is the largest single investor in Britain, and many firms consider it the gateway to free trade with the 28 nations that make up the E.U. A Brexit would jeopardize their access to those markets, potentially reducing revenue and forcing some firms to consider relocating their European operations elsewhere. That has put corporate America onto the front lines of the campaign to keep the union together, with several of Wall Street's biggest names donating substantial sums to the effort.


A Brexit would be "bad for the U.K., it would be bad for Europe, it would be bad for the world, including the United States," Angel Gurría, secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in an interview. "You already have enough uncertainty in the world today. We don't need more."

The International Monetary Fund on Friday issued one of the most dire forecasts to date, calling the impact of Britain's departure from the European Union "negative and substantial." The fund predicted that a Brexit could reduce economic growth by up to 5.6 percent over the next three years in its worst-case scenario. The gloomy outlook is driven by an expected sharp decline in the pound

and severe disruptions in trade as the nation is forced to renegotiate deals with countries across the continent, potentially on worse terms.

Those concerns were echoed by policymakers around the world last week. The Bank of England called the referendum the "largest immediate risk facing U.K. financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets." Finland's finance minister dubbed Brexit a "Lehman Brothers moment," referring to the collapse

of the U.S. investment bank during the depths of the financial crisis in 2008. And in Washington, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen said the threat of a Brexit factored into its decision to remain cautious and keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged last week.

"They basically all say somewhat of the same thing," said Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Namely, that there is little doubt that the economics will be bad."


Financial markets are already starting to feel the tremors. Britain's currency has fluctuated wildly, while London's major stock index plunged nearly 6 percent in less than two weeks and flirted with its lowest level in four months. Skittish investors piled into the safe haven of government debt, and high demand pushed yields on the 10-year German bond into negative territory last week for the first time in history. In the United States, yields on comparable Treasury notes dropped to near-record lows not seen since 2012.

The challenges are coming at an already weak moment for Europe's economy — and the world's. Europe is still recovering from the series of financial crises that have been roiling countries such as Greece and Italy along with others across the continent. Waves of refugees from the Middle East are spurring political and cultural unrest. And there are worries about the strength of the economies of Europe's major trading partners, including China and the United States.

While financial markets would bear the brunt of the immediate impact of a Brexit, the referendum raises deeper questions for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. If Britain votes to leave, it would spend at least two years working out the terms of its departure, with all signs pointing to an acrimonious negotiation. Britain would also need to procure trade agreements with countries around the world, including the United States, a process that could take years. Businesses say the protracted debate would leave them stuck in limbo.

"Nobody knows at this point how the world would look like with the U.K. out of the E.U.," said Emanuel Adam, head of policy and trade for BritishAmerican Business, which represents companies in New York and London. "This alone creates an uncertainty that businesses don't wish to see."


The United States exported $56 billion worth of goods to Britain last year, but that number is dwarfed by the $588 billion in U.S. investment there, in sectors ranging from banking to manufacturing to real estate. Likewise, Britain has plowed nearly

half a trillion dollars into the United States and employs more than a million workers here. Those deep ties mean that trouble on one side of the Atlantic easily can migrate to the other shore.

The heavy-equipment giant Caterpillar exemplifies the dilemma facing American businesses in Britain and the potential ripple effects of the referendum. The company manufactures heavy machinery and is headquartered in Peoria, Ill. More than 55 years ago, it opened its first facility in Britain, and now Caterpillar has 9,000 employees and 16 plants there making equipment, such as backhoe loaders and mini hydraulic excavators.

Much of that production is exported throughout Europe and other parts of the world, eased by the E.U.'s open market and standing trade agreements. A Brexit would undermine an economic alliance that the company has called "fundamental" to its business: Roughly a quarter of Caterpillar's sales and revenue comes from its European business and the more limited operations in Africa and

the Middle East.

"Britain ought to stay in," Doug Oberhelman, chief executive at Caterpillar and chairman of the board at the U.S. Business Roundtable, said last week. "Keeping that market together as a whole is better than not having it together."

Brexit backers, however, say the E.U. creates burdensome regulations that have hurt British innovation and competitiveness. Last month, a group of 250 business leaders signed a letter supporting an exit, and the head of one of Britain's largest business groups resigned his post after receiving fierce criticism for appearing to sympathize with the leave campaign.

Debate over Brexit resumes in Britain Play Video1:33
Campaigning resumes ahead of Britain's referendum on European Union membership after the killing of Labour MP Jo Cox. (Reuters)
Still, many Brexit supporters are not executives but employees. A recent YouGov survey showed that leaving the union was popular among older, conservative, blue-collar laborers — many of whom live in Peterborough, where Caterpillar runs a plant manufacturing diesel engines. In April, British Prime Minister David Cameron visited the factory to address skepticism over the benefits of the European alliance.

"I don't think we should risk jobs. I don't think we should risk our economy," Cameron told workers at the factory. "We shouldn't risk the investment that a company like this brings into Britain."

Other big U.S. businesses have thrown their weight behind the effort to stay in the union, as well. Ford's U.K. division sent a letter to its 14,000 employees emphasizing the importance of maintaining stability and preventing disruptions in trade. Wall Street's biggest banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley, reportedly have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Britain Stronger in Europe, the leading campaign to remain. A survey by BritishAmerican Business found that 70 percent of its members thought a Brexit would damage their operations or future investments.

It's not just mega-corporations that might be affected. Entrepreneur Angela Spang founded June Medical two years ago to sell medical devices in Britain. She now employs a dozen people and books about 1 million pounds in revenue a year. Her biggest customer is the National Health Service — and her biggest supplier is the United States.

Because the products she buys are largely priced in U.S. dollars, Britain's weakened currency has shaved 20,000 to 30,000 pounds from her bottom line in a single month. Meanwhile, Spang had hoped to distribute throughout Europe, taking advantage of a single E.U. regulatory process for the approval of medical devices marketed to its 500 million residents. But if a Brexit becomes a reality, she could lose easy access to those potential customers — and so would her U.S. suppliers.

Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.
Sign up
Spang said she might have to relocate her business, not only for economic reasons but also for personal ones: She is Swedish and said she is unsure what her immigration status would be if Britain left the union. Her 8-year-old daughter, who was born in Britain, has asked whether the family would have to leave if Britain votes out.

"Personally, it's devastating. It's just heartbreaking to see that the U.K. would be taking such steps when we need to be stronger together," Spang said. "Surely there must be more hope for us to stay together and collaborate."

Staff writer Jim Tankersley contributed to this report.

[TonyGosling]

The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 27 APRIL 2016 • 8:18PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-alwa ys-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

EU creator Jean Monnet was Roosevelt's eyes and ears in Europe. Some called him a US agent
Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US. The European Union always was an American project.

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

While irritated at times, the US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO.

There has never been a divide-and-rule strategy.

The eurosceptic camp has been strangely blind to this, somehow supposing that powerful forces across the Atlantic are egging on British secession, and will hail them as liberators.

The anti-Brussels movement in France - and to a lesser extent in Italy and Germany, and among the Nordic Left - works from the opposite premise, that the EU is essentially an instrument of Anglo-Saxon power and 'capitalisme sauvage'.

France's Marine Le Pen is trenchantly anti-American. She rails against dollar supremacy. Her Front National relies on funding from Russian banks linked to Vladimir Putin.

Like it or not, this is at least is strategically coherent.

The Schuman Declaration that set the tone of Franco-German reconciliation - and would lead by stages to the European Community - was cooked up by the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson at a meeting in Foggy Bottom. "It all began in Washington," said Robert Schuman's chief of staff.

It was the Truman administration that browbeat the French to reach a modus vivendi with Germany in the early post-War years, even threatening to cut off US Marshall aid at a furious meeting with recalcitrant French leaders they resisted in September 1950.

Truman's motive was obvious. The Yalta settlement with the Soviet Union was breaking down. He wanted a united front to deter the Kremlin from further aggrandizement after Stalin gobbled up Czechoslovakia, doubly so after Communist North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded the South.

For British eurosceptics, Jean Monnet looms large in the federalist pantheon, the emminence grise of supranational villainy. Few are aware that he spent much of his life in America, and served as war-time eyes and ears of Franklin Roosevelt.

General Charles de Gaulle thought him an American agent, as indeed he was in a loose sense. Eric Roussel's biography of Monnet reveals how he worked hand in glove with successive administrations.

It is odd that this magisterial 1000-page study has never been translated into English since it is the best work ever written about the origins of the EU.

Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.

As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency.

The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement's funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA.

Bill Donovan, legendary head of the war-time OSS, was later in charge of orchestrating the EU project

Papers show that it treated some of the EU's 'founding fathers' as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington.

There is nothing particularly wicked about this. The US acted astutely in the context of the Cold War. The political reconstruction of Europe was a roaring success.

There were horrible misjudgments along the way, of course. A memo dated June 11, 1965, instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable". This was too clever by half, as we can see today from debt-deflation traps and mass unemployment across southern Europe.

In a sense these papers are ancient history. What they show is that the American 'deep state' was in up to its neck. We can argue over whether Boris Johnson crossed a line last week by dredging up President Barack Obama's "part-Kenyan ancestry", but the cardinal error was to suppose that Mr Obama's trade threat had anything to do with the ordeals of his grandfather in a Mau Mau prison camp. It was American foreign policy boilerplate.

As it happens, Mr Obama might understandably feel rancour after the abuses that have come to light lately from the Mau Mau repression. It was a shameful breakdown of colonial police discipline, to the disgust of veteran officials who served in other parts of Africa. But the message from his extraordinary book - 'Dreams From My Father' - is that he strives to rise above historic grudges.

Brexiteers take comfort that Republican hopeful Ted Cruz wants a post-Brexit Britain to jump to the "front of the line for a free trade deal”, but he is merely making campaign hay. Mr Cruz will conform to Washington's Palmerstonian imperatives - whatever they may be at that moment - if he ever enters the White House.

President Obama's grandfather was a prisoner during the suppression of Kenya's Mau Mau revolt, a shameful episode of British colonial history

It is true that America had second thoughts about the EU once the ideological fanatics gained ascendancy in the late 1980s, recasting the union as a rival superpower with ambitions to challenge and surpass the US.

John Kornblum, the State Department's chief of European affairs in the 1990s, says it was a nightmare trying deal with Brussels. "I ended up totally frustrated. In the areas of military, security and defence, it is totally dysfunctional."

Mr Kornblum argues that the EU "left NATO psychologically" when it tried to set up its own military command structure, and did so with its usual posturing and incompetence. "Both Britain and the West would be in much better shape if Britain was not in the EU," he said.

This is interesting but it is a minority view in US policy circles. The frustration passed when Poland and the first wave of East European states joined the EU in 2004, bringing in a troupe of Atlanticist governments.

We know it is hardly a love-affair. A top US official was caught two years ago on a telephone intercept dismissing Brussels during the Ukraine crisis with the lapidary words, "* the EU".

Yet the all-pervading view is that the Western liberal order is under triple assault, and the EU must be propped, much as Britain and France propped up the tottering Ottoman Empire in the 19th - and wisely so given that its slow collapse led directly to the First World War.

Today's combined threats comes from Jihadi terror and a string of failed states across the Maghreb and the Levant; from a highly-militarized pariah regime in Moscow that will soon run out of money but has a window of opportunity before Europe rearms; and from an extremely dangerous crisis in the South China Sea that is escalating by the day as Beijing tests the US alliance structure.

The dangers from Russia and China are of course interlinked. It is likely - pessimists say certain - that Vladimir Putin would seize on a serious blow-up on Pacific rim to try his luck in Europe. In the eyes of Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, and those capitals around the world that broadly view Pax Americana as a plus, this is not the time for Britain to lob a stick of dynamite into Europe's rickety edifice.

The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem. Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.

In my view, the Brexit camp should be laying out plans to increase UK defence spending by half to 3pc of GDP, pledging to propel Britain into the lead as the undisputed military power of Europe. They should aim to bind this country closer to France in an even more intimate security alliance. These sorts of moves would at least spike one of Project Fear's biggest guns.

The Brexiteers should squelch any suggestion that EU withdrawal means resiling from global responsibility, or tearing up the European Convention (that British-drafted, non-EU, Magna Carta of freedom), or turning our backs on the COP21 climate accords, or any other of the febrile flirtations of the movement.

It is perhaps too much to expect a coherent plan from a disparate group, thrown together artificially by events. Yet many of us who are sympathetic to the Brexit camp, who also want to take back our sovereign self-government and escape the bogus and usurped supremacy of the European Court of Justice, have yet to hear how Brexiteers think this extraction can occur without colossal collateral damage and in a manner consistent with the honour of this country.

You can quarrel with Europe, or you can quarrel with the US, but it is courting fate to quarrel with the whole democratic world at the same time.

[TonyGosling]

OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/06/01/oss-cia-united-europe-eec-eu/
RICHARD J. ALDRICH
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/os s_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf

During the last ten years, diplomatic historians have attached
growing significance to intelligence, and the related subject of covert
operations, as increasingly important to an understanding of the early
Cold War.1
After 1945, a variety of Western organizations, not just
intelligence agencies, drew up programmes of covert operations
designed both to undermine Communist influence in Europe and to
ensure a welcome for the Marshall Plan. Examples have been
documented in the fields of electoral politics, organized labour and
cultural affairs. US officials trying to rebuild and stabilize postwar
Europe worked from the assumption that it required rapid
unification, perhaps leading to a United States of Europe. The
encouragement of European unification, one of the most consistent
components of Harry S. Truman's foreign policy, was even more
strongly emphasized under his successor General Dwight D.
Eisenhower. Moreover, under both Truman and Eisenhower, US
policymakers conceived of European unification not only as an
important end in itself, but also as a way to solve the German
problem.2
The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of
European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains
poorly understood.
One of the most interesting US covert operations in postwar
Europe was the funding of the European Movement. The European
Movement was an umbrella organization which led a prestigious, if
disparate, group of organizations urging rapid unification in Europe,
focusing their efforts upon the Council of Europe, and counting
Winston Churchill, Paul-Henri Spaak, Konrad Adenauer, Leon Blum
and Alcide de Gasperi as its five Presidents of Honour. In 1948, its
Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol.8, No.l (March 1997), pp. 184-227
PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON
Downloaded By: [University of Warwick] At: 16:20 10 February 2009OSS, CIA AND EUROPEAN UNITY 185
main handicap was the scarcity of funds. It will be argued here that
the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and
1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to
drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence
Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This
covert contribution never formed less than half the European
Movement's budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously
they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour
government to federalist ideas.3
This essay concentrates on the US dimension of these activities.4
The conduit for American assistance was the American Committee on
United Europe (ACUE), directed by senior figures from the American
intelligence community. This body was organized in the early Summer
of 1948 by Allen Welsh Dulles, then heading a committee reviewing
the organization of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on behalf of
the National Security Council (NSC), and also by William J. Donovan,
former head of the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS). They
were responding to separate requests for assistance from Count
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, a veteran Pan-European campaigner
from Austria, and from Churchill. ACUE worked closely with US
government officials, particularly those in the Economic Cooperation
Administration (ECA) and also with the National Committee for a
Free Europe.

[TonyGosling]

Brexit: Whose Interests Does the Bank of England’s Ardently Pro-EU Governor Really Serve?
Eamonn Fingleton • June 20, 2016 • 2,100 Words • 11 Comments • Reply

http://www.unz.com/efingleton/brexit-whose-interests-does-the-bank-of- englands-ardently-pro-eu-governor-really-serve/


Mark Carney at World Economic Forum, 2013. Copyright by WEF, Photo Moritz Hager. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Mark Carney is a globalist’s globalist. To say the least, this seems never to have held him back in the past. His luck may be changing.

Born in Canada and educated at Harvard and Oxford, he worked for Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, and Toronto, before going into public service. His wife is British and his children have both Canadian and British passports. Reflecting his Irish ancestry, he himself holds Irish as well as Canadian citizenship. After a brief spell as governor of the Bank of Canada, he was appointed governor of the Bank of England in 2013 – the first non-Briton to hold the post in the bank’s more than 300-year history.

In the UK’s bitter so-called Brexit debate (about whether to exit the European Union), Carney has been doing Trojan work terrifying any voter who might vote Leave in Thursday’s referendum.He has warned, among things, that Brexit could tip the UK into recession, send the pound reeling, reawaken inflation, and throw countless workers on the dole. In so doing, he has provided invaluable “independent” support for an increasingly outrageous scaremongering campaign by Prime Minister David Cameron as well as finance minister George Osborne and other leaders of the so-called Remain camp (those who want to stay in the EU).Carney has even appeared on one of the big British Sunday current affairs programs to bring his Brexit warnings into every living room. This teed things up nicely for Osborne, who a few days later announced that, in the wake of a Leave vote, a punishing emergency budget would have to be enacted in a supposedly desperate attempt to shore up foreign confidence.

In pandering to the Remain camp, Carney has come in for a particularly bluntly worded – by British establishment standards – reprimand from four elders of Cameron’s own Conservative party. In a letter to the London Telegraph, former finance ministers Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont and former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard wrote: “There has been startling dishonesty in the economic debate, with a woeful failure on the part of the Bank of England, the Treasury, and other official sources to present a fair and balanced analysis. They have been peddling phony forecasts and scare stories to back up the attempts of David Cameron and George Osborne to frighten the electorate into voting Remain.”

Irrespective of which way the vote goes, Carney looks dangerously exposed. Although he claims that the Bank of England has a duty to make itself clear on the alleged consequences of Brexit, the fact is that the bank has a long tradition of staying out of political debates. In particular in the run-up to general elections, it has scrupulously avoided offering any hint of its views on the merits – and sometimes alarming demerits – of the competing parties’ economic programs. In any case, as the prominent Brexit campaigner Bernard Jenkin has pointed out, Carney’s Sunday program appearance clearly crossed a line.

If the British do vote to leave, would this prove, on balance, as bad for the British economy as Carney seems to think? Any honest answer should be prefaced by a mention of the dangers of making forecasts – particularly about the future. Carney might also mention that the Bank of England’s own forecasting record has been spotty at best.

A reasonable guess is that the many economic pluses and minuses of a Brexit decision would broadly balance out. The fact is that a post-Brexit UK would enjoy enormous bargaining power to negotiate an even more favorable free-trade deal with Brussels than that already enjoyed by such super-prosperous non-EU nations as Switzerland and Norway. Thus the Brexit option is less a matter of economic consequences than political ones, and in particular the issue of national sovereignty (and such related matters as immigration from Eastern Europe, which is a hot topic for many Britons).

The irony is that some of Carney’s predictions may prove right – but just not in the baleful way he has suggested. Carney and his colleagues have warned, for instance, that a Brexit vote could precipitate a fall in house prices. There is less here than meets the eye. House prices in the London region are already grossly inflated and are evidently in the later stages of a giant bubble. Irrespective of which way the Brexit vote goes, they are likely to take a tumble in the years ahead – and such a development would be far from unwelcome for millions of ordinary would-be home buyers who have long been priced out of the market. An additional irony is that the main reason house prices have become so inflated is that the Bank of England has been remarkably lax in controlling home loan debt.

Carney has also forecast that the pound, which has already weakened considerably in recent weeks,could take a major hit in the event of Brexit decision. Again this may be proved right – but a drastically lower pound would, on balance, prove a blessing in disguise. After all it would provide a badly needed boost to exporters and help severely challenged domestic producers compete with imports.

The pound has had a long history of overvaluation and, as is obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the UK’s now disastrous trade trend, the problem has become particularly acute in recent years. The UK’s pattern of consistent deficits dates to as far back as the early 1980s and has long run even higher as a percentage of national income even than America’s.

According to economics commentator Liam Halligan, the current account deficit had already reached a shocking 3.5 percent of national income in 2012. It rose to 4.7 percent in 2013 and to no less than 5.9 percent in 2014. As Halligan points, this latter figure was the worst performance in the UK’s history. And with the exception of the desperate circumstances of war and the immediate aftermath of war, it was probably the worst of any major nation ever. Last year’s figure, at 4.7 percent, was a slight relief but in the larger context was still disastrous.

All the evidence is that the UK has become structurally dependent on an unsustainable level of imports. Not only has this exacerbated its chronically severe unemployment problem but a further alarming consequence is that more and more of the commanding heights of the British economy are coming under foreign ownership. The implications for British sovereignty are bleak. For a telling article on the extent to which the British economy had already come under foreign ownership by 2012, click here.

What has the Bank of England been doing to raise the alarm? And, even more to the point, what has it been doing to counter the trend? The answer in both cases is next to nothing. Whereas Carney and his institution have chosen to play a central role in the Brexit debate, they have been virtually invisible on the balance of payments problem and, if anything, they have helped enable the trend. Last summer Carney pronounced the current account deficits “not an immediate cause for alarm.” A month later, Ben Broadbent, the Bank’s deputy governor for monetary policy, further fed public complacency by suggesting the UK had been savvy in borrowing abroad to fund investments.

One interpretation of Carney’s approach is that he is a doctrinaire globalist – the sort of person who cares not a whit about national interests, not even the interests of the nation that now pays him more than $900,000 a year to oversee its central bank.

One thing is clear: various vested interests that have figured in his past – and may figure again in his future – can be well pleased with his performance. Certainly he has been singing their song.

Take Goldman Sachs. Carney’s notorious former employer has been in the forefront of the scaremongers, predicting that a Leave vote would not only trigger a 20 percent devaluation of sterling but threaten banks and house-builders. It may not be a coincidence that, as the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Goldman Sachs has a lot of skin in the game, not least because it is currently building a vast new $500 millionLondon headquarters for its European operations.

Then there is the Japanese establishment. Given that Carney’s early success dates in no small measure to a spell in Goldman’s Tokyo office, it is interesting to ask how his Japanese friends see the vote. The answer comes as no surprise to anyone with significant Japan watching experience (I worked in Tokyo for 27 years). The Japanese establishment is strongly pro-Remain. Though Japanese corporations couch their case in terms of what is supposed to be best for the UK, it is probably not a coincidence that Japanese mercantilists have found that the fractured and polyglot European Commission is a breeze to deal with. By contrast, a solidly led UK that was free to pursue its own independent trade diplomacy might not prove such a pushover. The fact is that though protectionism is integral to the Japanese economic system, Brussels never seems to have noticed. When did you last hear it protest even such an obvious scandal as Tokyo’s virtual total embargo on imports of foreign cars?

This is not, of course, to suggest that Carney has been consciously dancing to Tokyo’s tune. It is worth noting, however, that nothing is more revelatory of the depth of Japan’s commitment to mercantilism than a few years’ residence in the country. For a foreign investment banker to survive there, let alone to take his career to the next stage, it is necessary to hold tight to the mantra that “trade does not matter.” Even better, one should go around proclaiming that nations that protect their markets “hurt only themselves.” The fact that the success of the whole of the East Asian region – not only that of Japan, but of South Korea, Taiwan, and now China – stands in silent contradiction of this view must be studiously swept under the rug.

A further consideration is what the Germans think. Like Japan, Germany sees the virtues of one-way globalism: it insists that other nations open their markets to its exports while maintaining a tissue of unobtrusive barriers to imports. Although the EU was supposed to provide a level playing field, that playing field has long been quietly tipped in Germany’s favor. Thus while the UK has scrupulously opened its markets to other nations (not least to Germany), Brussels has turned a blind eye to German protectionism. Even as the UK has incurred ever greater trade deficits, Germany has racked up ever greater surpluses. So much so that Germany last year enjoyed a current account surplus equal to 8.5 percent of national income. This was one of the best performances of any major nation in history – actually little short of astounding (Germany’s surplus was nearly as high in money terms as that of China, a mercantilist nation with more than fifteen times Germany’s population).

Of course, this is not to suggest that Carney has been any more conscious of facilitating Germany’s agenda than Japan’s. But the Germans, like the Japanese, have an interest in promoting the rise to ultimate leadership of true globalists in other nations. In that regard, it is worth recalling that Carney attended the annual meetings of the pro-German Bilderberg Group in 2011 and 2012. A reasonable guess is that he would not have been invited had his views been considered problematical for German trade policy. (The Bilderberg Group was founded in the 1950s by, among others, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a German-born former executive of IG Farben who displayed notable Nazi sympathies in the 1930s.)

What we are left with is a remarkable dichotomy. On the one hand, there is Carney’s almost total silence on the concrete reality of a UK balance of payments problem that is unprecedented in the history of any major First World nation. By comparison the economic management of the Ottoman empire in its dissolute last decades seems a model of economic rectitude.

On the other hand, there is Carney’s straining at the leash to forestall a Brexit vote that, while it may engender some uncertainty in the short term, will come with major long term opportunities (in allowing the UK to negotiate its own made-to-measure trade deals with, for instance, China, India, and the United States).

What explains this dichotomy? For now, almost no one seems to be asking. It is, however, a question that may bulk large in Carney’s future.

Eamonn Fingleton is a commentator on global trade. He is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999).

[TonyGosling]

EUropaische WirtschaftGemeinschaft as published in Nazi Germany in 1942 being the foundations of todays EUropean Union.
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/silentmajority/eurorealist/Germany1942  /index.html

EUropaische WirtschaftGemeinschaft as published in Nazi Germany in 1942 being the foundations of todays EUropean Union.

Keep an eye on our web site
www.SilentMajority.co.UK

where you will find the full text as and when we post it at:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK/EUroRealist/Germany1942

THE TRUTH WILL BE A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW for the Political scum and their apparatchiks in the EU who seek to continue to destroy Britain for their own gain in compliance with the 1942 German documents.

I would like to thank ALL those who have given such an immense amount of
help in the location, acquisition!!!, translation and now distribution of
this seminal document which undermines ALL of the LIES of ALL of the
politicians about the benign and beneficial aims of the EU - they are EVIL
and they are forming an Evil Union as part of the Evil concept of the New
World Order comprising the serfs and the self styled elite and their
apparatchiks.

I have refrained from thanking ANYONE by name as there are some in the chain of delivery who have gone to not inconsiderable risk to bring these truths to YOU. To name anyone would be to expose others!!

Just the same - thank you to the stalwart group of Patriots who have helped
me, both in a sense of Patriotism and in a belief that the truth should be
known.

Anyone wishing to forward it to the media is encouraged so to do but PLEASE include both my 'e'mail and my phone number so that we can maximise on this weapon in the defence of our Nation against its enemies both within and foreign, political and economic.

I would suggest that should you wish to help you forward these pamphlets in there entirety as attachments where possible as widely as you know how .
The publication of these documents is in no way an attack on the German
people. Their politicians, as with our own and of the world continue to lie to
the people in order to fulfil their greed filled aims in controlling the world whilst by-passing the people of individual countries.

Regards,
Greg

Greg Lance - Watkins,
c/o Glance Back Books,
Cynulliad i Gymru - The Welsh Assembly,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
Britain.
Greg@glanceback.demon.co.uk
Tel/Fax: 01291 - 62 65 62

For More Information & Facts visit: WEB SITES:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK
www.MrCHAD.co.UK
www.WelshAssembly.org.UK
-\\\|///-
= ~ =
(`~0~0~')
-------oooO------(_)-------Oooo--------
Regards
M rC H A D
---------- ----------- ----------- ------------

[TonyGosling]

With Friends Like These…
Why Britain should leave the EU – and how
David Conway

CIVITAS
Institute for the Study of Civil Society · London
First Published August 2014
55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL

Introduction
As austerity continues to ravage many parts of the
European Union (EU), of one commodity there has
been no shortage. That commodity is opinion as to
whether a country benefits or loses out by belonging
to this enigmatic, supranational organisation. The EU is
indeed a perennial work-in-progress whose only point of
constancy appears to be its overarching ambition to forge
ever closer union between the peoples of Europe.
Unsurprisingly, the economic crisis within the eurozone
has seen a remarkable collapse of trust in the EU on the
part of these same peoples. According to Eurobarometer,
the polling agency which for decades has conducted public
opinion polls within the EU on behalf of the European
Commission: ‘Since the beginning of the crisis, trust in
the EU has fallen from +10 to −22 points in France, from
+20 to −29 points in Germany, from +30 to −22 points in
Italy, from +42 to −52 in Spain, from +50 to +6 points in
Poland, and from −13 to −49 points in the UK.’1
These figures also show that, when it comes to
euroscepticism, the United Kingdom has been both
pioneer and market-leader. Initially reluctant to join,
and always half-hearted in its membership, the UK has
long been something of an outlier in Europe. This partly
reflects its geographic location. Perched on the continent’s
westerly rim, it is the closest, both in distance and culture,
to its former colony and closest ally on the far side of the
Atlantic: the United States of America.
However disenchanted with the EU the euro-crisis has · 2 ·
With Friends L ike T hese…
rendered continental Europe, in Britain its chief effect
has been for its media to begin to accord much greater
coverage to eurosceptic opinion. Until recently, public
expression of such scepticism had been banished to the
margins of political life, since all three major parties
had for some time become officially wedded to Britain’s
membership of the EU. As the euro-crisis has dragged on,
however, this eurosceptic strand of opinion has begun to
enter into the mainstream of British politics. There are
now signs that the fragile truce between leading lights
of the Conservative Party over the merits of Britain’s
membership of the EU is starting to break down.
As the debate in Britain intensifies, more and more
senior statesmen and other leading opinion-formers, both
there and elsewhere, have begun to proffer opinions on
the subject. One trigger of what lately has turned into a
veritable cacophony of voices on the matter was a much
heralded speech made by Prime Minister David Cameron
in January 2013 in which he announced that, should his
party gain office at the next general election, it would
seek to repatriate powers from Brussels before putting
the renegotiated terms of Britain’s EU membership to the
electorate in an in-out referendum in 2017.2
Whatever might have been the Prime Minister’s
ultimate intention in making that announcement, it had
little apparent effect in stemming what has become a
major haemorrhaging of electoral support for his party in
favour of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)
which advocates Britain’s complete withdrawal from the
EU. UKIP gained approximately 23 per cent of the vote
in the local elections of May 2013, bringing its electoral
support to a level comparable with that of Labour’s 29 per
cent and the Conservatives’ 24 per cent.3
That election
result sent a dramatic warning to the Conservative Party,
since UKIP had largely, but not exclusively, taken votes
from former Conservative supporters. The shift in support · 3 ·
I N T RODUCT ION
towards UKIP was replicated in both the local elections
and European Parliament elections of May 2014, in
which it gained over 160 seats in the former elections
and topped the poll in the latter one with 27.5 per cent
of the vote. Even if, in the 2015 general election, UKIP’s
share of the vote is nothing like as big as in the 2013 and
2014 elections and not one single candidate from that
party is returned to Westminster, on present showing it
might still win enough votes to deny the Conservatives
electoral victory.
Meanwhile, many senior Conservatives have begun
to break ranks with their party’s official line, which is
in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EU.
Instead, some have begun to signal their preference
for Britain to withdraw, at least on its current terms of
membership. Such figures include Education Secretary
Michael Gove,4
Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond,5
former Defence Secretary Liam Fox,6
Environment
Secretary Owen Paterson7
and Mayor of London Boris
Johnson.8
The public profession of so ‘heretical’ an opinion by
so many senior members of the Conservative Party has
triggered a predictable riposte from their more europhile
counterparts. Among the most notable is the Minister
without Portfolio Kenneth Clarke, who has often claimed
that it would be folly for Britain to leave the EU, or even
to suggest that it might, because even that suggestion is
liable to discourage foreign inward investment.
9
David Cameron’s speech has likewise evoked strong
expressions of support for Britain’s continued EU
membership from many senior foreign political leaders.
American President Barack Obama declared: ‘The United
States values a strong UK in a strong European Union,
which makes critical contributions to peace, prosperity,
and security in Europe and around the world.’10 German
Chancellor Angela Merkel stated: ‘It’s my firm conviction · 4 ·
With Friends L ike T hese…
that we belong together, the UK and the other European
member states.’11 French President François Hollande
said: ‘I hope Britain stays in the European Union.’12
Among the first senior member of the Conservative
party to break ranks with its official line on Europe and
to advocate UK withdrawal was Lord (Nigel) Lawson,
Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s
Conservative administration between 1983 and 1989. In
a lengthy opinion piece published by the Times on 7 May
2013, he set out why, in any future referendum on the
issue, he would vote for Britain to leave:
The heart of the matter is that the very nature of the
European Union, and of this country’s relationship with
it, has fundamentally changed after the coming into
being of the European monetary union and the creation
of the eurozone of which – quite rightly – we are not
a part. That is why… I shall be voting ‘out’ in 2017…
Not only do our interests increasingly differ from those
of the eurozone members but… we are now becoming
increasingly marginalised as we are doomed to being
consistently outvoted by the eurozone bloc… But there
are other, and more important, gains than this… [T]he
EU has become a bureaucratic monstrosity. This imposes
substantial economic costs on all member states, perhaps
greatest in the case of the UK… London remains a far
more important financial centre than the rest of Europe
put together… with substantial growth prospects, where
the country is indisputably a world-class player…
However, after the recent banking meltdown, the EU is
currently engaged in a frenzy of regulatory activism…
[i]n part… motivated by a jealous desire to cut London
down to size, in part by well-intentioned ignorance.13
Two days after the publication of Lord Lawson’s
sentiments about the EU, they were resoundingly · 5 ·
I N T RODUCT ION
echoed by Michael Portillo, a fellow minister in Margaret
Thatcher’s government as well as one in John Major’s
successor administration. Arguing in support of the
UK’s withdrawal from the EU, rather than for any
attempt to renegotiate terms, Portillo remarked of the
present Conservative leadership’s attitude towards
EU membership (which he claimed was shared by the
leadership of the other two main parties):
[T]he senior leadership… cannot contemplate with￾drawal… The default position of the [entire] political
class is… that Britain could not survive outside the union
and… that the public shares its defeatism… If… the Brit￾ish electorate [is cowed] … into voting for continued EU
membership… [it] would deliver Britain into the Euro.
So the referendum, were it to occur, would… really be
about pulling out or in due course entering political un￾ion…That is why I would vote ‘no’ and fervently hope
that the British have more guts than those who govern
us… The Euro is a disaster. It has created hardship, un￾employment and division on a dangerous scale… The
UK is unhappy in the EU. We do not share its vision…
It is disingenuous to suggest that this fundamental mis￾match can be resolved by a little renegotiation. 14
The following day brought forth a rejoinder to Lord
Lawson from another former Cabinet colleague in
Margaret Thatcher’s administration, Lord (Michael)
Heseltine. It was his strong opposition to her steadily
mounting antipathy towards the EU that led him to
mount a challenge to her leadership which eventually
brought her premiership to an end. In a comment piece
in the Financial Times, Lord Heseltine remarked:
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher sent Arthur Cockfield
to Brussels… to negotiate for the UK’s interest. He did it · 6 ·
With Friends L ike T hese…
well, opening up the continent to more of our goods and
services. What nobody noticed was that, to give effect to
the 1986 Single European Act, we would need to put 400
regulations through parliament… [W]e were right to take
part. Had we walked away, France and Germany would
have carved up the agenda… Indeed, the alternative to
EU membership… is not independence. It is being told
by the EU what conditions it will accept for us to trade
in the European marketplace… EU membership also
attracts investment into the UK… But only if our EU
membership is not in doubt… Britain would not only
lose out economically from leaving the union. We would
also suffer geopolitically… Every Tory prime minister
since Harold Macmillan… has realised that the choice is
between EU membership and irrelevance… The US has
been spelling this out since the end of the Second World
War: what use to them is a Britain that cannot lead on
its own continent? … Influence in Europe, not isolation
from it, is what Britain needs if it is to thrive.15
As if on cue, the Obama administration then promptly
let it be known how diminished in influence Britain
would become, especially in Washington, should it decide
to leave the EU.

[TonyGosling]

The roots of the “Brussels EU”
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/brussels_eu/roots/index.html

Newly discovered documents reveal that the undemocratic structure of the "Brussels EU" has its roots in the post WWII plans of the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition in a conquered Europe.

Following are a few of the most important documents, to be used by teachers, politicians and anyone who is interested in preventing the “Brussels EU” from establishing a dictatorship of corporate interests in Europe.

Reich Chancery memorandum: „Organization of the German Economy“ (July 9, 1940)
Meeting at Reich Economic Ministry: Reorganization of European economy (July 22, 1940)
Walther Funk: The economic reorganization of Europe (July 25, 1940)
Joseph Goebbels: The Europe of the future (September 11, 1940)
Werner Daitz: The reorganization of Europe on a racial and territorial basis (Second half of 1940)
Joachim von Ribbentrop: Speech on the prolongation of the Anti-Comintern Pact (November 26, 1941)
Karl Megerle: "European themes" (prob. Autumn 1941)
Vidkun Quisling: Norway and the Germanic task in Europe (September 25, 1942)
Werner Daitz: Genuine and spurious continental spheres. Laws of Lebensraum. (Second half of 1942)
Joachim von Ribbentrop: European confederation (March 21, 1943)
Joachim von Ribbentrop: Establishment of a “European Committee” (April 5, 1943)
post-war plans of IG Farben
This letter, written by the IG Farben executives to the Nazi government, is particularly important for several reasons:

It outlines the plan of the world’s largest chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben, for a Europe under its control.
This letter is a response to the request by the Nazi government to IG Farben for its blueprint for a new economic order in Europe under the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition.
The date of the letter, July 20, 1940, corresponds with the first phase of WWII, where the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition had conquered central and western Europe in Blitzkriegs. In Summer of 1940, after the conquest of France, it seemed only a question of time until the IG Farben/Nazi-flag would flutter over Europe.
It is a highly significant fact that the greatest concern of IG Farben in a subjugated Europe was the new regulation of patent law and its control over the chemical/pharmaceutical markets of Europe via patented products.
This document was also part of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals against IG Farben, documented at www.profit-over-life.org

Notiz für den Herrn Reichsaußenminister (September 1939, in German)
Aktenvermerk über die Besprechung in Görings Hauptquartier am 19. Juni 1940 (June 20, 1940, in German)
Gustav Schlotterer über die "Neuordnung Europas" (July 19, 1940, in German)
Versammlung der AO der NSDAP (July 26, 1940, in German)
Léon Degrelle: "Le rôle de la Belgique dans la nouvelle Europa" (October 20, 1940, in French)
Vidkun Quisling: "Denkschrift über die Regelung des Verhältnisses zwischen Norwegen und Deutschland" (October 25, 1940, in German)
Unterredung zwischen dem Reichsaußenminister Joachim von Ribbentrop und dem Admiral Darlan (May 11, 1941, in German)
Martin Bormann: "Nationalsozialistische Zielsetzung in Osteuropa" (July 16, 1941, in German)
Karl Megerle: "Positive Presse- und Propagandathesen" (September 27, 1941, in German)
Aufzeichnung über die Unterredung zwischen dem Führer und dem Grafen Ciano (October 25, 1941, in German)
Hitlers Empfang des finnischen Außenministers Witting (November 28, 1941, in German)
Aufzeichnung über die Unterredung zwischen Reichsmarschall Göring und Marschall Pétain (December 3, 1941, in German)
Ernst Freiherr von Weizsäcker: Tagebuchauszüge (Dec. 1939 - Nov. 1941, in German)
Der niederländische Staat in dem neuen Europa (August 1942, in German)
Baldur von Schirach: Rede anläßlich der Europäischen Jugendtagung in Wien (September 14, 1942, in German)
Joseph Goebbels: "Das neue Europa" (October 4, 1942, in German)
Adolf Hitler: "Verfügung" (November 4, 1942, in German)
Anton Reithinger: Die europäische Wirtschaftskraft bei planvoller Zusammenarbeit (November 13, 1942, in German)
Werner Frauendienst: "Der innere Neuaufbau des Reiches als Beitrag zur europäischen Ordnung" (1942, in German)
Arthur Seiß-Inquart: "Zum 10. Jahrestag der Machtübernahme" (January 29, 1943, in German)
Joseph Goebbels: "Erlaß über die Behandlung der europäischen Völker" (February 15, 1943, in German)
Franz Alfred Six: "Das Europabild des 20. Jahrhunderts" (March 3, 1943, in German)
Wipert von Blücher: "Goebbels "Leitsätze" für die Gestaltung eines Neuen Europas" (March 16, 1943, in German)
Hans Frohwein: "Grundgedanken eines Planes für das neue Europa" (June 7, 1943, in German)
Notiz betreffend die Gründung eines europäischen Staatenbundes (August 1943, in German)
Carl Clodius: "Leitsätze zur wirtschaftlichen Neuordnung Europas" (August 20, 1943, in German)
Notiz für Herrn Reichsaußenminister (November 16, 1943, in German)
"Entwurf zu einer Denkschrift betreffend die Gründung eines Europäischen Staatenbundes" (Autumn 1943, in German)
Adolf Hitler: Rede zum 11. Jahrestag der Machtübernahme (January 30, 1944, in German)
Schlußprotokoll der Arbeitstagung des Arbeitswissenschaftlichen Instituts der Deutschen Arbeitsfront (March 19, 1944, in German)
Herbert Bäcke: "Das Schicksal der europäischen Landwirtschaft" (Juni 29, 1944, in German)
Karl Heinz Pfeffer: "Die europäische Besinnung" (October/December 1944, in German)
Mario Mantovani: "Sull'idea europea. Il nemico numero uno" (May 1940, in Italian)
Alberto De Stefani: "Il riordinamento e la pacificazione dell'Europa" (October 1941, in Italian)
Camillo Pellizzi: "L'idea di Europa" (December 1942, in Italian)
Due lettere di Camillo Pellizzi a Ugoberto Alfassio Grimaldi (August 12 and September 4, 1943, in Italian)
Carlo Borsani: "Scoperta dell'Europa" (June 18, 1944, in Italian)

http://217.218.67.231/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4
http://media.presstv.com/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4
http://www.presstv.ir/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4
http://presstvdoc.com/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4
http://www.presstv.com/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4
http://217.218.67.233/program/20160622/0623_debate.mp4

[TonyGosling]

EU referendum results and maps: Full breakdown and find out how your area voted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referend um-results-and-live-maps/

Britain says NO to the EU machine. Tony Gosling calls Brexit referendum June 23 right

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwMViS6T3Y

[scienceplease 2]

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

A Russian respective
https://t.co/1IbqNI0Eaa

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Also
George Galloway evokes Tony Benn as he pleads with the Left to vote to leave EU 'rich man's club'

Link


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cF93B58Vw

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

From our old friend Moeen Yaseen

This is June 27 2016 and we need to decode the meaning; significance and implications of the result. Coup d'etat in labour with Benn reported and half of labour labour cabinet planning to resign whilst Lammy demands the will of the people be ignored aka Ireland.

Petition for 2nd referendum attracts 2m supporters as well as for London independence. We have a divided nation with different visions for the future. This will result with profound consequences for the United Kingdom and Europe. But even here we need systemic not just regime change.

Note that pope pius 12 and the Vatican holy see and christian Democrats like Robert schumann had a convergence in the creation and vision for europe. EU treaties were guided by these policies.

Holy see rome favours a united europe and complete integration so that europe is anchored in byzantine and Catholic roots. The clue to this is find out the real meaning of what Britain means biblically speaking.

The 10 horn scarlet beast held by rome.

Rome and Europe's future needs to be seen within an interfaith and comparitive eschatology framework.

Forget msm analysis as they do not understand what is really going on


http://truthfrequencyradio.com/podcasts/covertreport/covertreport.2016 -06-26.mp3

https://audioboom.com/boos/4746664-year-nine-at-orwell-s-grave-1984sym posium.mp3