Sunday, 30 October 2011




CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE



The EU and the euro: it was always going to come to this

On careful examination, it is clear that the latest of these interminable bids to save the euro reveals only that those supposedly in charge have not the slightest idea what to do.

We now have a president of the Commission, a president of the European Council, a president of the Eurogroup, a president of the Eurogroup Working Group and a president of the European Central Bank.

They talk about conjuring up billions and trillions of euros, though it is far from clear to whom or by whom they should be given. No country could possibly be allowed to leave the beloved euro – although, unless some do, it cannot survive. Meanwhile, the Greeks riot, the Germans seethe at seeing what their government is up to, and Mr Sarkozy tells Mr Cameron to keep out of something that is not his business, as our European government takes another lurch towards the “ever closer union” that has always been its supreme aim.

Some years back, when Richard North and I were putting together the most comprehensive history of the “European project” yet published, we came to realise that, ever since it was set on its way in 1950, it had only ever had one agenda in all it had done – step by step, over decades, to replace the nation states of Europe with a new supranational form of government. Its cleverest trick was to leave all the outward forms and institutions of nations in place, while hollowing out their powers from within, so that for a long time people would not see what was happening.

We also concluded, when we published The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? in 2005, that two things would ultimately bring about the disintegration of the “project”. The first was the most reckless of all the moves it devised to weld the member states together: imposing on them a single currency without any of the preconditions to make it workable, above all a single economic government with the power to tax and to transfer vast resources from richer countries to poorer.

The project’s other fatal flaw was what even its supporters came to call its “democratic deficit”. The more powerful the new system became, the more it alienated those in whose name it was erected, as they came to see how the direction of their lives had been handed to a remote and mysterious government over which they had no control.

Some of that resentment showed in last Monday’s referendum debate.

It was striking to see how the vast majority of the 50 MPs who spoke expressed profound “Eurosceptic” concerns. Yet when the vote came, it was all the other way, as the political class, led by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, trooped through the lobby to deny the British people any say in what is happening. (Though the third choice on offer, that we should be allowed to vote for our Government to “renegotiate” the terms of our membership, is as hopeless a cause as the other two, “in” or “out”.)

We are not going to pull out, which would anyway be extraordinarily difficult now, because the way Britain is governed has become so inextricably enmeshed with “Europe”.

Anyone who thinks we can “renegotiate” has no understanding of what this project is about, or its most sacred principle – that powers, once handed over, can never be given back. So we must stay in, dragged along by a process over which we have no control.

The one clear lesson of recent events, and the total insolubility of the crisis engulfing the euro, is that the project is slowly heading for very messy and prolonged disintegration. Everyone involved, it seems, is trapped, and the only way Britain will leave the EU is when it falls apart, around us and everyone else.

Which is what it has, finally, begun to do.





The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union [Paperback]

Christopher Booker , Richard North
4.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4 customer reviews) Like(2)
RRP:£18.99
Price:£16.14 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery. See details and conditions


===========================================================


In at least one particular respect –
and I will concentrate on it -
they wilfully mislead the House and based their defence
on a provable fiction.

You cannot ignore that calumny-BUT YOU DO THE ENTIRE MSM DO BE THEY LBC..BBC..TALK SPORT
with RARE EXCEPTIONS
They both claimed that British trade interests depended on EU membership.

They both referred to “half our trade” being with the EU.

NOT TRUE. AND GROSSLY MISLEADING.
I refer you to the government’s own Blue Book which publishes annual trade figures.
These are the facts :
1. Over 80 percent of all UK trade is within our own borders. Yet it is all exposed to EU regulations and controls.
2. Over half the rest is between the UK and the EU – BUT...
3. We import more than we sell to the EU. We have run a permanent trade deficit with the EU ever since we joined, bar one year – 1975.
4. The Blue Book includes as exports to the EU all exports to other parts of the world which happen to go through the container ports of Rotterdam, in particular, and Antwerp.
5. Thus our alleged “exports” to the EU are grossly distorted upwards and UK exports to the rest of the world are grossly distorted downwards.
6. This distortion has been well known for decades and successive governments have refused to correct what can only be described as a deliberate error.
Cameron’s use of it was truly shameless.
Furthermore, no minister has ever attempted to defend the corollary question, viz : Are you suggesting that, if/when we leave the EU Germany will refuse to sell us cars, French will refuse us champagne, Danes withhold their bacon, or the Spanish refuse our holiday bookings? Of course not.
They need us far, far more than we need them. We need to do what we should have done long ago. Leave.
We can, and should have said years ago : “We are leaving. We wish you well. Don't bother to send any more bills. And don't send any more rules. By the way, we will abolishing immediately the thousands of regulations hampering our enterprise and society – they are all secondary legislation and will fall automatically with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. We will amend all the primary legislation based on EU directives as soon as possible. Supporters will be obliged to make the case for keeping all such laws – if they can.
“Now. About trade. Here is our offer. Free trade both ways. No tariffs, no exceptions. If you refuse our offer, fine, but we will impose tariffs, too, if we need to defend our best interests.
In which case you will be the losers.”

EXTRACT Ashley Mote
=================================================

The total bull shit of the Politicos and the M.S.M

inc BBC..LBC...TALK SPORT...( apart from a very very very few)

ALL HAVENT A CLUE

OR

HAVE OTHER AGENDAS ..

Why currently there is such emphasis on seeking to achieve the impossible is
something of a mystery, leading to speculation as to whether The Boy and his
acolytes really know what they are doing. But, of all the attendant issues, that is
possibly the easiest to resolve. Almost certainly, they do not.

Going back only a little way, one will recall that the Tory mantra, by which all problems EU were going to be resolved, was the famous "handbag". A putative Tory leader was going to go to Brussels and with one wave this fabulous instrument, the "colleagues" were going to quail before its power and grant us our every wish.

Wearily and repeatedly, it was left to the likes of us to point out that the changes ostensibly desired by the Tory rank-and-file were not possible without treaty changes. They require an intergovernmental conference (IGC) - which is not within the power of the British to convene - and then unanimity on the proposed changes, which must be ratified by every member state.

To date, these have been the hurdles which have rendered inert the magical properties of the handbag. This potency issue, however, seems to have percolated into the dim consciousness of the Tory collective, to the extent that The Boy is now talking about exploiting the need of the "colleagues" to hold an IGC in order to push through the treaty changes needed for the management of the eurozone.

Theory has it that, once the IGC is declared, the UK can introduce on the agenda its own requirements – amounting to substantive treaty changes which will repatriate powers. The eurozone members needing our approval for their changes, we can then barter – their approval of our amendments in exchange for their approval of ours.


Unfortunately, this Janet & John appreciation is somewhat at variance with the political realities of the European Union. Specifically, they lack any knowledge of the history of the Union, they are unaware of the "Craxi doctrine" which emerged from the 1985 Milan European Council, where Thatcher was ambushed, with the "colleagues" agreeing to an IGC against her will (Craxi and Thatch pictured above).

At the time, the rules for convening an IGC dictated that there should be consensus amongst member states, but what Craxi established was that, in the case of dispute, this meant simple majority voting by the leaders of the member states.

What has since emerged also, honed and refined during the shenanigans over the EU constitution and the Lisbon treaty, is that the agenda is also determined by "consensus", with the EU commission holding the pen. Thus, whether the UK would even be able to put her demands on the agenda would be a matter for the rest of the "colleagues".

Now, given that any forthcoming IGC will be convened to deal with the needs of the 17 eurozone members, which comprise the majority of the 27 states, it is unlikely that they will want the distraction of The Boy's political demands. Thus, the likelihood is that these will not even get onto the agenda. They will be blocked by a majority vote of the eurozone members, if need be.

This, of course, will leave The Boy stranded, with but one option – then to veto the conclusions of the IGC, blocking any new treaty. That would make him about as popular as an Israeli ambassador at a Hamas convention. Cameron would have to decide whether to incur the wrath of the entire collective, or cave in. And we know exactly what the result would be.

Thus, whatever the political motivation of The Boy is pursuing the current line – and we'll explore that in another post - it is not going to happen. As always, the only real options are two-fold: all in, or all out. Repatriation is not an option … not through negotiation, anyway. It is smoke and mirrors, not political reality.

As to who The Boy is kidding, probably the first and main person is himself - aided and abetted by the witless media which, like The Independent, bleats "euroscepticism", but has no idea what it means. The term "fool's paradise" comes to mind.
===========================
As I said in my letter in the Daily Telegraph last week :
Sir
MPs and others supporting the option of renegotiating British membership of the EU forget one crucial fact.
The process of Asquis Communautaire is embedded in the treaties. It is a one-way ratchet. Once the EU has taken “competence” over an area of government, it cannot be returned to the member states. Any attempt to undermine such a fundamental principle will strike at the very heart of all the EU stands for – it is non-negotiable. [Last sentence omitted in the published version]
Our only realistic alternative to membership is to walk away, take our billions with us, and wish them well. If that is how Europeans want to govern themselves, that is a matter for them.
We were far better off as a global player – and can be again.
Europeans are our neighbours. They should be our friends. They cannot be masters in someone else’s house.
Ashley Mote