EU Referendum Act 2015

Just in passing - who gave the Supreme Court authority to act in this matter in the first place?

Brexit ruling: The Supreme Court Judgement - The principal issue - Majority Judgement

 

The Supreme Court judgment

“.. The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences ..”

 

Therefore this gives rise to the following questions:

  • How many (if any) previous Acts have been passed without a conclusion?

  • If there were none then why was the EU Referendum Act 2015 the exception?

  • If there have ever been other previous Acts of this nature without a conclusion, then how were they ultimately resolved and with what outcome?

If the Act was ‘advisory only’ then why was the public not made aware of this fact at the time prior to the vote, rather than retrospectively? This is especially relevant given the following quote from EU Referendum Bill Receives Royal Assent

 

Quotes:

“‘.. It is vital that the public is able to make an informed choice ..’”

“‘.. The EU Referendum Bill was introduced to Parliament on 28 May 2015. The Bill started in the Commons, and then passed through the Lords in the usual way. Both Houses had to agree to every part of the Bill ..’”

 

Something does not ring true here!

Surely it is very concerning that all parties throughout the process – UK Government, House of Commons, House of Lords and presumably those Civil Servants drafting the Bill all either overlooked or deliberately chose to ignore the conclusion of a ‘leave vote’

In fact it does rather stretch credibility that all these esteemed worthies missed the one critical aspect of the entire process – the conclusion

Unless of course none of those concerned with vetting the Bill actually wished a ‘leave vote’ and deliberately ignored the conclusion in case the vote went against them - affording the ability to challenge matters in the way we have just seen

Interestingly enough, this approach would seem be rather in keeping with the ‘independence’ demonstrated by some members of the Supreme Court

Daily Mail Review of Supreme Court Judges Links to the EU

So where do we go from here? Since holding people to account seems to be in vogue at the moment, how about an impartial investigation into the following:

  • The impartiality of some of the Supreme Court Judges. It is debatable whether impartiality can be maintained when those close to them have made public statement on the subject or they themselves have ‘.. taken the EU shilling ..’ or potentially have an EU pension

  • The Civil Servants who drew up the Bill and whether they raised the matter of a conclusion with their political masters

  • The House of Commons – who may try to block the process

  • The House of Lords – who may try to block the process

After all, a great number of those above potentially wished to remain in the EU and with this in mind could they be truly regarded as independent?

REFERENCES

Was EU referendum advisory

Legislation required before UK gives notice on leaving the EU

 

Tags: , | Categories: European Union | UK Government

One really does have to wonder whether this challenge is really about legality or simply a smoke-screen for something else - stymying the actual vote or at least watering down the effects so that there is no real change; and why the issues were not raised by MP's rather than the legal system

Background

The question on the ballot paper was unequivocal: Did we want Britain to remain in the EU or leave?

The result was a clear majority of 52 per cent to 48 per cent and the vote was to Leave

MP's voted 6-1 in favour of holding the referendum in the first place

Funding for the Original Case

Perhaps not as transparent as it could have been

A great deal of the funding seems to have been provided by expats and others who have chosen not to live in the UK in the first place, as well as undisclosed businesses with their own agenda

Deir Dos Santos - CASE

Written Case of Deir Dos Santos

Question

Is the UK legal system in place to rectify errors, oversights or wishes of the disenfranchised when Parliament passes Acts?

At the time the 2015 European Union Referendum Act was passed, Parliament was quite at liberty to address the matter of the Royal Prerogative and limit its use – as has been done in other instances

Whatever the reasons were, at the time Parliament chose not to do this

Therefore is it appropriate at this stage for the legal system to try to re-write the 2015 European Union Referendum Act to exclude the Royal Prerogative after the event

Surely this approach is an abuse of the legislative process in trying to gerrymander the system in the aftermath of a majority vote that many disagreed with

Original Ruling

Justification for the original ruling seems to have been based upon historic precedents as far back as:

  • 1610 Case of Proclamations. The argument put forward was flawed because the impact of the statement ‘.. Brexit would have a direct impact on substantive legal rights under UK domestic law ..’ 

The actual direct action is to trigger Article 50, which by definition is an international treaty event (Royal Prerogative)

Everything subsequent to triggering Article 50 becomes an indirect domestic (Parliamentary) consequence relating to cause and effect and should not therefore be a material consideration in any judgement

  • 1689 Bill of Rights

‘.. For the reasons set out in the judgement, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union ..’ 

However, once one acknowledges that Article 50 is clearly an international treaty event and therefore subject to the Royal Prerogative then this judgement is instantly flawed. The fact that it is the causation of a 'knock-on' impact under UK domestic law is secondary and entirely irrelevant

However:

Let us just stop and think for a moment about the impact of a ruling against the Government over Article 50 on the basis of any secondary consequential events as a result of 'cause & effect'.

Supposing that as a result of a ruling against the Government the BREXIT vote was 'watered down' or even in the worst case scenario cancelled all together, against the wishes of the people.

What would be the consequence of the judiciary interfering with the peoples vote and effectively subjugating Parliament to their wishes - and if it is deemed acceptible what of anything in the future or even better let's trawl through the past and see if we can mount a legal challenge to anything historic that we don't like

Legality of the European Communities Act 1972

Was the UK's membership of the EU contrary to UK law and therefore invalid?

Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?

Therefore perhaps the Supreme Court should address this issue before passing judgement on something that is dependant on valid membership of the EU in the first place

In any event, if everything was perfectly correct at the time then WHY did the following take place?

'.. In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined' ..'

Clearly there are some questions that need answers before moving forward on the current legal challenge to Article 50

Legality of the CFP

In fact why not start with the legality of the European Communities Act 1972, when the UK joined the European Union and the impact of EEC and Council Regulation 2141/70, concerning the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) which was only adopted on the morning of 30 June, the day the British application for membership was made and remained illegal for many years thereafter

In October 1971, Geoffrey Rippon, Britain’s chief negotiator stated ‘.. one thing is certain . . . we should not sign a Treaty of Accession which would commit us to the present fisheries policy..’

A number of Ministers at the time, made a similar statements and MPs voted on accession to the treaty during a debate in which the passage relating to fisheries was NOT published; so the debate was on flawed principles engineered by those who drew up the debate topic

During the first 22 years of its existence the CFP was completely illegal; according to the EEC's own laws and none of the Articles quoted in the treaty, numbers 7, 42, 43 and 235 mention fisheries

Article 38 is usually quoted as the source but was, in actual fact, left out of the regulation in the haste to draw it up

Finally, authorisation was retrospectively inserted into Article 3 of the Treaty of Maastricht many years later! - ergo: no-disclosure is surely definate grounds for a challenge on membership of the EEC

Therefore, if any such challenge on this matter was upheld and it was found that the UK should never have joined the EEC in the first place, then the BREXIT issues of today would surely be extinguished as they could not exist - 'cause & effect'!

Geoffrey Robertson QC 

'.. That’s what the Civil War was about – the right of parliament to stop the Crown doing things that weren’t in the national interest ..' 

However, quoting the National Interest introduces yet another facet - the voting public and a definition of National Interest

Apart from a few pockets, the majority of the population voted to leave the EU, however, in a great many cases their MP representatives in Parliament ignored the wishes of those they represented. Therefore we have a situation whereby the people voted one way and their MP's wanted something else

Where does the National Interest stand in this instance and who takes primacy – MP’s or voters?

Sovereignty

What was the net effect of the 1972 European Communities Act for UK Parliamentary Sovereignty?

This has already been answered and interpreted by UK courts as granting EU law primacy over domestic UK legislation

Therefore, if there was a conflict between an act of the British Parliament and EU law, Parliament would lose out and EU law would prevail. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) became in effect a Supreme Court of Europe, interpreting EU law with judgements that were binding on all member states

Based upon this concept of ‘EU law being granted primacy over domestic UK legislation’ one cannot include the concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament because it has already been relinquished by the 1972 European Communities Act. Until Parliament repeals the 1972 Act and takes back that part of its sovereignty that was lost to EU law, Parliament does not currently have absolute sovereignty because part of it has already been ceded to the EU

Therefore the Sovereignty of Parliament and the 1972 European Communities Act are by definition mutually exclusive 

Royal Prerogative

The Royal Prerogative has always contained powers relating to foreign affairs, which have historically involved the making of treaties at international level. Therefore the ability of the Government to ratify treaties remains a prerogative power, as does the power to amend or withdraw from treaties

However, obligations arising from international law treaties do not take effect at domestic level until Parliament chooses to incorporate all or part of the international law into the domestic sphere, which means a separation between between the two

The EU involves an international treaty and as such falls under the remit of the Royal Prerogative in isolation to separate domestic ratification though Parliament

Is the actual Article 50 an international event or a domestic one? Clearly without clouding the issue by introducing any subsequent 'knock-on' effect, Article 50 falls into the domain of international - ergo: subject to the Royal Prerogative and there can be no other interpretation

In any event, surely the whole point of the Royal Prerogative is that it is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in the UK as the sole prerogative of the Sovereign and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government

This is especially so where it is recognised that the four major personal prerogative powers which are exercised by the monarch are:

  • The dissolution of Parliament
  • The appointment of the Prime Minister
  • The granting of the royal assent to legislation
  • The dismissal of government

This makes no sense in the context of the Royal Prerogative needing to be ceded by Parliament in this instance – it is already the default position (especially as Article 50 is an international event) and any restrictions needed to be specified at the time of the 2015 European Union Referendum Act.

The assumption of action was implicit when the 2015 European Union Referendum Act was passed - otherwise why bother to have a referendum if Parliament was not prepared to act on the results?

Therefore is it Dominic Chambers who is looking at it ‘.. from the wrong end of the telescope ..’ in his argument

By default Parliament has already ceded the necessary powers and it is up to Parliament to specifically restrict any powers it does not wish to cede – this was not done at the time in the 2015 European Union Referendum Act and one cannot revisit this matter retrospectively after the event because the results didn't go ones way

Arrogance of Dominic Chambers

‘..  Lord Carnwath suggests it would be strange if parliament expressed its will through a resolution but then there was still a need to go back to parliament for legislation to implement it.

Chambers suggests it might be “odd... to the man on the Clapham omnibus” but not to lawyers ..

What a staggering display of arrogance by Dominic Chambers

Surely the whole point of the legal system is to be seen to be fair and understandable by the ‘common man’ and any convoluted argument he puts forward that is impenetrable ‘.. to the man on the Clapham omnibus ..’ cannot possibly be seen to have these qualities

Can Dominic Chambers not understand that this is precisely what the whole thing is about in the first place ‘Elites’ v ‘man of the street’! and once the law and rulings become opaque or obscure the system has failed

David Scoffield QC – N Ireland

He seems to be on different wavelength to everyone else. Is this hearing really about the politics of triggering Article 50 or limited to the legal issues?

Ronan Lavery QC – N Ireland

‘..  It would be unconstitutional to withdraw from the EU without the consent of the people of the Northern Ireland ..’

Don’t be so ridiculous – there was a vote throughout the UK and a clear majority/mandate to follow a certain course of action. Which part of a clear majority does Ronan Lavery QC not understand

Or is he advocating that every settlement within the UK can individually elect to be in or out of the EU? - a flawed argument

Everyone now seems to getting in on the act, pursing their own agenda with little or no regard to the issues

James Wolfe QC – Lord advocate for the Scottish Government 

Scottish Government Stance

‘.. At a constitutional level leaving the EU would limit the competence of the Scottish parliament and the competence of the Scottish government, Wolfe argues ..’ 

Since rewinds over history seem to be in vogue:

  • What about the Darien Scheme (bailout) and the events leading up to the Act of Union - this leads to the heart of historic competence
  • With the benefit of hindsight, the Scottish referendum a couple of years ago could have ended in exactly the same way as the Darien Scheme, with yet another bailout by RUK because of falls in the oil price etc. However, all this seems to have been glossed over by Nicola Sturgeon and her cohorts who backed a potential disaster - this goes to demonstrate present day competence?

Therefore in the light of the two matters above why should there be an expectation of future competence when it has not been demonstrated in the past - and history is often demed to be a window on the future

Once again a participant not restricting their case to the absolute matter at hand – stick to the topic - legality

Lord Pannick QC

Lord Pannick QC seems to be a gun for hire, who potentially has no beliefs other those that he is paid for or where he has an interest coupled with a difficulty over disclosure!

We see in the Sunday Times (11 December 2016)

 

Sunday Times (11 December 2016): - Greens Pannick Stations Mocked

Now the select committee has fired back a salvo. Gabriel Moss QC, who advised the inquiry, has produced a 10-page note responding to Pannick’s report. Moss reckons Pannick’s opinion could not “accurately be described as ‘an independent review’ ” due to his personal connections, and that it was instead “a forceful legal and factual argument” on behalf of Green, 64, and his empire.

Moss goes on to say the committee was free to make a 'value judgment' on 'the question of moral blame'. He argues the rights and wrongs of Green’s behaviour 'cannot be answered simply by pointing to arid technicalities of company law'

 

This is the interesting and very telling paragraphs in his defence of Philip Green which give an insight into Lord Pannick modus operandii

‘.. He argues the rights and wrongs of Green’s behaviour “cannot be answered simply by pointing to arid technicalities of company law ..’

Furthermore:

'.. Cynics pointed out that Pannick, 60, had probably been handsomely remunerated for his work, and that he is friendly with Green associates such as Baroness Brady and Lord Grabiner — a fact that was strangely not disclosed until the 64th paragraph ..' - mmm !

Perhaps we should compare the previous statements to his current task of influencing the BREXIT result - after all so far as Lord Pannick is concerned the law would seem to be nothing but an inconvenience in getting his own way

Tags: , | Categories: European Union | UK Government

Here are a few reasons for wanting to leave the EU - there are numerous others but these are the fundamental ones

Supremacy of the UK Parliament

'.. 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 ..'

Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else

 

Subsidiarity Has Broken Down

‘.. decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union in accordance with Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty ..’

The European Union (EU) Why Is Subsidiarity Not Working

 

Southern Europe is in Real Trouble

Youth unemployment in EU’s southern countries is at an all-time high - 39% youth unemployment in Italy, 45% in Spain and 49% in Greece

The problem here is that being tied to the Euro currency these countries do not have the latitude of being able to manage their own affairs – i.e. devaluation

 

Control Over UK Borders

The UK wants control over it's own borders without being dictated to by an undemocratic EU

Damian Draghici Stupid Statement On Romanian-Migration

 

Immigration Policy

This is allied to control of our own resources and borders

Of course the UK wants migrants, however, the issue is about skilled migrants and being able to determine the volume of non-skilled migrants entering the country – not an outright ban on everyone or as the EU wants an open-door policy to all comers from Europe

Generally ‘first wave’ migrants make a positive contribution to the receiving country – thereafter the results are not quite so clear as populations age etc.

Furthermore, the acknowledged wisdom that migrants benefit the UK does not entirely stack up

Between 1984-2000 the UK ‘real’ GDP growth was 2.6% and immigration was 3.3 million – however, from 2000-2016 the equivalent GDP growth was 1.2% whilst immigration was 7.5 million – in theory greater migration should have led to an increased growth, hwever that did not occur.

Also statistics show that migrants tend to go into part-time rather than full-time jobs – all of which is a cost to the receiving country rather than a benefit; especially when associated with the state benefits system and where in-work benefits are available for the low paid.

This results in employers getting' cheap' labour with the bill for topping up their wages being picked up by the taxpayer under the benefits system

Nevertheless, the UK resources are limited and need to be managed for the benefit of everyone

There are also issues about remitting UK child benefit to dependants of migrant workers in the UK back to children in their own country abroad – estimates are around 34,000 children living abroad and benefiting in the area or approximately £30 million in cost

 

Original Basis Of UK Entry

When the UK joined it was originally a trading alliance and since then the EU has tried to morph into a political and currency union as well - this was not what the UK signed up for originally

We are all in favour of a trading alliance within Europe but not a loss of sovereignty, democracy, Parliamentary control to an unaccountable, undemocratic & self serving EU

Therefore do we really want to be aligned with a declining EU institution, or can we do better being masters of our own destiny?

Furthermore, at that time the UK joined, the EU accounted for 38% of global GDP – today it accounts for 17% of global GDP. Some of that decline can be put down to the growth of China etc. but the actual EU decline is far greater than would be expected even with these influences

 

EU Has No Democratic Accountability

Unelected administrators with no democratic accountability are the core of the EU

  • Mario Draghi: The unelected President of the European Central Bank and a Goldman Sachs alumnus
  • Jean-Claude Juncker: The unelected president of the European Commission, and former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
  • Jeroen Dijsselbloem: The unelected Brussels Commissar and “President of the Eurogroup”, and former Minister of Finance of the Netherlands
  • Donald Tusk: The unelected “President of the Euro Summit”, and former Prime Minister of Poland
  • Martin Schulz: The unelected President of the European Parliament, and former Mayor of Würselen

 

CAP And Land Ownership

The distribution of wealth and CAP payments to the already wealthy - fewer than 6,000 people own 70% of the land in the UK

Are EU Farmers Todays Benefit Clamiants

 

Common Fisheries Policy

Give the UK back their fishing grounds

The UK & Ireland used to own 60% of EU fishing water and now the UK’s quota has been reduced to 13% of what is now a ‘common resource’

UK EEC Referendum Will UK Get Their Fishing Grounds Back From EEC Original Illegal Theft

 

Other References - General

Other Countries Views on UK Brexit-from-EU

BREXIT Would You Vote to Join the EU Today

Cyprus EU Failures are Architect of the Banking Problems

Farcical European Wide Social Security Benefits Encouraging Benefit Tourism

 

References to EU Direction & Goals

The Five President’s Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union

EU Basics - Your Guide to the UK Referendum on EU Membership - This is issued by an organisation called the “European Movement”. The 16-page colour and high gloss booklet argues for Britain to stay in the EU. Who and what is this “European Movement”, and who is funding it?

This little-known organisation seems financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK

In the 1950s and 1960s, the European Movement was funded by the CIA. America regarded it essential to rebuild Germany as an industrial power under the cloak of the peaceful EEC to stand as a bulwark against Soviet Russia in the Cold War

 

The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:

The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … 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…

It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]

Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ‘special relationship’ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support

 

 

 

UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:

“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. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. France’s Jean Monnet, the EU’s mastermind, was viewed as an American agent – as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelt’s fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.

“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. … 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 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”.

 

Nothing is what is seems at face value in the world of the EU! 

Merkel calls for ‘political union’ to save the euro

Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution

Tags: , | Categories: European Union

A second referendum petition – created on 24 May 2016

EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

‘.. We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum ..’

At the time of the referendum result was announced the petition had 22 signatures and as such was regarded by those who are currently complaining as having no relevance

All petitions run for a period of 6 months and this one expires on 25 November 2016

However, with petitions of this nature one cannot have a ’one timescale fits all’ approach because clearly it is absurd to allow any petition to be retrospective after an event has already taken place. The event itself should be the cut of date for a Parliamentary debate

Here a few of the petition results as at 26 June 2016

162,227 people were from outside the UK – most of whom did not have a vote in the referendum in the first place i.e.

  • France 17,383
  • North Korea 18,827
  • Spain – 11,016
  • Vatican City 31,379

(To verify these figures just download the Government json file and run it though an online json/csv converter & load in Excel)

The results of the referendum have been announced and they showed a vote for leaving the EU by 52% to 48%

One simply cannot resurrect something because one doesn’t like the result and anyway surely this just epitomises the whole EU ethos surrounding a complete lack of democracy  - which is why many voted leave in the first place

Tags: | Categories: European Union | UK Government

The argument put forward by many in the remain camp is that it would be better to stay within the EU and change it from the inside

However, one only has to look at history & more recently David Camerons attempt only a few months ago to negotiate with the EU on the topic of change from within - we have all seen how well that went, so why should their stance change in the future?

Based upon the EU's track record why on earth does anyone think that the EU is either willing or able to change - even assuming there is a wish to do so - which clearly does not curently exist

Quite frankly those 'in charge' in the EU are set upon an all-encompassing Federalist agenda and anyone who believes otherwise is deluded

Therefore, why should the UK be shackled to an EU, run by an elite whose ideology is totally alien to our own, purely for the benefit of other countries & the rest of the world?

Furthermore, this magnanimity expected of the UK does not come cheap, with an increasing expectation that the UK will provide ever more funding and help solve all the EU's self inflicted problems, where the UK had no say in the original decision (witness Germany unilateral recent open-door policy over migrants) - sometimes to the detriment of our own population as in the case of many decisions by the ECJ (European Court of Justice)

How interesting that according to all the 'remain' pundits the UK is deemed to have little global influence or power to go it alone, and yet at the same time, there seems to be a huge worldwide attempt to prevent the UK population from exercising their vote in favour of Brexit - something simply does not add up!

Does this concerted effort of bullying, threats and persuasion by the 'remain' lobby, by drawing in all manor of supporters from the entire spectrum of ghastly celebrities right through 'captains' of industry and culminating with ex US Secretaries of State, really make any sense?

After all bearing in mind the claims that the UK is a spent power, why should anyone outside the UK care - unless of course there is more to this than meets the eye?

Everyone wants the UK to remain in the EU as a stabilising/moderating influence - but at what price to the UK in terms of Sovereignty, migration and additional financial contributions to a failing EU. Moreover we have an EU that has no intention or will to change despite having had the 'writing on the wall' for a number of years already. The EU simply produces one 'fudge' after another to provide stop-gap solutions, rather than addressing the issues properly with a view to permanent solutions. This must surely the result of woefully inadequate leadership, paralysed by the concept of decision making - i.e. not one statesman amongst the lot of them!

Perhaps a more pertinent question should be - how long will the EU last if the UK does leave and other countries decide to follow suit?

Naturally if Brexit should come about, then the UK will remain willing to step in and help the Europe in times of trouble, as we have done in the past with previous conflicts - but there is really no need for the UK to be part of the unfolding train-wreck of the EU, just to demonstrate commitment to world peace

As for America - clearly they have short memories because they seem to have forgotten the reasons behind their own War of Independence (1775–1783). Why is the wish for Brexit any different?

Anyway does the UK really care about all the US threats over the 'special relationship' because quite frankly we all know that this is a very one-sided arrangement to serve the US only and any assistance to the UK always comes at a price. Let us not forget history and the Anglo-American Loan Agreement, the USA Cash & Carry policy (WWII) or Lend-Lease because the USA refused to enter the war and only engaged after Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941. Preferring instead for their 'allies' to do the fighting for them. All this seems rather like deja-vu with the European migrant crisis - America distances itself & Europe picks up the pieces

Whilst we are on the subject of the US, could someone please explain what their contribution has been towards solving the European refugee/migration problems currently being encountered. This is especially poignant bearing in mind that the US were instrumental in being one of the root causes of these issues in the middle east in the first place and now seem to have 'ducked' responsibility

So guys, before standing on the sidelines telling the UK what to do, any advice you offer would probably have more credibility if you started taking your fair share of Syrians, Iraquis, Afghanis and other displaced people that you have helped make refugees in the first place

However, what is hugely disappointing with this entire episode, is the manner in which David Cameron has conducted himself over the referendum, by displaying nothing more than privileged 'bully boy' tactics in an attempt to get his own way.

Considering the office he holds, his obsession and kowtowing to celebrities has always been rather demeaning to the British people, especially as this was not what he was elected to do. Neither is his coterie of Chipping Norton cronies particularly edifying and only brings him into disrepute when favours are handed out

Tags: , | Categories: Economics | European Union

Given a clean sheet, if the UK were not already in the EU, the question has to be - would you vote to join the EU as a new member today?

In all probability the answer would arguably be NO, because instilling the fear of leaving over the unknown, is completely different to making an informed decision to join in the first place. Furthermore, and any decision would conceivably be formed against the following background:

  • Treatment of Greece 
  • Treatment of Cyprus
  • Migration levels
  • Asylum becoming a 'lifestyle' choice - not the first safe haven country
  • On-going endemic corruption
  • Ignoring members referendums when it suits the EU - try again until you get the 'right' result
  • 1999 Santer Commission Resignation (see below)

and finally, last but not least -

Will UK Get Their Fishing Grounds Back From EEC Original Illegal Theft

 

2010 - Conservative Manifesto

This stated the party would:

'.. Restore democratic control In future, the British people must have their say on any transfer of powers to the European Union. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum ..'

This aspect has not even been addressed by David Cameron, which means that he has failed to implement a promise that was made in the manifesto


European Communities Act 1972

This 1972 Act of the Parliament provided for the incorporation of European Union law (originally Community law) into the domestic law of the United Kingdom

The reality of the situation is that if David Cameron was truly batting for the UK he could easily address the European Communities Act 1972 and do away with the theatrics of all night discussions asking for changes and being constantly rebuffed by the EU

 

The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty 

House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - The EU Bill and Parliamentary sovereignty

EUROPEAN UNION BILL

Explanatory Notes

Status of EU law

Clause 18: Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis 104. Clause 18 is a declaratory provision which confirms that directly applicable or directly effective EU law only takes effect in the UK as a result of the existence of an Act of Parliament. The words ‘by virtue of an Act of Parliament’ cover UK subordinate legislation made under Acts, and because of the particular context of this clause, also covers Acts and Measures of the devolved legislatures in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the relevant UK primary legislation

 

European Union Act (EUA) 2011

Section 18 was originally projected to be a ‘sovereignty’ clause, intended to reaffirm the sovereign character of the legislative power of the UK Parliament

Section 18: The Sovereignty Clause

On 6 October 2010, the Government announced that the Act would include a provision "to underline that what a sovereign Parliament can do, a sovereign Parliament can always undo".

HOWEVER, the clause, eventually enacted as section 18 of the Act provides that:

"Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis

Directly applicable or directly effective EU law (that is, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures referred to in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972) falls to be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom only by virtue of that Act or where it is required to be recognised and available in law by virtue of any other Act."

 

No Disagreement Permitted with the EU

Brussels is completely unaccountable and consistently asserts its will, irrespective of any democratic process, over every sovereign nation within the Union - only ever accepting its own decisions

Let us just recap for a moment over a few highlights

The original version of the Treaty of Lisbon (EU Constitution 2005) was rejected by France and the Netherlands and yet it was re-hashed into the Treaty of Lisbon and accepted in 2009

In 2015 Jean-Claude Junker, President of the European Commission (remember him over Luxembourg and its status as an EU tax haven at the expense of other member nations) said - '.. there can be no democratic choice against European choices ..' - this rather gives the game away! 

 

The Irish Referendum 2008

In 2008 the Irish people clearly rejected the Treaty of Lisbon - 46.6% of Irish voted "Yes" and 53.4% "No"

Instead of simply dropping the bill, the Irish were told to try again with another referendum because the EU refused to accept Irelands democratic process which did not agree with the EU own agenda

After the second referendum in 2009 the EU obtained the result it wanted

 

Who Exactly are Those in Favour of Remaining in the EU?

A whole raft of establishment 'worthies' from state sponsored organisations or large multi-nationals whose interests are already aligned with the EU

How many of these people have actually build businesses rather than being professional managers of other businesses 

As a consqeuence these people belong to a completely different world to small entrepreneurs or the rest of the community

 

Selling EU Membership on Fear

Ultimately one really needs to ask why all the 'selling points' of remaining in the EU put forward by David Cameron et-al revolve around the 'fear factor' and very few of the reasons for staying focus on the positive advantages

Unfortunately, scaremongering has to be the default position for the 'IN' camp, because it is proving to be very difficult for them to come up with any advantages of belonging to the EU, especially against the EU's existing historical disastrous track record

Even recently (Sunday Times 14-Feb-2016), Carolyn McCall the CEO of Easyjet wrote a rather dysfunctional column about the disadvantages to leaving the EU, once again disappointingly relying upon the fear factor. Ms McCalls line seems to relate to the airline industry in 1990 and how flying was only the domain of the wealthy at that time. Quite frankly there is absolutely no correlation between events today and occurrences 25 years ago, and to suggest otherwise is mischievous 

Then in the same edition of the Times, the ex CEO of TUI pitches in with his scaremongering about security fears should the UK leave the EU - conveniently forgetting that TUI suspended services to Tunisia in the wake of the July 2015 beach massacre. At the time the UK was in the EU

Both cases just confirm the dubious nature of the 'IN' supporters rhetoric

Finally, what on earth has hearsay about Margaret Thatcher views have to do with anything in today's context. Whatever views Ms Thatcher had/had not would have been based on her prevailing knowledge at the time and once again not 25 years later, when clearly events have changed

Quote - John Maynard Keynes - '.. when the facts change I change my mind ..'

One of most extraordinary aspects of this entire debate is the difference in approach between the two sides.

The 'IN' advocates put up all manner of unproven statements by a raft of Europhiles from one background or another (preferably 'celebrities' which is David Camerons wont) - oh! and by the way, if these 'celebs' (or anyone else) wants to have an opinion on the topic then they might at least be affected by living in the UK, unlike others who have expressed their views such as Richard Branson, Barack Obama and others - otherwise keep quiet because it only affects you indirectly!

Furthermore, the 'IN' refuse to see the way David Cameron was treated by the EU in February 2016 over raising very valid issues, whilst at the same time not acknowledging that very little was actually gained, despite the Government fanfare over all manner of claimed summits achievements

This was an ideal time for the EU to look at itself and review the way forward, unfortunately they simply refuse to acknowledge their own failings and demonstrate once again that the whole thing is totally dysfunctional, with every member having their own agenda instead of a coherent way forward. Just look at the disarray over the current migrant/refugee situation, which has been on-going for quite a while and lurching from one crisis to another, as a clear example on how structurally challenged the EU has become

Interestingly enough, it turns out that other member states either all want concessions in one form or another or expect the UK to pay for benefits to their own Nationals - this of course is coming from migrants own countries of origin which do not afford to their own people this same level of benefits in the first place!

.. and let us not forget public statements made by EU leaders to the effect that it doesn't really matter what is agreed - once the UK referendum is history they can overturn the agreement anyway. This just goes to show their contempt for the democratic views of members sovereign nations - especially if they overturn agreements that have been voted on as part of remaining in the EU

Furthermore, how many of the 'IN' fraternity are precisely the same people who advocated the UK joining the Euro? Their judgement was wrong then and it continues to remain flawed about the EU

So much for trusting the EU, which seems to consist of a very duplicitous bunch (used advisedly) of people with absolutely no sense of right/wrong, honour or concept of integrity except where it comes to 'trousering' benefits for themselves - ie a totally untrustworthy unaccountable elite group which remains undemocratic and seemingly cannot be removed

TRUST, ACCOUNTABILITY, HONOUR & SOVEREIGNTY ARE THE UNDENIABLE HURDLES THAT THE 'IN' CAMP FIND VERY DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND! 

 

Member Countries

The ongoing travails of Greece and the past bullying by Germany are already well documented 

Schengen is failing by the day and the EU seem impotent over a solution

Austria has given two fingers to Germany over border controls and has recently set daily levels for migrants

Hungary has erected fencing on the Romanian border and are about to hold a referendum on migrant quota's

Additionally, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia have all built their versions of the anti-immigrant fence along parts of their borders

France and Italy are already in a debt trap - a situation in which their debt is difficult or almost impossible to repay, because they cannot get their GDP to grow fast enough under any circumstances

A great deal of this debt is owed to foreigners and sooner or later (sooner!) thie interest rates on Government bonds will increase, re-financing will cease to be an option and the only way forward will be for them to leave the euro - alternatively the euro will need to be reformed under yet another fudge

At this juncture existing members will need to help them out - ie. the UK if it remains in the EU will also have to stump-up bail out funding

There used to be a saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', which makes the whole influence that France has in the EU a complete joke. A 'bust' country should actually be relegated to the bottom of any decision making table, but instead France seems to have cosied-up to Germany and achieved an influence in the EU far greater than its financial standing warrants

What a mess - so with this in mind - watch this space

Just in passing, in a club where all members are equal, who gave Germany the right to declare a unilateral 'open door' policy for migrants to be imposed on other members - thereby causing the current crisis?

AND THE 'IN' WANT TO JOIN THIS DISASTER!

 

1999 Santer Commission Resignation - The resignation of the European Commission

The entire European Commission - the executive body of the European Union - has resigned in the wake of a damning report exposing fraud, corruption and mismanagement at senior levels

Resignation of the European Commission - Parliament

1999 - EU chiefs resign en masse

 

Finally, David Cameron really does need to grow up about this issue and stop behaving like a petulant child.

All his rhetoric about Boris & co and preventing Civil Servants from acting for both side is quite frankly an abuse of power 

 

References

Recent EU Scandals

Campaign for an Independent Britain

Tags: | Categories: European Union

David Cameron and other leaders (including Angela Merkel) have historically expressed severe reservations about Jean-Claude Juncker being the right man for the job as president of the executive European Commission

These doubts are underpinned by the fact that Juncker is a staunch supporter of a federal European state and therefore unlikely to change the ‘status quo’. Although, this stance would seem to be totally at odds with the very clear message which seems to have been recently sent by the electorate in many EU countries that change must happen

Furthermore, to all accounts Jean-Claude Juncker is described by colleagues as an ‘inveterate drinker’ and has been on record as the subject of various drunken outbursts in the past whilst in office; which in itself should surely ring warning bells. The extraordinary thing is that all this is glossed over and ignored by the European political elite – however, in another context, no country in the EU would allow a person who was drunk to drive a motor car (Germany limits are 0.5 mg per ml) so why is it deemed acceptable to have someone who is an ‘old soak’ eligible for the top European Commission appointment; where the damage he could inflict is immense?

Now everything seems to have altered almost overnight and Juncker is flavour of the month, so what happened to change people’s minds about Junckers suitability for the job?

According to the Sunday Times - 20 June 2014 there is more to this than meets the eye - claiming:

 

‘.. European Commission sources say Bild’s publishers were given assurances by Juncker’s team that, if elected, he would support them in their long-running battle with Google ..’

 

Which in turn resulted in the following article in Bild

 

Bild - Juncker muss Präsident warden – 30 May 2014

‘..So was geht vielleicht in der DDR oder in rechtsnationalistischen Bananenrepubliken ..’

Translated as

‘..So what is going on perhaps in the GDR or in right-wing nationalist banana republics ..’

 

Therefore on the face of it, Bild and Mathias Döpfner (CEO of Axel Springer SE) would seem to categorise the UK as a ‘.. right-wing nationalist banana republic ..’ – which coming from a German newspaper in an article written 6 days prior to the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings really is a bit rich!

Well ‘seig heil’ –  Where have we heard this chant before?

Anyway to get back to the underlying issues

If these allegations by the Sundays Times are actually remotely true they raise all manner of questions which really need to be answered by Bild, Angela Merkel and Junckers

The fact that Google and Bild (Springer empire) are at loggerheads is a matter of record and identified by the Financial Times – 09 June 2014

 

‘.. Where Mr Döpfner led, politics followed. In May, Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s economy minister, publicly called for the possible break-up of Google should the company be found to have abused its dominant position ..’

‘.. But the latest demonstration of Springer’s power came after the European elections, when Angela Merkel changed course over backing Jean-Claude Juncker for the presidency of the European Commission hours after Bild backed him in an editorial ..’

 

Naturally there is nothing wrong with Angela Merkel changing her mind based upon a newspaper article, after all that is her prerogative. Nevertheless, she would be well advised to understand the underlying motives for the Bild article in the first place and whether it arose out of a ‘behind the scenes’ deal between Bild and Jean-Claude Juncker, because being potentially manipulated by bribery and a corrupt undisclosed arrangement by someone hoping for EU office as president of the executive European Commission, would be very damaging indeed

Perhaps Angela Merkel would like to state her case for interference on the basis of the following and explain the justification for her recommendation:

 

Letter in the Times of 22 June 2014

Correct route to selecting the EU president

The relevant provision is Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union

Members of the commission “shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution” — including the European Parliament

In making its choice the European Council must “[take] into account the elections to the European Parliament”. This time, the elections have shown the deep disaffection of many citizens throughout the Union. The president of the commission must be someone who can respond to this challenge and maintain the credibility and independence of the commission.

 

Therefore, in the light of all these matters, has ‘.. a senior member of Juncker’s team had held talks with Springer over Google ..’ and if so, was a bribe offered to Mr Döpfner over supporting Springer in their spat with Google?

If this was the case then surely it graphically demonstrates another reason on precisely why Jean-Claude Juncker is not the right person for the job; or does Angela Merkel wish to turn yet another blind eye to the reality of a corrupt Europe?

Disclosure over this matter really is required and the standard method of Junckers avoiding to engage on uncomfortable issues should not be regarded as acceptable

Tags: , , | Categories: European Union

What a very stupid statement made by Damian Draghici, an advisor to the Romanian Prime Minister

'.. Britain should be far more worried about bankers taking billions of pounds than Roma begging on the streets ..'

Clearly Mr Draghici has missed the whole point of the UK's concern (probably deliberately) - which is lack of control over our own affairs.

The UK can chose whatever measures it wants to take against bankers or anyone else; the fact that it has not done so is an entirely different matter - the choice is available. However, this is not the case with the UK borders where EU rules prevent countries managing their own immigration policies.

It doesn't really matter whether 1 migrant or 1 million gain entry, the principle is the same; countries want control of their own borders and not to be dictated to by the EU as part of their goal for a political power base. Migrants are generally regarded as bringing all manner of advantages to the receiving country, but only if they have the suitable qualifications and not because of an attractive welfare system (Romania £8 per week - UK £80+ per week)

Additionally, it is generally recognised that the UK has a growing element of generational dependency on welfare amongst some of the indigenous population. Bringing migrants in to work at low rates of pay thereby taking the jobs that could be used to wean generational dependents back into work is perhaps not the best approach. Obviously employers would prefer the work ethic of migrants in preference to some of the work-shy native population, but is that the best way to address encouraging existing welfare claimants back into work and off benefits?

Furthermore, these EU edicts fly directly in the face of the basic concept of Subsidiarity - which has been acclaimed as one of the fundamental cornerstones of all aspects of the EU, to prevent members being dictated to by unreasonable central policies

‘.. decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union in accordance with Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty ..’

Why is Subsidiarity not working in the EU - the EU seems intent on breaking their own rules & guidelines to get their own way (now there is a surprise)

The Romanian argument seems to have progressed from - 'large migration will not occur', through 'only qualified migrants will move' and now finally we get to the nub of of the matter where they are acknowledging the probable reality of the Roma population migration and trying to downplay the issue with distractions, such as bankers (who by the way are net contributors rather than recipients)

Yet another red herring from a new entrant attempting to justify free borders, and just as weak as all previous arguments on this subject. Although, it is as good as an admission that one is likely to get about massive free population migration across uncontrolled borders for the hope of a better life in another country.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with these aspirations provided the 'better life' includes contributing to their target country and not just taking (welfare in all its forms). Anyway surely the underlying question has to be why has their country of origin not been able to provide this life for them in the first place, because this raises a far more fundamental issue that the EU does not wish to address?

The UK has enacted laws in order to benefit the population and in this respect let us just begin with an easy one. Local Authorities in the UK have a duty to house the homeless, which raises the question of whether this is the case in Romania.

Do the authorities in Romania have a duty to house their homeless? If Romania (or any of the other countries) do not have the same basic enshrined obligations as the UK then there is no level playing field and consequently the UK is expected to provide better conditions than the migrants own country, which is an absurd situation with mass migration.

The UK's resources are finite, quite apart from that fact that the existing population density in the UK is one of the highest around and allowing a greater influx will only make matters worse.

Tags: | Categories: European Union

How did the EU regulators allow this whole Cyprus matter to get to the current position?

After all the EU bureaucrats are 'hell bent' on determining (interfering with) the dimensions of a carrot, banning curved cucumbers, or some such equally fatuous exercise, so why did they fail to spot the Cyprus situation brewing or address it in a timely manner

In reality it is a culmination of bad regulation, bad politics and EU incompetence which has brought about the Cyprus situation, resulting in savers and the rest of the Cypriot population paying the price for banking failure. Most of which was avoidable if the EU had displayed a modicum of competence

The Background

Lets just look at Cyprus in greater depth

Prior to joining the EU in 2004, Cyprus had a stable economy growing at around 4% per annum with a healthy budget surplus, underpinned by financial services, tourism and property

After joining The EU, two major Cyprus banks reaped the benefits of membership by trying to attract money from Russia, Europe & the Middle East, with keen interest rates , low taxes, laisez faire (lax) local expansion policies and special deals (Russia)

As a result, money poured into the country from the targeted regions and the greater the inflow of money the more the Cypriot banks lent out

The Problem

Now this is where it gets interesting

Traditionally the Cypriot central bank only permitted banks to use up to 30% of their foreign deposits to support local lending in order to avoid massive external deposits fuelling a bubble

However, all those rules changed when they joined the EU (2008) and Euro Region deposits were re-classified as domestic rather than external/foreign money - accordingly the Cypriot Banks loan books increased by about 32% over the period of a single year

In a very short time (by 2011) the Cyprus banks were almost 8 times the size of their economy and their financial services sector accounted for half of GDP

A huge bank bubble had appeared and all the danger signs were there. However, instead of addressing the issue, the Cypriot central bank exacerbated the problem by raising the limit on foreign deposits from 30% of capital to 90%; highly risky

At this point one might well ask - where were the EU checks and balances and why did no EU regulatory system kick in?

Cypriot banks purchased over €4bn of high-yield Greek debt and lent a further €22bn to Greek companies - this was more than the entire GDP for Cyprus. Cyprus assumed that even in a worst case scenario, the Ireland approach would be adopted and bond-holders paid out in full

Unfortunately for Cyprus, this was not the case and bond-holders took a massive 'haircut' to protect the private Greek creditors

Once Greece defaulted on its debts, the country of Cyprus, Laiki & the Bank of Cyprus all went bust overnight. Clearly the government was not in a position to take on the bank liabilities which would have amounted to 145% of the country’s GDP

Nevertheless, Cyprus had in fact been almost bust since 2009 and a great many knew about this but did nothing until it was too late - Why did the EU not intervene ?

Points at issue

The Cypriot people have every right to be angered at the conduct of the EU and most of the resulting disaster has been brought about by cause & effect

  • Greece should never have been allowed to join the EU in the first place. Many say that Greece with the help of Goldman Sachs 'cooked the books' by masking the true extent of Greek debt by the use of derivatives to 'legally' circumvent the EU Maastricht rules. Thereby deferring the cross-currency swaps maturity until after Greece had entered the EU and then bringing the problem back on Greece's books to increase the countries already bloated deficit
  • Once the Greece/Goldman 'scam' became apparent no-one in the EU did anything about either throwing them out of the EU or ensuring that Goldman Sachs under-wrote the liability of the Greek participation in perpetuity
  • Therefore without the collapse of Greece one could arguably say that Cyprus would at least be €4bn better off today and not in quite such dire circumstances
  • When it became apparent that matters had gone seriously wrong with Cyprus, the EU did nothing for 9 months except dither; thereby exacerbating a problem which needed to be addressed urgently rather than avoided
  • Finally a woefully inadequate plan was produced by the EU, led by the Germans. The EU wished to punish Cyprus for attempting to become and off-shore tax haven for Russian money laundering within the EU and the population would bear the brunt of the measures

Questions that need to be asked of the EU:

  • Once the EU became aware of the Greece/Goldman Sachs issue, why did they not investigate the matter and throw Greece out of the EU, or at the very least pursue Goldman Sachs to underwrite a situation they had brought about by assisting Greece's membership of the EU ?
  • What rules were in place to prevent EU member country banking systems from over-stepping prudent lending ratios inside or outside the EU - Why were they not acted upon and and what has been done to strengthen these rules in the light of the Cypriot problems ?
  • Although they knew about the position, why did the EU put their head in the sand for 9 months whilst the position deteriorated, before addressing the issue ?
  • What has the Eurozone or any other politician done to prevent futures problems in the banking industry threatening global stability ? For instance, simple measures, such as allowing bank depositors to place their money with banks either on a Client Money basis (segregated from the bank and held as a Trustee) or Deposit basis allowing the bank to hold the money as a banker and not as a trustee - Banks And Your Money
  • What responsibility does the EU take for its part in this whole Cypriot matter - from not throwing Greece out when it became apparent that their entry figures were 'cooked' right through to inadequate (lax) rules and failure to address matters in a timely manner

All in all, perhaps the EU should be fined (say €5bn to start) for failures in their own regulatory systems, and not controlling the financial markets within the Eurozone for the benefit of the population in EU member states

Perhaps any such fines could come directly from the pockets of individuals in the entire EU administration system with EU politicians (they have clearly failed in their mandate) bearing a greater percent of the fine personally - say 50%-75% of their entire salary and perks for all the years they have been an EU politician; after all any failure in regulation occurred on their watch, so it is only fair they should be held accountable and pay the price.

Any shortfall or balance needed to make up the rest of €5bn should be provided by Goldman Sachs as recompense for their contribution to this whole mess as well as having them indemnify all future Greek related problems for the duration of their EU membership

Only by taking such measures, will it be brought home to inventive 'chancers' such as Goldman Sachs, that they cannot simply come up with schemes that impact on the wider population, without being accountable for any ensuing fallout. After all they take the upside of lining their pockets initially, so they should also be subject to the downside of covering the eventual outcome of their actions - cause and effect!

Tags: | Categories: Banking | European Union

Never really understood why Germany continues to persevere with the EU. Especially as it was an ideological/political rather than realistic economic dream and one only has to look at those still doing well out of the EU – on the one hand those in Brussels & MEP’s etc. and on the other countries who see it as a grants ‘cash cow’ in one form or another. After all one only has to look at any graph of net contributors .v. receivers to form a conclusion

Germany have already successfully been through the painful process of reunification in the 1990's, so why would they want the pain all over again with the EU; with no realistic end in sight?

Of course the real problem is that at least with reunification there was the potential of a successful result in the future. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the EU, where all that Germany is doing is bankrolling the southern block of EU members and taking a massive ‘hit’ for its support

This whole EU disaster area is no longer just Greece, but is now also being acknowledged as France, Italy, Spain … and so on … just look at the historic track record of some of the countries who have been in default over the last 50 years longer than they have been solvent. Why does anyone think they can, or are willing to change their ways under the current situation?

Clearly Germany is getting edgy about their gold reserves and nervous regarding trusting France to hold their gold in safe keeping. What happens if France goes down and they subsequently hijack Germanys gold reserves to help them out?

All that Germany is doing by maintaining the current situation is giving credibility to a basket of other countries that would otherwise revert back to their own currencies and suffer devaluation, rocketing inflation (destroying savings) and resulting political unrest – not what politicians want

And now we have France (Hollande) as the voice for all the other countries that want a weaker euro which would potentially be against Germanys interests – so why do they stay?

Nevertheless if Germany did leave they would no longer be weighed down by supporting the rest of Europe and would probably see its currency soar

Alternatively a two tier Europe might be the answer, with all the solvent countries banding together and letting all the others jostle over support payments for each other; which would definitely flush out nationalistic feelings

Tags: | Categories: European Union