Why should we leave the EU?

We have already given away our own control, or ‘sovereignty’ of Commerce, Industry, Agriculture, Social and Labour Policies, Environment, Fishing and Foreign aid. Our Foreign trade relations are already negotiated and imposed on us by the EU. We have ceded Legal Supremacy to the Luxembourg ‘Court’, and 80% of our Law making is controlled by the EU. Criminal Justice is already 50% under the control of the EU. Our Police are already about 25% subject to EU control. Even Local Government is starting to come under control of the EU. Even the Germans complain: in 2004, 82% of German Laws were imposed by the EU Commission, or Politburo. These powers cannot be wrested back from the EU until the UK leaves the EU.
If our Parliament does not rubber stamp instructions from the Commission into British Law, we face Unlimited Fines from the Luxembourg ‘Court of Justice’. We can only avoid the jusrisdiction of this court by leaving the EU
The Luxembourg ‘Court of Justice’ is not a Court of Law. It is an offshoot of the EU treaties, and is Duty Bound to find in favour of measures which lead to ‘Ever Closer Union of the Peoples of Europe’. Leaving the EU is the only way out.
80% of our laws now originate in Brussels; not even in the elected Parliament but in the unelected Commission. Since the EU decided to 'cancel 69 pieces of legislation', another 1000 pieces of legislation have sprung up. We would not be subject to any of these if we were Out of EU.

Here is an extraordinary thing: our government is prepared for our citizens to be killed to please the EU commission. How? Well, about 40 people are killed by bumping into trucks every year, mostly in the dark, mostly because they do not see the truck. Research has shown that the number of accidents could be halved by enforcing cheap strips of reflective tape on the sides of the trucks, and anyone in their right minds would want this to be a requirement. But our government refuses to make this a requirement because it would infringe EU dictates. Why do we need EU approval to implement cheap effective safety measures? Because we are in the EU.
Who are these unelected people in the Commission? The huge majority are just paid ‘civil servants’, paid by us, that is. There are thousands and thousands of them. But the Commissioners are appointed by Member States. They are often prominent failures in their own countries. Kinnock went there when he was chucked out by the electorate. Mandelson went there when his second lot of dishonesties disqualified him for office in the UK. Barrot was convicted for embezzlement in 2004 and banned from public office; apparently he is a good European – perhaps this is the correct qualification. Patten found a job when he managed to overturn a huge majority and got chucked out by his constituency. Even Barroso, head of the new shiny white commission, is apparently not above taking sweeteners in the form of free cruise, from an influential shipping magnate with large EU contracts. The only way we can avoid being ruled by these unelected overpaid 'civil servants' is to leave the EU.
In the words of a document commissioned by Romano Prodi ‘Building a Political Europe Apr 2004’: “In the triangle formed by the European Institutional system - the Commission, Council and Parliament – it is the Commission that holds the Executive power.” Even having elected MEPs and attending the council of ministers cannot protect us from this power. Getting out of the EU can.
So widespread is the corruption of the Commission that, for the last 14 Years in turn, the Auditors have been unable to sign off the accounts. If a small Limited Company in Britain failed to have its accounts audited for One Year, the directors would face prison. We can avoid subsidising this corruption only by leaving the EU.
If you think this audit system is bad: well, it's worse. The Auditors only audit 20% of the expenditure. Of the rest, half goes to the Common Agricultural Programme and half to Structural Funds. These are paid out to Nations and there is no audit trail at all for this money. There is no particular evidence that funds paid for French peasant farmers have been received in full by them, for example. One rice farm in France employs 14 people, who get a subsidy of 62000 euros each per year; and the rice they produce is still at twice the World price. The only way to stop paying for this is to get out of the EU.
Five times in the last 10 years, honest people in the Commission have ‘blown the whistle’. They have been suspended or chucked out. The faults are still there, so perhaps these are the only five honest people in the enormous organisation? The re-appointment of Herr Bruner as Director General of the EUSSR Fraud investigation tells us a lot about the Commission and the lack of Power of the Parliament. All the candidates for the post were interviewed by the EU Parliament Budgetary Control Committee, and selected a suitable Swedish Candidate. The EUSSR simply ignored this, and re-apointed Bruner, who supported witch hunts against EU whistle-blowers, and had been criticized by MEPs and even by his own board. The Commission chooses its own judge in matters of Fraud. We cannot control them; but we could stop paying them by leaving the EU.
No law passed in Brussels has ever been successfully overturned by Parliament. Our Parliament can debate these laws as much as they like, but they can only change laws with the agreement of all other member states: in other words, they can’t. Unless we leave the EU.
There is no way of even finding out how the Laws are arrived at, and what arguments are made for and against, or by whom. Even our own National Parliament can’t find out. We won't need to when we get out of the EU and revert to making our own laws, in our elected Parliament.
Once a law is in a treaty, it can only be changed if there is Unanimous Agreement in the Council of Ministers. There is no way anything can be ‘Re-negotiated’. There is not even a mechanism or forum for ‘renegotiating’, except by leaving the EU. Once something has been accepted in a treaty, it becomes an ‘Acquis Communitaire’, another cog in the ratchet from which there is no get out. There are 80000 pages of A Cs. None has ever been rescinded, but we can get out of all of them when we leave the EU.
The socialist government says we should have regional assemblies because the Regional Development Authorities are unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable, civil servants should not make our decisions or spend our money. So why do they allow us all to be ruled and over-ruled by the unelected unaccountable Commission? In the UK we can vote not to be ruled by regional assemblies; but our vote is worth nothing unless we get out of the EU.
An example of the power of the EU is the ban on various 'health foods' such as vitamins and supplements. Anything not EU approved is now banned, and there is nothing our parliament can do about it: the EU laws are paramount. If they can dictate on such a trivial matter, with no redress, what about more important laws to follow? The REACH directive bans many chemicals in common use, unless specific trials are done to 'prove' they are 'safe'. Only major companies could afford to do the trials, and many useful products and viable businesses will go down the drain. Some of the central European states that have no coast-line are being forced by the EU to enact EU maritime laws.
The EU Commission has introduced new rules to regulate drug company research, with stunning results. The major drug firms are relocating their research laboratories to the United States or elsewhere. It is well worth their paying the extra wages and expenses in exchange for escaping from EU control. The scientists either emigrate or sell onions from their bikes. The spin off in drug related worker goes far wider than the laboratory. Being in the EU means losing quality jobs.
A new EU directive that will become law in UK in 2008 will ban medical workers from standing near MRI scanners, though there is no evidence of any risk. This will make 30% of the scans done in this country illegal, with great risk to health in cases of Cancer, Heart Condition, Mutiple Scelerosis, Back Injury and others. A curious by product is that many more people would have to have X-rays, known to have dangers. The only way to stop coming under the jurisdiction of this, and many other similar directives, is to Get Out Of EU.
No one in Britain has ever voted to be in the EU super-state. When we voted to join, it was to a ‘Common Market’, and inter-nation free trade zone. We have been fooled at each step into thinking that each new treaty is just tidying up loose ends, returning powers to nations and so on. But each new law and treaty ratchets us into ‘Ever Closer Union’ and there is no escape.....without leaving the EU altogether. Well worth remembering Monnet’s statement: ‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the Superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation’. We do not have to stay fooled if we leave the EU.
The EU is very costly to our economy, is a lot of Monnet, in the following ways:

a.     We have to give the EU more than 16 billion pounds per year, and from that we receive back only 10 billion pounds. That is a direct outflow of 100 pounds per year for every man woman and child in Britain.

b.    In addition to paying for the Common Agricultural Policy, we have to pay for its results; direct food costs are higher than need be by about 160 pounds per year for every man, woman and child.

c.     The fisheries policy has given away our territorial waters to the EU, which means that they can be fished, and over fished, by our neighbours. The cost to Britain’s fishing industry is probably about 2 billion pounds per year, another 34 pounds each per year.

d.    The EU brings over-regulation with it. It is estimated that this costs the whole economy about 2% of turnover, about 350 pounds each per year. If you think this is an exaggeration, the EU reckons that the GDP could be 12% higher if we had US style regulation!

e.     Various other fiscal and trade diktats bring the total cost to not less than 1000 pounds per year for every man woman and child: 80 pounds per person per month, 300 pounds per month for a normal family.

f.      The Commission spends 3816 million pounds per year on Tobacco Subsidy through the CAP; and 18 million pounds on anti smoking propaganda. Is there a potential saving?

g. British gas chief Sir Roy Gardner tells us that the EU is adding 1 Billion Pounds to British Fuel Bills. They seek controlled prices within Europe instead of opening markets to full and fair competition. There is one way to save this money: by Getting Out Of The EU.
We spent 9 billion pounds obeying Brussels regulations during the foot and mouth crisis. Brussels then decided only to repay one third of it! There are dozens of un-needed extra projects ordered from Brussels, carried out by us at our expense: about 70 billion pounds worth in the last few years. Why should we want to jump when Brussels spouts? We won't have to when we get Out of EU.
One reason given for staying in the EU is harmonisation of standards. What does this mean? It means adopting Euro Codes instead of our own British Standards. The idea is a level playing field throughout Europe, and it sounds good. But is it? All these Euro Codes have to be agreed by a number of committees from across the Continent. You start with a nice British meal of Roast Beef and Yorkshire Pud. Then you add Frog’s legs, Sauerkraut, Paprika, some slices of Octopus, a Twist of Spaghetti, a dollop of Gouda, washed down with Retsina: do you get a feast? No, a dog’s dinner. The codes that come out of this kitchen are much more difficult to use (Quotation from the EC 3 (steel design) code makers: ‘this code cannot be used for design’); and are much more expensive to apply. The cost of everything done to the code is more expensive. And imagine having to export any where else with this constraint on your back. This could be OK if there was a real reward in terms of standardisation in the big EU market, but this is an illusion. Each country then applies its own rules, and its own way of checking compliance, and its own non-tariff barriers to exclude our stuff. In other words, we’d be a lot better off sticking to our own codes, and using the EU one only when we have to for work on the Continent. We will be able to choose our own codes when we leave the EU.
National governments in the EU use many methods to exclude UK providers: for example the Greeks (Massive receivers of our EU money) do not allow UK qualified Engineers to work in Greece.
The EU intended to promote a dynamic economic system, comparable to the US. But with their high unemployment and recession, the biggest EU powers are preventing, by non-tariff means, workers and service providers from the lower cost (or competitive) EU states from working in their markets; although of course fight to keep the right to export their services and goods to the rest of the EU and elsewhere. If the French and Germans can keep Slovak or Polish service providers from their markets because they are cheaper, where does that leave any competitive country? And where does it leave the idea of a dynamic European economic system? Free of the EU, we will be able to choose our providers.
In May 2005 the EU voted by majority voting to impose the Working Time Directive onto the UK, removing our opt out. This will erode the competitiveness of our industries, many of whom are already struggling against the emerging economic powers in Asia, none of whom are bound by EU regulation. For the moment the EU has been unable to force this change on us. But they will keep on trying if we stay in. In 2008, the EU voted to end the opt-out. Watch this space!
We have a huge trade deficit with the EU. We buy from them much more than they buy from us. Much of this is agricultural produce we could buy cheaper from our friends and allies overseas, if we were not prevented by the EU. Our goods come up against walls of non-tariff barriers when we try to sell there. We have a trade surplus with the rest of the world. Out of EU, we can buy where we like.
We do not need to fear losing trade with the EU. Because it is so one-sided in their favour, the EU would be anxious to retain free trade with us when we leave. Britain is their biggest customer. There will be no trade penalty when we get out. Out of the EU, in EFTA, our trade will probably increase, as other EFTA members show (see "EFTA")
We used to belong to EFTA, the European Free trade area, but left it to join the EEC, now EU. There are only 3 countries left in EFTA, Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg. These countries, since we left them, have become the three richest countries in Europe (GDP: Norway 48400, Switzerland 43900 and Liechtenstein 30000, EU15 27500, EU25 21800). On average they are twice as wealthy as the average EU. They beat every EU country on economic freedom, low unemployment, growth competitiveness, export as % of GDP, (already much higher than ours), low corruption index, low inflation. Why? because they have every bit of free trade with the EU, and with several other blocs; they set their own tarriffs; they are not wasting their money on the corrupt EU and the absurd CAP. We could join them again, and be welcome. All we have to do is Get Out Of The EU.
We are the biggest receivers of inward investment in Europe. This is because we are a gateway into Europe; and because we speak English; and because, as yet, we are less regulated than our neighbours; and because social costs are lower here; and because we are stable; and because we have sound financial systems. It is not true that we would not remain attractive to investors outside the EU: we would still have our Common Market (as Switzerland and even Mexico do now). Out of EU, we could roll back regulation and attract even more inward investment.
The World Trade Organisation exists to encourage free trade and fair trade. The EU is the major stumbling block. The EU subsidises Farms in the EU, so we already pay for food indirectly. Because of subsidies, EU farmers grow more food than we need. The EU would like to export this, but, even with the subsidies, it is above world prices. So there is another subsidy as well, an EXPORT SUBSIDY. This enables the EU to defeat overseas producers in their own markets, driving their businesses down the tubes. They cannot export back into the EU because there are tariffs designed to make world market prices higher than the subsidised EU prices in Europe. This is a disgusting device of rich countries to deny poor countries a fair deal, or any deal at all. There is a lot of spin around this, pumped out by trustworthy persons like the EU Commissioner for trade, to the effect that the EU is doing more than it's share of work to rectify the situation. Nonsense. The EU accounts for 90% of all world export subsidies. The remaining 10% is taken up by Norway, the USA, Switzerland and the rest of the World between them. That is BAD, but the EU IS TEN TIMES AS BAD. The only way to stop taking an active part in this disgraceful practice is to get out of the EU
We do not need the EU to keep peace in Europe. Nato has done this and still will. Remember the ‘safe haven’ where the Europeans pushed the Bosnians in Srebrenice, after preventing them from arming themselves, as the Dutch would defend them. Until Ratko Miladic turned up, the Dutch fled, and every Moslem Bosnian Male between 14 and 70 was slaughtered. It is even said that the EU commission encouraged the Serbs to invade Croatia, with a view to having a unified state more acceptable to the EU. We had enough of this sort of peace 70 years ago. It was not until our trusty friends from USA turned up that anyone showed any guts and moral courage to protect the Muslim people from the Serb Orthodox Christian(?) Army! Out of EU, we will choose our own allies.
We would not gain in international influence by being a minority voice in the EU. Because of our worldwide reputation, and our own strength, and the strength of our allies, we already punch above our weight. We would cease to do so if buried in Europe. Remember in the first Gulf War, the Belgians, who had a monopoly of production of our rifle bullets, refused to supply us; during the Falklands War, our friends the French were busy putting Exocets onto our enemy’s platforms, enabling them to sink the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. Our policy was to take part in the War to get rid of Saddam; can anyone pretend we would have been free to act if our foreign and military programmes were dictated through the EU? No, we would be toothless. Even if we did not think the war to get rid of Saddam was in order, we certainly do need to retain the ability to act in our interests, whether with allies in Europe or elsewhere; more likely elsewhere, with our English Speaking friends and allies around the world. Out of EU, we can defend ourselves properly.
We do not gain the ability to redirect the EU by being a minority voice within it. Look how little we have failed to change the ridiculous, costly and damaging Common Agricultural Policy and Fishery Policy over the last 20 years. It is getting more difficult to make a difference as the number of members increase, and Veto powers reduce. If we leave the EU, we can vote for or against here, and make it happen.
Unemployment in Britain is about 7.5%. In France it is about 12% and in Germany about 10%. We do not want to follow EU footsteps.
We do not want any more suffocating employment legislation, such as the 35 hour week, already regretted in France and forcing export of jobs. Every leap forward in EU Social Engineering has its accompanying leap forward in unemployment, bankruptcies and export of jobs to places without social standards. Leaving the EU will help safeguard British jobs.
The national debt in Britain amounts to about 47% of GDP. In the EU, the average is about 57% and growing. Staying in the EU is bound to make these debt figures converge. Our debt has increased by 10% over the last 5 years, and is getting worse.
Our National Debt is increasing rapidly as we pay off banks. But in Europe the situation is worse, and getting worse quicker. We should get out, not further in.
Germany has been on the brink of recession for 4 years. We have no benefit in making our policies converge with the EU. Unfortunately we are converging with the EU. We should get out.
Countries in the Euro zone share the same currency and the same interest rates. The interest rates are controlled by the European Central bank, so control, (sovereignty), is lost, not just to Brussels but also to Frankfurt. Interest rates have proven to be an effective and relatively painless method of controlling our economy, of taking the steam out of it when it overheats, prodding it along when too slow. Without this control we would be bound to swing from boom to bust. If we stay in the EU, inevitably, we will get drawn into the Euro. If out of the European Union, we won’t.
When the Euro was introduced it was realised that strong financial discipline would be needed by all participating states, because if some states over-spent and over-borrowed, the whole Euro system would be jeopardised. But because of the social and industrial policies of the major EU countries, stagnation crept in, unemployment rose and all of the Euro zone is on the edge of recession (except Greece). The way out of this should be to have a good industrial strategy, but a short-term fix is to increase government spending; this jollies things along for a while but piles up future problems, just like borrowing for home improvements, a new car and a family holiday would do in the home. Germany and France employed this short-term fix, and have been doing so for three years, with no result yet. They are borrowing much more than they should, to the detriment of every other Euro zone economy. The solution chosen by the EU is to relax the rules, not remedy the problem. Many European Nations will exceed the 3% deficit this year. We do not want to join them.
The EU is imposing, and will further impose, an EU legal system on every member country. It will be based on Napoleonic 'Corpus Juris' system. It will replace the British System we have had since the time of Henry 2nd. It will mean the end of the presumption of innocence. (You would have to prove yourself innocent, not the legal system have to prove you guilty). Many would no longer have the right to trial by Jury. The old Habeas Corpus rights would disappear so you could be arrested and held without charge, perhaps for a very long time. The protection against double jeopardy will be removed. Once the new system is in place you could be arrested in Europe, imprisoned, refused a court appearance, be held to be guilty, tried by a judge and sentenced by him with no right to a Jury. The separation of Judiciary from the State will go. THIS IS ALREADY WITH US. A technical decision made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has allowed the Commission to over-rule the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, as well as National Parliaments, in the field of criminal law. Reference is made to judgements of the ECJ, (which is bound to make judgements leading to ever-closer union). Environmental law was the thin end of the wedge. Counterfeiting the euro, credit card fraud, money laundering, people trafficking, private sector corruption, computer hacking, marine pollution are now following through the open crack of 'EU competences', because these are the easy ones that no-one could object to. Once the precedent is made, every other area of law is bound to follow, and is following. Contract law, liability law, family law… all will follow suit. Funnily, public sector corruption has not yet made the list…. There is only one way of getting out of the jurisdiction of the EU.
The European Union spends huge amounts of our money on propaganda. For example, after the defeat of the Constitution by voters, there is an EU 'Communication Course' to rebut free press newspapers. There are 50 action points in what Mandelson calls ' a golden opportunity to assert fresh political leadership', an Orwellian spin to the defeat of the constitution and the effort treacherously to reinstate it.
Immigration is a problem, as we are accepting more people than we can cope with. Without a hint of racism, immigration must be controlled. One of the EU rules is that, once someone has been allowed into any EU state, they are then free to migrate to anywhere else in the EU. The Spanish have just given an amnesty to the 800,000 illegal immigrants that have come into their country. All of them will have a legal right to come here. Many of them will. There is no Sangatte or equivalent in Dover, full of people wanting to go to high unemployment, racist countries like France. It would seem obvious that we ought to be able to control immigration to our own shores; but this is already out of our hands, and will be less and less in our control the further into the EU noose we stick our necks. Meanwhile we have a duty to accept all genuine asylum seekers, which we should be able to do; if the immigration picture were not distorted by the waves of other, often illegal, immigrants. Out, we can control our own migration policies.
One of the ways the EU plans to eliminate the power of National Parliaments is by making the EU a federation of regions. Each region would have its own Assembly (parliament) and these would report to the EU superstate parliament, so the National parliaments would be by-passed. It is surprising how far we have been hoodwinked so far by our own government: they have set up Regional Authorities, paid for without our taxes, though they never have been in a Manifesto or voted for. Councils are then forced to contribute and take part in these regional assemblies for fear of being left out. It was always assumed that we would want these, and not object to them, but just in case, no one was told. When the area of England most likely to want ‘independence’, the North East, was told, they voted three to one not to bother with a North East Regional Assembly. BUT: they’ve still got it, their rate payers and we tax payers are still paying for it, as we all are for these Trojan Horses for the EU in every ‘region’. We can only avoid regionalisation by getting out of the EU.
Pensions are a problem in Britain. When the population was expanding, every working person was paying money which was paying the pensions of the pensioners at the time, not being saved for their own future pensions. Now the British population is not growing, and people are living longer: there is not enough money to go round to pay decent pensions. But if the situation is bad here, it is worse in the rest of Europe. The Demographic Problem is far more acute in Europe. There people are having smaller families, there are even less payers per pensioner. The savings of the new joiners are worth little in real money. There is a huge future problem. If in this country we have not put enough aside for top-up pensions, the case is much worse in Europe. Who is going to pay the difference? If we leave the EU, there will be sufficient to make up our own pension deficits. If we stay in, there will not be enough to pay off theirs. The UK has at present more saved for pension provision that the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
The accounts for the EU in 2004 show a liability for 19.7 billions of Euros set aside for the payment of pensions to their staff. Yet on the other side of the same balance sheet they show a 19.7 billion euro asset for the pension fund. What is this asset? According to the EU, these pensions for their employees are to be paid by member states. Member states do not know this, and have no such provision. If we were to leave, none of it would become our debt. The last Nation to leave the EU would legally pick up all of it.
For the last nine years it has been the policy of the UK to encourage 'green' farming by switching farm subsidies from production to 'paying public money for the public good'. But Blair's deal at the end of 2005 to reduce the overall budget forced him not to cut the 'bad' Pillar 1 payments, but to cut the 'good' Pillar 2 payments. The budget for 'green farming has therefore been cut by 40%, with no cut in the wasteful CAP payments. This demonstrates the EU's determination not to reform the CAP; and to reverse green policies; at the same time it shows the complete inability of the UK government to control any aspect of the EU, even when we hold the Presidency. The only way we can control our spending: leave the EU.
EU construction work is killing off Europe's most endangered species, in spite of EU propaganda pledges to protect them. The WWF says that projects encouraged by the EU are wiping out the Iberian Lynx and the Brown Bear among others. Road, rail, dam, irrigation and drainage projects partly or entirely funded by the EU are causing widespread destruction. If EU projects in Europe are doing this, there is no doubt what EU funded projects in the third world are doing. A spokesman for the EUSSR said 'I reject these charges; the Commission has safeguards against damage to the environment'. Unlike the tightly controlled EU budget, there is no audit of these safeguards at all. We are of course subsidising the environmental destruction. The only way to stop doing so is to Leave The EU.
The EU wants to introduce EU ID cards, an expensive affair which is another EU Trojan Horse; once you have one, you have an EU passport, you are a citizen of the EU. Whether or not we like ID cards, no one has voted to have an EU card making us EU citizens, and sharing our data with a number of foreign states, or the Superstate.
The new constitution makes the EU into a state. Any pretence that it is just ‘tidying up loose ends’ is a deliberate deception, as you find if you listen to the rhetoric coming from other Europhile nations: “…will accept the Constitution. It gives more power and influence to us here in Parliament. The EU can lay down the Law in 15 new areas. We get majority votes in 40 new areas…”. It tidies up the loose ends by binding them into the Superstate. This Superstate will have ‘primacy over the law of member states’. And the EU reserves the right to assume any further powers it chooses: but only over states that remain in the EU.
The Constitution, which makes the EU into a Superstate, permits the setting up of a Diplomatic Service. This constitution has yet to be ratified, though it is now called the 'Lisbon Treaty'. But the EU, without any political or financial mandate, has already set up a 5000 strong Diplomatic Service. It has Embassies in most countries. These Embassies already have more staff than National Embassies. They already deal with our trade and our aid. They do not deal in visas yet, but that is to come. In the words of an EU diplomat, the function of National Embassies will soon to promote tourism, nothing else. We are paying for them. They are another EU Trojan horse. Even if the constitution is never ratified, the EU Embassies will exist, they will not be closed down, they will be funded and staffed to an ever growing extent. The function of our own Embassies will wane. The EU Embassies will de facto represent us whether we like it or not, unless we leave.
The constitution (aka 'treaty') gives the EU power to formulate and carry out foreign and defence policies, to have a minister to conduct them, and to require support from members. Never in the field of human conflict do we want our defence or our ability to act to be under the control of the EU.
The constitution ('treaty') gives the EU power to coordinate economic, health, employment, social policies, and will have shared competence in internal market, freedom, security, justice, agriculture, transport, energy, environment, consumer law, health and safety, education, vocational training, youth, sport, culture and anti terrorism. It will have 100% control of commercial policy, customs, fisheries and marine conservation. We want to govern ourselves.
The constitution ('treaty') allows the EU to standardise criminal law, over riding British criminal law, sentencing and policing policies. It allows a common asylum policy, which will end asylum policies of member states, and will act over border controls and internal security!
The interpretation of the constitution ('treaty') lies entirely with the European Court of Justice, which will only support ever-closer union. Let's let the EU interpret for themselves, not for the UK.
Almost all matters are now subject to Qualified Majority voting, so individual members in the now much bigger club have less and less influence. In our own UK club, we have 100% of the vote.
Britain has one of the world’s biggest economies. We have responsibilities for our cousins in the rest of the world; some of whom live in horrendous hardship; some of this caused by our own colonial past; some of it caused by vicious exploitation by multi-nationals; some of it caused by the Common Agricultural Policy and other state subsidy systems in the developed world. Should we help? Should we choose to help in the place of our choice, in the way that gets the biggest bang per buck in the recipient area? Or should we choose to funnel it through a huge bureaucratic corrupt organisation in the EU where we lose all control and much of the money?
MEPs are allowed quite a lot of ‘expenses’ as well as their salaries. These can amount to 15000 Euros, 10000 Pounds, per month. Among these is a daily expense of 268 Euros, which they are supposed to sign in for, for being in Brussels. The signing-in corridor, at 6 pm, is singing with the sound of wheeled suitcases as MEPs, elsewhere all day, fly in to the EU to claim their day’s expenses. The EU’s answer to this revelation? To ban journalists from filming or interviewing in the corridor. Out of EU, we can stop chucking money at these chaps.
There has been some fuss over the fiddling of expenses by MEPs, and moves have been made to tighten up the requirements for accounting or verifying claims. But this has brought so much protest from MEPs that the regulations have been relaxed instead. Let the EU relax control over their own money, not ours.
The seat of power of the EU parliament is in Brussels. The seat of power of the EU parliament is in Strasbourg. Why? Because it is. The French wanted the Euro Parliament on French soil and spread the bait by building the most lavish Super State Parliament Complex in the world in Strasbourg. Meanwhile the rest of the then Common Market was building another in Brussels. There is no purpose in having two, but the whole circus travels frequently between the two, at huge expense, with enormous time waste, in a cloud of pollution from official and private cars. We pay. Would we choose to be governed thus? Or would we choose not to be?
Here is what the President of Madagascar and his Minister of Education told me; "We will go ahead with these schools now, the Norwegians have given us the go-ahead! The EU and the World Bank send us 'experts' in big herds. They stay in expensive hotels, spend years writing enormous expensive reports (we have 8 of them in this cupboard, look!) and nothing happens. The Norwegians send 3 men, they ask what we need, they study the figures. What they like, they allocate funds for. Then the EU and other donors follow". Great is the influence of a small independent Nation
There is only one way out: OUT. Let us leave the EU. Please.