The Murdoch phone hacking has been universally execrated not only for the appalling personal sorrow it has caused but also because of the continuing echoing ramifications exposing an illegitimate power –play within the British establishment.
Consequently, there has rightly been a universal ever-increasing demand for greater openness in government and a recognition that the public has been right to be sceptical about its rulers. But in all this horror of secrecy there has not been a single mention of that epitome of byzantine secrecy, the European Union, with its ever increasing insinuation into all aspects of British life, thereby reducing a sovereign state into a mere region in a Europe of regions. Compared with this treachery, the hacking is a parochial blip which could be healed in a healthy democracy. But our democracy is diseased by a secrecy which is profound, organised by an unelected Commission and a Council of supposed representative ministers acting in secrecy with no minutes published. Indeed the real negotiations are conducted at another depth of secrecy by unelected civil servants led by the sheer self interested professionalism of the French enarques. Alan Clark summarised this appalling situation: “ Ministers read out their piece and depart while everything is decided and horse – traded at Coreper, the unelected Council of Permanent Representatives” (‘Behind closed doors in Brussels’, European Journal, March 1996). This scandal of non-democracy was summarised by EU former commissioner, Chris Pattern himself, as “…second only to Cuba and North Korea in the secrecy of its operation: backroom deals, away from the glare of parliamentary scrutiny.” (‘Let’s get emotional’, Spectator, May, 2002).
Indeed so extreme is this outrageous lack of democracy that even Jacques Delors, normally so impervious to everything except his own ambitions for a federal state: exclaimed: “There has been no realisation that within 10 years 80% of our laws will originate from the Community. There has been no realisation of this. What I am afraid of is some of these parliaments will wake up with an outraged shock one day.” (Strasbourg, 6 July 1988).
That such outcry has not yet occurred shows the degree of deceit perpetrated by the politicians of all parties, together with sections of the media who purvey the EU as a distant, insignificant, boring entity. Therefore, as Delors said, the public have no real concept of the haemorrhaging of British money and power to Brussels.
Brussels always uses crises to accelerate its powers. The concept of a single political unity of Europe is now, therefore, more openly referred to because, as we have always said, a single currency requires political union – and this, despite all parties denials, was always intended. The real devastating danger of this blanket covering of the hacking story and its follow-up of continuing investigations would be its use to cover up and deeper entomb the EU’s continuing and increasing destruction of the sovereignty state.
This time of massive cuts in our standard of living requires authoritative statistics concerning our increasing loss of revenue and increase in fiscal commitments. As various governments have refused to give comprehensive figures the following have had to be gleaned from a variety of sources.
We need clarity to engage the attention of the people to enable them to react with both knowledge and controlled outrage at the greatest political confidence trick perpetrated in modern history.
Basically:
(1) Our annual net subscription to the EU. This is ever increasing. Thus in 2009/10 it was £4.7bn. Now in 2010/11 it is £7.6bn (Treasury Blue Book – information from Mr Ruffley MP for Bury St Edmunds November 2010);
(2) Costs of EU regulations for our economy. This cannot be precise but the following estimates p.a. have been made: £18 billion – in a Report by Open Europe (article by Bojan Pancevski, Sunday Times, Dec 2009) and £20 billion (Ian Milne, A Cost Too Far (Civitas, 2004);
(3) Estimates of the total net cost per annum for our being in the EU: (i) 3.5% GDP (Patrick Minford: Should Britain Leave the EU (2005), eurofacts, July 2005); (ii) 3.5% GDP i.e some 40 billion (by Ian Milne); Both give exponential costs for future EU devices for federal harmonisation – respectively 24.5%and 26.5% GDP (see eurofacts).
The above figures are basic but now this imperative has been made immediate by the latest aggrandisement of the EU Commission by its insistence that its resources be increased by 5% over 7 years and that the EU should collect a tax on fiscal transactions i.e. a further 1.5% to its current take on VAT (at 20% already under attack). Moreover, it intends to erase the British rebate leading to our contributions being twice those of France and 1½ times those of Germany (Today, Radio 4, 30 June 2011; Sunday Times, 3 July).
Indeed, there is now a tsunami of fiscal commitments forced on us to save the euro, a process in which we have been committed until 2013 at least. This for a currency which we refuse as a political ploy to federalism. These are (so far) the £12.5 billions of the bailouts in the eurozone which in effect cancel out the cuts of some £6.2billion we are so painfully making to save our own economy (D. Hannan, The Daily Politics, BBC1, 18 May 2011). This, despite the fact that the demands are illegitimate. See the assertion of Madam Lagarde, the new head of IMF: “We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro” (Bill Cash, Parliament, 24 May 2011, European Journal, June 2011).
These forced commitments constitute an ever-increasing black hole which we are told we must accept since we need to save the eurozone even though we are not in it – because we send “50% of our exports” to it. But this figure needs interpretation. Our total exports comprise only 20% of our GDP so 50% of this constitutes only 10% of our GDP and this must be set against our massive trade deficit with the EU (see Office of National Statistics in letter Nov 2001; Global Britain Briefing Note 22). Of course rerouting exports to the rest of the world would create a difficult period of transition. But then so did our withdrawal to fortress Europe in 1972 cause huge difficulties for our Commonwealth friends, who indeed regarded it as an act of treachery (reference to Tanzania You and Yours, Radio 4, 15 July 2011, BBC1 and personal evidence of this anger in Australia). But it would end the massive costs we pay actually to destroy our democracy and would free us from the constant danger of being blackmailed into pouring billions more into support of nations who see themselves as part of a continental dependency welfare state.
One reason no government wants to have a public examination of its arguments for the EU is that all are at best flawed with most false. The most deceitful one is that which makes the claim that membership of the EU gives more power on the international stage. The reverse is the case:
(i) In economics, we have already lost our seat at world meetings, having our place taken by an EU Commissioner. (until recently, it was Mandelson!)
(ii) In foreign policy, as Chris Pattern once said, “Control of foreign policy is what means to be an independent state” (World at One, 28 February 2003). Yet after Lisbon we are required “loyally” to follow all EU foreign policies – an ever increasing number being decided by QMV whereby we have merely some 9% influence. Moreover, this is part of a self-amending Treaty which can be modified in secret with no further requirement to involve public.
Our seat on the UN is also undermined since there the EU is recognised as a state and we must allow it (again under Lisbon) to speak for us on “agreed” policies. Despite the evidence this critical loss of influence is, like so many truths, again dismissed by our politicians as a “myth.” But we have direct confirmation by a former UN Deputy Secretary General of the UN, Mark Malloch Brown, who told the Euobserver on 3 October 2006 that the European Commission will in future represent the EU in the United Nations as “the voice of Europe worldwide.” This will happen gradually with the EU replacing Member States institution by institution. He was supported by former EU High Representative, Javier Solana (eurofacts, 20/10/2006).
Because of this endemic power creep by Brussels probably the only way to avoid complete loss of our democracy would be withdrawal from the EU. Despite all the threats from rank and file Europhiles, even former Commissioners Patten and Kinnock present this as a normal alternative. As Patten put it “There would be no catastrophe no biblical plague” (eurofacts, 3 August 2001).
But our politicians love to strut in the club and we have a Coalition with the EU-soaked Lib Dems whose leader was an MEP, holding on to a Tory PM’s coat tails.
Excellent stuff.
. A British detective wrote about EU (how it would develop, its character and future) before Jean Monnet, EU’s architect was born. He recorded a confederation of European nations would develop through a crisis, and this confederacy would become the next major political feature in history after the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. Events have proved him right. Israel was created in 1948. In 1950, the EU evolved from WW II. He warned Britain would become a province of Europe; would degrade herself, and wouldn’t be saved if she joined this confederacy. He described it “the vile confederacy of the latter days.” The Lisbon Treaty has paved the way for his word on Europe’s future to be fulfilled. The EU is not a successful experiment as Barroso claims. The EU exists to fulfil the Briton’s word on Europe. No one can reform the EU. It was doomed before it was born. Britons must heed the warning of this British detective and leave the EU. Jean Monnet’s luxurious European Titanic is going to hit an iceberg. No one can save it.