f t g m
Copyright 2023 - .

EU exposure - The real truth about the European Union

The Real Truth About The European Union


John Brigstock, I.Eng, FIET.




The European Union is moribund, corrupt, undemocratic, and dysfunctional and it is run by those who’s first loyalty is not to the UK. Its policies have brought misery to millions of European citizens, but the European Commission does not care and dogmatically pursues it’s determination to turn the sovereign states of Europe into a federal super state, ”The United States of Europe.”





Some may argue that as we voted to leave the EU then UKIP’s purpose has been served. There is no doubt that UKIP played a major role in achieving the leave vote but because some remoaners and remaniacs believe they know better than the British people will fight a rear-guard action in their miss-placed belief that Brexit can be diluted or prevented. Thus many battles still lie ahead to ensure we leave the EU completely and don’t end up in some kind of limbo, half in and half out, still under Brussels’ “jack boot” but unable to influence EU policy


In the past few years politics in the UK has changed out of all recognition. The Tory Party still look after the interests of the better off. The Liberal Democrats are so far out of touch with realty they are a joke and seem to represent only themselves, and the SNP dominates Scotland. Traditionally the Labour Party looked after the interests of working people but this has changed, leaving working people without a political home. I believe UKIP has now stepped in and filled the vacuum left by Labour’s move to the extreme left.





In the campaign leading up to the referendum, remoaners claimed the British people were too thick, too stupid, uneducated or simply did not have the intelligence to understand the issues. This is insulting in the extreme to the 17,400,000 decent people who voted to leave the EU and this idea is still being advanced by those desperate to achieve another referendum.


It was obvious from the very start of the exit process that the EU would not give us an acceptable or fair deal to leave. It’s in both the EU’s and UK’s best interests to have an exit deal which is acceptable to both. I believe this was done to discourage others from following the UK out of the EU. As Mrs. May campaigned for a remain vote, I don’t believe she has any intention of taking us out of the EU properly. In spite of what she has said many times, her deal proves unacceptable to everyone and the EU must be “over the moon.” The British people voted to leave the EU which is why we must leave the single market, customs union, withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and fully take back control of the management of our country. As the agreed deal is unlikely, in its present form, to get through parliament and the EU will not re-negotiate any part of it then we must leave immediately without a deal.





In democratic countries sovereignty rests with the people. Each person has a portion of sovereignty which he or she leases to a candidate in a general election. When parliament is dissolved the sovereignty returns to the people until the next general election when the process is repeated. Then MP exercises our sovereignty on behalf of all the people but they have absolutely no right to give away the people’s sovereignty, they have been temporarily entrusted with, unless the people agree in a referendum following public debate. Over the years our MPs have given away a vast amount of yours and my sovereignty to the unelected, unaccountable corrupt EU. This has happened following negotiations with the EU in our name, largely behind closed doors with no public debate or referendum. This also includes the 1973 referendum because Heath lied to and deceived the British people about the organisation into which he was taking us which invalidated the result.


The government wanted the people to decide whether the UK should leave the EU or to remain a member. This was a massive democratic exercise, probably the biggest in our history. The government wanted a remain vote and misused tax-payer’s money and the civil service in an attempt to get one. They also said the government would implement whatever decision the people made. An act of parliament set the date and terms for the referendum. By a massive majority of 1,200,000 the British people voted to leave the EU. Following a case in the Supreme Court it was decided that there must be an act of parliament to authorise the government to trigger Article 50 to begin the departure process. Some MPs isolated in a bubble on planet Whitehall believe they know better than the British people and have done everything in their power to frustrate, dilute or preferably overturn the democratic decision of the people to leave the EU. This is also the case in the undemocratic unelected House of Lords who’s members are accountable to no one but them selves and are mostly made up of “has beens” and failed politicians, who like members of the commons, are also isolated in that bubble on planet Whitehall. The action of MPs and Lords is unlawful as they are going directly against a law which they passed. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Once this has been achieved the wishes of the British people will have been realised and we will regain the sovereignty which has been surrendered to the EU by our MPs without the people’s knowledge or authority.


If the people had agreed to their sovereignty being transferred to the EU then there must be safeguards in place to prevent members states being pushed in directions they do not want to go or will harm their national interests. This was initially done as each member state had a veto in all areas. EU business could be brought to a halt and remain blocked if a veto was used. To overcome this problem the safeguards vetoes ensured has now been scrapped in many areas and replaced by qualified majority voting. This means the majority wins and the minority has to go along with the decision whether or not it is in their national interests to do so. The UK has been on the losing side of these votes more times than it has been on the winning side.



The United States of Europe


There is no doubt that EU autocrats want the EU to become a federal super state, “The United States of Europe,” with member reduced to provinces. This has been the long term goal since the fore-runner of EU first reared its ugly head in the 1950s. There is no doubt these people will stop at nothing to bring about a European super state and they are unconcerned about the hardship they are and will cause to the people of Europe by doing so. The EU has a “national anthem,” a flag, a parliament, foreign policy, embassies all over the world and is now working to establish armed forces under its control. None of these are needed by the EU unless it intends to become a super state.



European Court Of Justice (ECJ)


Every EU member is subject to the decisions of the ECJ which is the supreme arbiter in the EU. Any decisions it makes are binding on the governments of all member states. The ECJ can override laws and decisions made by the democratically elected national governments of the member states. A good example of this is the ruling by the ECJ that the UK can just rip up article 50 and remain a full EU member. Remember the British government passed a law to bring about the referendum. The British people voted to leave the EU, and the UK parliament passed a law to trigger Article 50 and set a departure date. The ECJ at a stroke over rulled UK law and the people’s wish to leave the EU by ruling that we can just rip up Article 50 and remain a member. This is just one example of how the corrupt European Commission uses the ECJ to overcome problems posed by insubordinate members. This ensures the European Commission always gets its way. If we remain in either the Single Market or the Customs Union we will remain subject to the corruption of the EU through the ECJ.



Structure of the EU


The EU is managed by five unelected presidents and 28 soon to be 27 unelected commissioners. This means the people who make decisions are accountable to no one but them selves. It took Hitler two general elections to get to that stage. What is really frightening is if the EU becomes a super state then those at the top are dictators, accountable to no one and it is almost impossible to remove from office. Thus there are no “checks and balances” in place. This problem will be made very much worse if the President of the European Commission becomes commander in Chief of the proposed European armed forces. The European Parliament, even though its members are elected, has absolutely no power to change or prevent what comes from the European Commission becoming European law, they can only delay it.


Each appointed member of the European Commission is selected and appointed for his extreme federalist views. Thus we can understand why we are on an accelerated journey along the road to a European super state. Comments made by these people show us what they are really like. One comments sticks in the mind and suggested “there is a special place in hell for those who want to leave the EU.” This tells you all you need to know about the people at the top of the European Commission.


The way the EU is structured makes it very difficult to function effectively or to be reformed. Often binding decisions are imposed on member states which are against their national interests. This can happen in two ways, first by a decision of the European Commission, using sovereign power handed to them by member states, or by a qualified majority vote.


When negotiating, say, trade deals each member state must agree to all the terms. With 27 members all with national interests to protect, it can take forever to agree a trade deal which would be much easier to achieve between just two countries. If one country seeks to protect its national interests this will have an impact on what can be agreed. Say, for example, one country grows sugar beet, and wishes to protect its market from imports; it can insist the EU applies tariffs to all sugar beet imported by every member, pushing up the costs for everyone. It will also prevent the produce of developing countries being sold economically in the EU, which harms these countries and prevents their progress out of poverty.


The European Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasburg once a month at a cost to European Tax-payers of about 360 million a year. Millions of documents are packed in crates and moved by road. A train is hired to move the hundreds of staff which have to be transported. Then the process is reversed a week later when every ones moves back to Brussels. This is a corrupt waste of European Taxpayers money, which has gone on for years and is unlikely to change any time soon. Everyone agrees that this is raving mad but nothing is done to reform it.


Those wishing to leave the EU begin the process by triggering Article 50. Article 50 is not there to assist those who wish to leave but to make it more difficult. There is a two year limit, after which the unanimous agreement of reaming members is needed to extend the deadline. It is unlikely a meaningful deal for either side can be concluded in two years, which has been proved to be the case.


Industrialists and many international organisations like the EU because they only have to lobby in one place to be able to influence the law and industrial practices over the whole of Europe. There are more lobbyists in Brussels than anywhere else in the world including America.


The EU encourages globalisation which has ensured millions of jobs have left the EU. The UK has lost many thousands of jobs as manufacturing has been moved to central and east Europe where costs are lower. But that does not matter as the products made there can be brought back into the UK tariff free and any tariffs due on the import of raw materials will be the same as in the UK. Terrys of York is a good example of this, but unfortunately there are many more. When Nissan began manufacturing cars in Sunderland 90% of the components were sourced locally, now less than 10% are made locally, the rest are imported largely from Germany.



Project Fear


There is almost nothing good which can be said about the EU. Thus the only way remoners can argue their case for the UK to remain a member is to predict dire consequences if we leave and more so if we leave without a deal, which is the basis of Project Fear. If EU membership was beneficial to the UK then Project Fear not exist. However Project Fear began many years before the referendum.


Project Fear Mark I began when the UK decided not to adopt the Euro. Most of those isolated in a bubble on planet Whitehall, many senior industrialist, many senior civil servants and many academics all predicted total disaster for the UK’s economy if we stayed out. What a blessing we decided not to take part in that doomed project which has saved the UK billions of pounds. Everyone now agrees the Euro is a failed project and we made the right decision not to join it. More about the Euro later.


Project Fear Mark II. Fast forward to the referendum campaign during which Osborne, warned us that once we voted to leave the EU there would be a serious recession, which of course was incorrect. In fact our economy continued to boom and has grown month by month ever since. Today we have the most people employed in our history.


Project Fear Mark III was launched by Osborn, in the same speech, he said he would have to introduce an emergency budget the day after we voted to leave, in which he would have to increase taxation and reduce public spending. Needless to say this did not happen.


Project Fear Mark IV followed almost immediately when a government press release predicted each family in the UK would be £4,300 a year worse off if we voted to leave. It would be interesting to know how this precise figure was calculated and how it could apply equally to every family in the UK in spite of their very different circumstances. Again this failed to materialise.


Project Fear Mark V suggests that if we leave the EU without a deal it will be like “falling of a cliff.” If this is so the EU will join us on that plunge to earth as they have more to lose by trading with the UK on WTO terms.


Project Fear Mark V1. Christine Laggard, president of the International Monitory Fund and convicted criminal, predicted that share prices would plummet if we opted to leave the EU. This is yet another dire warning which was totally incorrect. In fact the opposite happened. The FT 100, the index of leading UK shares, reached new records week after week. The FT 100 has gained at least 800 points since the referendum.


Project Fear Mark VII. Civil Servant and Governor of the bank of England Mark Carney predicted that the pound would fall in value against the US Dollar and the Euro. He, as a civil servant, should not have made this prediction on national TV without permission of ministers. The fact that he did suggests he was asked to do so as part of Project Fear Mark VII. This was the only prediction which came true the pound did fall against the US Dollar and Euro. This suggests that our membership of the EU kept our currency artificially high on the international money markets which is not a good thing for business and the fall has now helped our industry.


Project Fear Mark VIII began when we were told the EU had kept the peace in Europe since the Second World War and if we left it would not be long before there would be another European war. This is absolute rubbish and shows how desperate the remoners are becoming. It is NATO not the EU which has kept the peace in Europe and prevented another European war. The EU by forming a European Army is the real threat to European peace because EU members will not fund a European army properly and it will undermine NATO which could increase the likelihood of a war with Russia.


Project Fear Mark IX suggested that we will not get information from EU members of impending terrorist attacks. Again this is rubbish. The UK passes more information to EU members about potential terrorists and the attacks they are planning. This is because we have a vast intelligence gathering network which is bigger and better than all the other EU members put together. We also co-operate closely with others countries like America. If this changes when we leave the EU it will be the EU and its members who will suffer because they will not receive information from us.


Project Fear Mark X. We will not exchange intelligence on criminals and criminal activity with EU member states or co-operate in international law enforcement when we leave. Again due to the collection of this information the remaining EU members will suffer most. If EU members will not provide criminal records of their citizens who want to come to the UK then we can simply refuse to admit them until they do.


Project Fear Mark XI. The “doom mongers,” are always making dire predictions about what will happen to the UK if we leave the EU. Then when we voted to leave they moved on to make similar dire predictions about the UK if we left without a deal or a trade deal. However these “doom Mongers” forgot to mention the effect our leaving without any deals would have on the EU and its remaining members. There is no doubt they would suffer very much more than us if we left without a deal and we traded with them under WTO rules. More about this later


Project Fear Mark XII, is ongoing. This include absurd statements about what will happen if we leave the EU without a deal and include “Kent will become a lorry park,” “there will be food shortages,” there will be a shortage of medicines, etc. Another absurd statement is that UK flights across the EU will end. That is stupid, because were this to happen the UK could stop all flights between Europe and America and all flights in and out of Ireland because we control the flight paths across the north Atlantic.


Project Fear Mark XIII. This won’t ne long coming, see if you can spot it.



Unlimited Low Skill Economic Migration and the Migration of Convicted EU Criminals


Until recently I took only a passing interest in politics, and tended to vote for the party which held the centre ground. About five years ago I began to take an interest in the effect the EU had on the UK when I saw a TV programme about low skill East European economic migrants arriving in the UK without a job. I was shocked to learn these people, without paying a penny in UK tax, were able to claim benefits from the day they arrived. The free movement of people is to allow EU citizens to work anywhere in the EU and not to claim benefits, but our Government seems to have lost sight of that. The EU also forces us to provide these people not only with benefits but also, accommodation, health care and education for their children etc. They can claim benefits at the UK rate for children not living in the UK when the benefit level in their country of origin is a fraction of the UK rate. This is the reason why there is pressure on housing, adult social care, education, the infrastructure as a whole and public services like the NHS are all being overwhelmed. As I learned more about the effect unlimited low skill economic migration had on the UK I came to the conclusion that it was a bad thing and must be controlled. As we have no control over migration from the EU we are unable to prevent European criminals including those convicted of murderer, rape and sexual offences coming to the UK. This has resulted in many innocent UK citizens now lying in their grave, murdered by convicted killers from the EU, who we could not prevent coming here. We can’t control our borders or decide which EU citizens can come to the UK while we remain a member of the EU or the Single Market. I am in favour of managed migration and believe we should be able to control our borders and to seek the skills we need anywhere in the world, not just in the EU.


The two main effects this has on low skill workers is unemployment, as many similar people come here, legally, and take jobs our people can do. This causes unemployment among UK citizens and means we have to pay benefits which would be avoided if we could control who comes here to work. Second unlimited migration keeps down wages. Employers will pay only the minimum wage for staff if there is an unlimited supply of workers.


Another major problem caused by unlimited economic migration is that whole towns can be swamped with migrants who put pressure on housing, schools and hospitals. The character of these towns is often changed, overnight, out of all recognition by a large influx of migrants. This results in problems when the original population sees this happen. The EU has done nothing to address this problem. One reason for this is that EU policy is likely to be the elimination of national identities and replace them with a single European identity.



External Migration


The dysfunctional EU has not been effective in controlling immigration from outside. The illegal economic migrants coming from all over Asia and Africa expecting to start a new life in Europe are pouring in to mainly Greece and Italy. The EU has largely ignored this problem and left the front line states to deal with it them self. Germany unilaterally invited migrant to go there and in excess of a million did so. Most of the German people were against this policy which has had a serious effect on many people’s lives. These people have very different values to us and many consider any woman is fair game to rape. The cases of rape and other assaults on women in Germany rocketed following the influx of so many economic migrants. This has largely been swept under the carpet by national governments and the EU. Germany now wants rid of many of those who arrived following the Merkel’s invitation. The EU drew up a schedule allocating these migrants to each member state. Hungary refused to accept any on the grounds they were Muslims and Hungary is a Christian country. This has put them on a collision course with the EU as the European Commission has the power to force the issue. Greece has largely been left to fend for its self with tens of thousand migrants arriving from refugees camps in Turkey. This is spite of billions of Euros of European tax payers money being paid to Turkey to halt the flow. We must not lose sight of the fact that if these people are given permission to stay in the EU then they will be able to go anywhere under the free movement rules, including the UK.






Customs Union


Under the terms of the Customs Union member states including the UK can’t sign trade deals and agreements; this can only be done by the EU on our behalf. Each member state has a say in the terms of all trade deal agreed by the EU. One can clearly see why it takes so long for the EU to agree trade deals. As EU membership increases this will become increasingly difficult for the EU to negotiate trade deals. The EU does not have a trade agreement with America but that does not stop us trading with America under WTO rules. If we want to sign our own trade agreements then we must leave the Customs Union. This will not prevent us trading with the EU under a negotiated trade deal or WTO terms. Only 7% of world trade is within the EU, 93% is outside the EU. Is it best to have access to 7% of world trade under favourable terms or 93%. There are many countries including America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand desperate to sign a trade deal with the UK. China and India are rapidly expanding economies which would be to our mutual benefit to have a trade deal. It will be best for all concerned to establish a fair trade deal and customs union between the EU & the UK once we have left but it must allow us to control our borders and sign trade deals with the rest of the world.



The EU Budget


Following is a list of EU members and the amount they pay into the budget and what they receive back. By studding the figures it can be clearly seen that the west European members are all paying more into the budget then they receive back, while the east European countries receive substantially more than they pay.


Amount paid to the EU Budget Amount spent by EU Loss / gain


UK * £14,072,300,000 £6,984,700,000 -£7,087,600,000

Belgium £5,232,700,000 £1,285,640,000 -£3,947,060,000

Denmark £2,507,600,000 £1,511,700,000 -£995,900,000

Germany £29,143,000,000 £11,484,500,000 -£17,658,500,000

France £20,967,700,000 £13,479,100,000 -£7,488,600,000

Italy £15,888,600,000 £10,695,200,000 -£5,193,400,000

Holland £8,372,700,000 £2,014,400,000 -£6,358,300,000

Austria £2,869,500,000 £1,572,600,000 -£1,296,900,000

Finland £1,904,100,000 £1,061,900,000 -£842,200,000

Sweden £4,294,300,000 £1,691,000,000 -£2,603,300,000

Ireland £1,650,600,000 £1,563,100,000 -£87,500,000

Bulgaria £460,500,000 £2,255,400,000 +£1,794,900,000

Chech Rep £1,506,700,000 £4,377,200,000 +£2,870,500,000

Greece £1,949,800,000 £7,095,000,000 +£5,145,200,000

Estonia £200,400,000 £667,600,000 +£467,200,000

Spain £1,111,100,000 £1,153,850,000 +£427,400,000

Cyprus £160,000,000 £272,900,000 +£112,900,000

Croatia £429,800,000 £584,300,000 +£154,500,000

Latvia £270,000,000 £1,062,200,000 +£792,200,000

Lithuania £384,700,000 £1,885,900,000 +£1,501,200,000

Luxemburg £246,200,000 £1,885,900,000 +£1,639,700,000

Hungary £995,800,000 £6,620,200,000 +£5,624,400,000

Poland £3,954,600,000 £17,436,100,000 +£13,481,500,000

Rumania £1,458,900,000 £5,943,900,000 +£4,485,000,000

Slovacia £385,000,000 £1,142,500,000 +£757,500,000


* Includes rebate.


The way the EU is financed makes is a bad origination for the UK be a member. Out of the current 28 members 11, including the UK, pay in more than the get out and 17 get out much more than they pay in. The UK gets much less back from the EU than we pay in. That money would be far better spent by us in the UK. The NHS and adult social care could benefit by an injection of this money.


Looking at the above figures it is easy to see why the east European countries were keen to join the EU. They must secretly think the west European members are mad giving them billions of pounds a year, for doing absolutely nothing. It will not surprise anyone to learn the remaining east European countries, mainly from the break up of Yugoslavia and Albania, are all keen to climb on the gravy train. The People of east Europe generate a GDP of about £10,000 a year each where in West Europe it is about £40,000. Some of the ex-communist states are not far short of being “third World.”


The above figures don’t count the tariff money collected on imports from outside the EU which member states collect and hand to Brussels or the many other things we contribute to.


The EU gives us some of our money back, but tells us how we must spend it. They insist we put up a blue plack with the EU crest on saying “funder by the EU.” It’s not funder by the EU it’s funded by the UK taxpayer, as they are just giving us some of our own money back and they tell us what we must spend it on..


Member states collect tariffs on all goods imported into the EU from outside and then hands it to Brussels, which in our case is now about £10 Billion a year. When we leave the EU we will be able to keep, reduce or eliminate this, which is but a small part of the £2 Billion a week, which is closer to the true costs of our EU membership:


a) £10 billion membership fee we do not get back.


b) £8 Billion in tariffs we collect and hand to Brussels.


c) £8 Billion we lose in tariffs on imports from other EU members.


d) £10 Billion+ in benefits we pay to East European Economic Migrants and their family who may not live in the UK.


e) £25 Billion+ paid in health care for EU citizens and their families.


f) £5 Billion+ due to the misuse of the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).


g) £5 Billion+ EHIC costs not recovered by the HNS for treatment of UK citizens in the EU


h) £10 billion which account for the loss of our fish, the fishing jobs, jobs supporting fishing, benefits paid to those made redundant in the fishing industry, fishing support and their families and the cost of other failed businesses such as pubs and restaurants.


i) £25 billion in other projects we finance and share with the EU, information about many of which are not in the public domain. One example of this came to light recently was the European “sat nav” system which the UK has paid in excess of £1 billion, and the security data which we collect, pay for and then share with the EU.


Once we leave the EU all the above financial issues can be fixed quickly if the government has the bottle to do it




The European single market allows tariff free trade betweens members but for this they are required to comply with and allow the “Four Freedoms,” which are:


1. Free movement of people.


2. Free movement of trade.


3. Free movement of capital.


4. Freedom of movement of goods and services.


There has been much debate about the UK and the EU doing a trade deal, which I believe is in the best interests of both parties, but if it’s not possible then the EU will lose most. EU countries sell us about £60 billion more than we sell them. Thus about two million UK jobs depend on trade with the EU but three million EU jobs depend on trade with the UK. Had we traded with the EU last year and World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms had applied then EU countries would have paid us about £13 billion in tariffs while we would have paid them only about £5 billion. The UK car market is the most profitable in Europe. A 10% tariff is applied to cars under WTO rules. One in five cars manufactured in Germany are sold in the UK and they would all, overnight, become subject to a 10% tariff. What would Merkel say to 50,000 or so German car workers who would be made redundant if there is no trade deal? What would Macron tell French Farmers when a 30% tariff is applied to French cheese and wine? What about Belgian chocolate etc? If the EU applies additional tariffs on goods we export to them then we could do the same to their exports to us.


The EU protects it own markets by applying huge tariffs on anything imported from outside the EU, which makes many goods and services more expensive to all EU consumers. For example a tariff has been imposed by the European Commission on orange imports to protect the Spanish orange growers. This has the effect of making oranges in the UK more expensive. I would like to know why UK orange consumers are forced by the EU to pay higher price for their oranges in order to protect Spanish orange producers. Once we leave the EU these tariffs could be reduced or eliminated making goods and services much cheaper.


The EU imposes tariffs on all produce imported into the EU. Developing countries have to pay this on all their exports to EU countries. This makes their produce more expensive and therefore less competitive with home produced produce. On the other hand the EU floods these countries with cheap subsidised food which is cheaper than home produced food. The effect is that many farmers in emerging countries can’t sell their products for what it costs to produce them, thus seriously affecting agriculture and the countries economies. This prevents them trading their way out of poverty.



Fishing and the Common Fishery Policy (CFP)


When we joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1972 the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, told us we were joining a trading club and we would not lose any sovereignty. This was a deliberate lie designed to deceive the British people about the organisation he was taking us into. The day before we joined, the existing members of the EEC declared all costal waters and the fish in them were a “common asset.” Thus on day one of our membership of the EEC its coast-line doubled and we lost control of our coastal waters, the fish in them and who could catch them. Heath knew this and lied to and deliberately deceived us into voting to remain in the EEC. Had we been told the truth the result of the 1973 referendum would have been very different. When I learned this I became incensed as in 1973 I voted to remain in the EEC because I was believed Heath’s lies.


Today 60% of fish caught in UK waters are caught by foreign trawlers, which has decimated the UK’s fishing industry at a huge cost to the UK and we get nothing in return from the EU. Many small dead fish, which can still be used, have to be discarded because of the CFP. We are very capable of managing our own coastal waters, the fish in them and who can catch them. Imagine the reaction of French farmers if they were told by the EU that 60% of their grape harvest is to be given to other EU member states and they would get nothing in return.


Not having full control over our a 200 mile fishing limit costs the UK between £5 and £10 Billion a year in fish lost to other countries which they catch and pay us nothing for our loss. More is lost by the UK because of the tens of thousand of lost jobs in the fishing industry. That is not all, there are also tens of thousands of lost jobs in businesses which supported and supplied the fishing industry.

As can be clearly seen we are massive losers under the CFP. The EU has not compensated us, in any way, for the loss of our fish, the lost jobs in our fishing industry, the lost jobs in the supply & support of our fishing fleet or the damage done to the quality of life in our fishing towns and cities. The EU’s CFP has allowed other member states to plunder and steal our fish. A further cost to the UK is the extra thousands of people we now have to support by paying benefits to those who lost their jobs in the fishing industry as many towns have been decimated by the CFP. Once we have left the EU we will be able to take back control of our territorial waters, declarer a 200 mile fishing limit, licence EU fishing in our waters and begin to rebuild our fishing fleet. The EU, true to their policy of punishing the UK for daring to leave, have said that if we do not allow EU fishing to continue in UK waters after we leave then we will not be allowed to sell our fish in the EU. Again that will hurt them more than us as they will have a big “black hole” in their fish supply once they are prevented catching our fish. The EU can then source fish from wherever they can and we can

then catch our own requirements and any surplus can sold outside the EU and what is left can add to the recovery of our fish stocks.



UK Law and the EU


I was shocked to discover over 60% of UK laws originate in the undemocratic EU. The European Parliament, so named to give the impression it’s democratic, is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the world. Its members are elected but they can’t propose or amend laws, all they can do is to accept or reject what comes from the European Commission which consists of five unelected presidents and 28, soon to be 27 unelected commissioners. This means those who make European laws are in no way accountable to those required to comply with them. There are two ways the EU can force member states to accept its laws. First there are DIRECTIVES, which tell members states what they must do and then leaves it to them to enact legislation to bring it about. Then there are REGULATIONS which, when issued, appear as if by magic on the statute books of each member state and they have to do nothing at all. This explains why so many of our laws are now made by the unelected, unaccountable corrupt European Commission most of whose members first loyalty is not to the UK and over who we have very little control.


Everyone has to obey the law and if they don’t then they will face consequences. It is for this reason I want control over those who make laws I must obey. In the UK we have a general election every five years, at which time we elect those who will make our laws. If the public don’t like the existing government then they can vote to change it. We can’t change those in Brussels who make 60% of our laws as they are appointed and not elected. They are thus accountable to no one but them self. This will continue while we remain a member of the EU. Thus in excess of 60% of our laws originate in the unelected, unaccountable European Commission and then “rubber stamped” by the European parliament, who can only accept of reject them. If they are rejected then the proposed legislation goes back to the European Commission who amends it and resubmits it the European Parliament. To add insult to injury there are a much smaller proportion of UK citizens working for the EU than any other member state.



Agriculture and the Common Agricultural policy (CAP)


The CAP must be the biggest waste of money the world has ever known. The French Government will always veto any changes because small French farmers benefit so much by the CAP and will take disruptive action if any change takes place which reduces their income. Our farmers are told by the EU what they can and can’t do what fertiliser and weed-killers they can and can’t use etc. We are very capable of managing our own agriculture, without any guidance from the unelected, unaccountable, corrupt European Commission. Agricultural subsidies are not paid to farmers who work the land; they are paid to the land owners. It’s not therefore surprising that the big land owners are so much against any change here. Once we leave the EU we can ensure these subsidy are paid to farmers and not to land owners who simply pocket it. This is yet another corrupt waste of European tax-payer’s money.





The EU is one of the most corrupt origination in the world as corruption and fraud within it are rife. The accounts have not been signed off by auditors for 20 years mainly because of the high levels of fraud. If a referendum produces the “wrong answer” the EU either ignores it or called for a rerun until the electorate come up with the “right answer.” When Mr. Junker was confirmed as the President of the European Commission by the European Parliament, members could vote for him or abstain, they could not vote against him because the against lights had been switched off. Remember a few years ago Tony Blair gave up some of the rebate negotiated by Mrs. Thatcher in exchange for a review of the CAP, which needless to say has never taken place, but we did give up our money. Mr. Junker had an office built at his home, at a cost or 250,000 to save him having to make the effort to go to the office, like everyone else. European Tax-payers provide Mr. Junker with the huge amounts of expensive wine which he consumes daily, to satisfy his alcoholism. The Hungarian Prime Minister misused 2,500,000 of European tax-payers money to build a railway round his home town. It goes from nowhere to nowhere via nowhere and is closed for half the year. These are just a few examples of the many ways the EU misuses public money and clearly shows it can’t be trusted to spend European tax-payer’s money correctly or to keep agreements into which it enters. The EU will promise anything to get what it wants and then will not keep its side of the bargain.



The Euro


The Euro has caused more misery to more people than anything other than war because currency unions simply don’t work. Remember the Irish Punt was once fixed to the UK Pound. Eventually the Punt began to lose value against the pound which the Irish government could not maintain and it was forced to separate the two currencies. The European Exchange Mechanism (ERM), the fore runner of the euro, was an experiment designed to limit the value which currencies could vary against each other to see if a common currency would work. At first the UK didn’t join the ERM, but eventually did so. After a few months the pound came crashing out when it became impossible to maintain its value against the German mark which cost the UK billions of pounds. In spite of the total failure of the ERM and every other previous currency union the EU decided to press ahead with the Euro. At the time only two European currencies met the Maastricht criteria for membership of the Euro, they were the UK and Luxemburg. All the EU member states were encouraged to join the project, whether or not their economy was up to it. Figures were corruptly fiddled to allow countries to join the Euro who should not have been allowed to do so. Fortunately the UK after much debate and many dire warnings from industrialists, academics, economists and the ruling elite isolated in a bubble on planet on Whitehall of the severe consequences of us not joining the euro we decided to stay out. That turned out to be the right decision which has saved us billions of pounds and much heart ache. Sounds familiar doesn’t it!! If you join the economies of Germany and Greece together then the result will be the tears of the people at the bottom of the social order when they lose jobs and have benefits cut. Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, termed the PIGS should not have applied to join the Euro and when they did their application should have been rejected, which, of course, did not happen. The Euro was born and very soon ran into serious trouble, in which it has remained almost ever since. There are many reasons for this but the main ones are:


1. Member did not keep to the Maastricht Criteria and allowed public debt and spending to spiral out of control.


2. The European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) did nothing to ensure euro members kept to the Maastricht Criteria for public spending and Government debt.


3. Member states lost the ability to control the parameters of their currency such as interest rates and exchange rates which were set by the ECB, largely for the benefit of Germany.


4. Corruption in some countries is rife and those governments collected a fraction of the tax due.


This set the scene for disaster and brought into being the PIGS. Ireland had a property boom and needed to raise interest rates to cool it, but a very low interest rate was set by the ECB. This caused a mega property boon which brought economic disaster, the need for a “bail-out” and austerity to the people of Ireland. This would have been avoided if the Irish government could have set its own interest rate. For similar reasons Spain’s property market got out of control and they came within a whisker of needing a “bail-out” which they may yet need. Jobs disappeared and for over a decade Spain has had over 25% adult unemployment and 50% youth unemployment, brought about by the Euro. Greece only collected a fraction of the tax it was due because of corruption, but the Greek people still wanted a high level of good public services. The only way this could be financed was by government borrowing. When Greek debt reached an unsustainable level a “bail-out” was needed. Germany dictated the terms the ECB imposed on Greece in return for a “bail out.” The tough austerity terms imposed by the ECB brought hardship to millions of Greek citizens when public spending was slashed. Public sector pay, pensions, unemployment and other benefits were all drastically reduced. Unemployment rose to over 25% and youth unemployment rose to over 50%. This brought misery to millions in Greece, who at a general election elected an anti austerity party which formed a government. The new Greek government was forced to accept even harsher austerity terms, imposed by Germany through the ECB as another “bail-out” was needed. Now there is no way Greece can possibly pay its debts and debt write off is essential to give them a chance to recover. The ECB which is controlled by Germany would not agree to debt write off because the German people were growing impatient by being forced to finance bail-out after bail out. Germany is the only country to gain from the Euro. Because the PIGS kept the value of the Euro down on the international money markets making German exports, particularly high end exports much cheaper on world markets than they would have otherwise been had they still been using the mark. On the other hand the value of the Euro made Italian exports more expensive and thus Italy has been declining steadily for years pushing up unemployment, government borrowing and spending while tax revenues continue to fall. If things don’t change the Euro will cause Italy to follow Greece along the road to economic ruin. The Italian Banks are on the verge of collapse and are about €3 trillions in debt, with no hope of ever paying it off. There is a last sting in the tail for euro members and that is there is no way out, once in you must stay in as there is no equivalent to Article 50 in the Maastricht Treaty which set up the euro. The ECB has used quantitive easing or the printing of trillions of Euros to try to generate some growth in the Euro Zone. The problem is that printing money may help in the short term, but in the long term it will cause inflation.



European Army


The UK Government on our behalf has signed up to become a member of the proposed European Army which is in the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. This was done on our behalf, behind closed doors, by our government with not a word of public debate. This is yet another attempt by the EU to become a “Super State” as control of the armed forces is another giant step along that road. It is unlikely that most EU members will properly fund a European Army as at present the UK spends more on defence than most of the other member stated put together. This suggests the UK is likely to pick up the lion’s share of the cost of European defence unless things change, which is unlikely. There are now moves afoot in the EU to combine armies in advance of the formation of a European Army. It’s a good idea for European Armies to train together but it is an extremely bad idea to combine them under the command of the EU.


NATO, not the EU, has kept the peace in Europe since the Second World War and a European army would seriously undermine NATO and European peace. America pays the greatest cost towards the NATO budget and may revise that if a European Army is established. A European Army would be no match for the Russian Army, which if NATO is disbanded or run down, will be able to walk into Europe virtually unopposed.


Once we become part of a European Army we would lose control of our armed forces. If Argentina then reinvaded the Falkland Islands and EU policy is that we should not recover them then we would be powerless to use our own armed forces to regain our sovereign territory which had been invaded.


Forming an EU army will seriously undermining European peace and leave the continent open to invasion or blackmail by anyone with a half decent army. It may also put UK lives at risk because our soldiers may be required to fight an EU war in which the UK has no interest.


The EU would like the UK to give its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to the European Commission. Up to now the UK has resisted this, but as is usually with the EU it is likely, in time, to get its own way. As we are leaving the EU they could always get France to give up its UN Security Council seat in favour of the EU



The Future


From what has been said the UK will be much better off out of the EU in its present form. We can then manage our own laws, economy, fishing, agriculture and armed forces. We can spend our money on the priorities set by our elected government, without interference from a moribund, corrupt, undemocratic, dysfunctional foreign origination whose member’s first loyalty is not to the UK. We will be able to sign our own trade agreements, set tariffs on imported goods, make our own laws, and control our borders. There is no doubt that alternative version of an EU would benefit members states, the changes needed are:


1. All sovereignty is returned and retained by the member states and they manage their own affairs.


2. All offices, whose holder makes decisions, must be elected.


3. There should be no automatic requirement for member states to allow citizens of other member states to enter, work, claim benefits, receive free health care, housing or education for their children. Unrestricted entry can be granted for a holiday. People can be allowed to live in the UK if they do not claim benefits and completely support them self and their family. Only workers should be allowed to enter the UK if we needs the skills they have. A work permit will then be issued. It must be made clear that when the work permit ends the holder will be required to leave the UK and there must be no exceptions to this unless the person can support himself and family without financial help from the UK government..


3. Cooperation on all issues particularly security and criminal intelligence should be encouraged.


4. There is no reason why a trade agreement and a customs union can’t be introduced between member stated.


5. Standardisation should be encouraged, not compelled, and could be introduces in many areas. It is a good idea to be able to go from one country to another without having to learn a new set of road signs.


This, however, is unlikely to happen as the existing EU is unlikely to be reformed enough due to the attitude of those at the top. If the EU continues on its present course then it is likely to be disbanded within the next 10 years. There is a strong and growing feeling by the working man and woman that the EU and its policies are benefiting no one but Germany. Globalisation encouraged by the EU is causing millions of jobs to be lost all over the continent.